Pictures from the Africa section of Multiples Modernities. If I said this was insulting presentation then I am being disproportionately polite - it was worse than that. The idea of Multiple Modernities is an apt curatorial premise especially since the presentation of Magiciens de la Terre in 1989, many trees have been felled to engage this discourse in countless publications, journals and magazines and careers have been built on it by artists, curators and theorists. Now 25 years later the Pompidou organizes this monumental exhibition which is extremely welcomed for what it means and what it could do to scholarship but c’est raté. My feeling as I went through the exhibition was that the title was a trick, because in fact what I was witnessing was a reaffirmation of western hegemony from one room to another. The story may have been told slightly differently but any deviation from the canon was minimal and almost inconsequential. I remember walking through the rooms that highlighted cubism, fauvism etc and thinking somebody like Aina Onabolu, Akinola Lasekan J.A akeredolu, etc would have fitted well here. I am sure the same could have been said for other early 20th century artists in India and across Asia. A year before Picasso finished his Demoiselles D’Avignon in 1907, Aina Onabolu the father of Modern Nigerian Art finished his first painting in oil of Lagos socialite Mrs Spencer Savage in 1906. Whilst Picasso borrowed from African Art, Aina Onabolu borrowed from Western Art. These kind of juxtapositions and inclusions would have really highlighted the multiple modernities going on at any given time and not just in Europe. They did have an Iba NDiaye painting but it was out of context there. But it was obvious that Pompidou was more interested in showing what was in its collection (and rightly so) but in doing that it shows the ‘gaping’ gaps (sorry for the tautology for want of a better word) in the collection but also in their knowledge base and their commitment to engage or to collaboration with those whose expertise would have added value and intellectual rigour to the exhibition. Latin America had a decent showing as it was easier to engage a modernity not so dissociated from the European one at the time. Japan also had a decent showing from the 40s and 50s of the proliferation of avant-garde movements of the period. Then our dear Africa. Eh Hen!!! What can I say that I haven’t said before? It is obvious that none of the curators of the exhibition had an iota of a clue of the history of modernism in any African country and even if they did how to integrate it in any meaningful way. The quick fix was to borrow works from the musee du quai branly. Eish!!! Words fail me about that attempt but I guess you can see if from the picture posted here. Basically it was primitivism revisited as modern African Art. Where will Africa Art be without Mami Wata? I don’t want to say much except that I feel embarrassed that such an institution – even if they don’t have the works and the knowledge – did not think to bring in the required expertise and their first port of call was the ethnographic museum’s collection to deal with Africa. The result was that few people left the exhibition (Africa was one of the last rooms) with any clue about modern art in Africa (Africa our beloved country) or its manifestations at the beginning of the 20th century. Many of the works were anonymous or undated. So how does that help? Am I surprised? Actually I am not because this is la France, the centre of Modern Art And Modernity sure as hell didn’t include others, did it? And mainstream French institutions have never been leaders in propagating a culturally diverse art scene in a way that makes change visible. Consequently, I didn’t really expect more from them but my mistake is not expecting it to be this bad.
Posted on: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 22:40:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015