Archives for category: art as a weapon

Global protest has been prominent since the late 1990s. It is a reaction to dominant forces of multinational corporations undermining democratically elected governments, and the people’s own identity through citizenship, across the globe. For a few years these protests were quelled because of the threat of terrorism. However, since the new global financial crisis that began in 2008 which evidenced the complete and utter disregard that these corporations, citing their status as natural persons, have had for the real occupants of the world, new protest movements are burgeoning everywhere. It is imperative that we contemplate the vastness and autonomy of these corporations and perceive how global governance must be consolidated to be able to harness such forces for the peace and security of all. Therefore, a global social contract must be established.

????????????????????????????????????????????

 

??????????????????????

 

??????????????????????

 

??????????????????????

 

??????????????????????

 

??????????????????????

 

 

Monoprints by Janet Elizabeth Thomas (2010)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

The Captives, 2010, egg tempera, pigment and mixed media on board

Look, Glaucus, the broad-backed combers

are running high, storm clouds black out

Gyrae’s peak, and around my heart

a fear that rises from the unforeseen.  

ARCHILOCHUS

 

ANAKRONOS

In his novel Freedom and Death, Nikos Kazantzakis describes the revolutionary war fought against the Ottoman Turks in late 19th century Crete. He wrote about a small iconographic image of an emaciated woman, covered in blood, with her children clinging to her legs. It was this imagery that initially inspired the central figure in this nine panel granite frieze. However, I did not want my hero to be pitied; I wanted her to be feared. So I went back to the description of Athena- the warrior goddess, and clothed her in all her ‘daedalic’ glory. Her breasts are confrontational; her gun, a replacement for the sword; a belt of shot placed around her hips. This woman is not emaciated, she is an emancipator.

To Axion Esti is Odysseus Elytis’ evocation of eternal Greece, his experience of the Second World War and its aftermath, and his celebration of human life. Elytis won the Nobel Prize in 1979 for his poetry which, against the background of Greek tradition, depicts the sensuous strength and intellectual clarity of a modern human’s struggle for freedom and creativity. It was the poem To Axion Esti that was an essential element in the work Anakronos. 

Finally, the composer Mikis Theodorakis, one of the giants of contemporary Greek arts, has been the mainstay of my work. His choral symphony of To Axion Esti is a sublime interpretation designed to urge humans to be their greater selves. The primal link between each of these great people is one that reaches back to the ancient past of Euripides, Socrates and Pythagoras, and endeavors to propel us into the future. Anakronos, therefore, is a message for the individual to resist totalitarianism of any kind. 

Nicholas Georgouras 2010

Nicholas Georgouras, 2005, Carrara marble, 250cm x 100cm

“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.”

Native American proverb

JE Thomas, 'Portent', 2002, 168 x 224cm

 

JE Thomas, “Portent”, 2002, oil on canvas, 168 x 224 cm

 

Nicholas Georgouras, 2006, The Landlord, marble

Inclosure came and trampled on the grave / Of labour’s rights and left the poor a slave … And birds and trees and flowers without a name / All sighed when lawless law’s enclosure came.”

                                                                                                       John Clare, The Mores (1821-24)[1]

During the Industrial Revolution in Britain, vast tracts of land were enclosed and the people who lived off them were completely disenfranchised[2]. This situation was much like circumstances the world over for indigenous peoples under colonialism. With this understanding of the enclosure of land through the acquisition of property, this essay will explore the theories of justice by two philosophers, Robert Nozick and John Rawls. Robert Nozick firmly believes in the rights of private property. Contrastingly, John Rawls argues that justice is based upon cooperation rather than competition. I will argue that Nozick’s theory is problematic through its assertion of property rights being based on the rights of the individual, and that a stable, secure society can only exist through people’s voluntary cooperation.

Robert Nozick favours libertarian principles which assert that a person who legally acquires, either directly or through transfer, some form of property is entitled to that holding[3]. This entitlement can be said to be directly related to the circumstances in which one is born or one finds oneself; for it is fortunate circumstances that allows one to secure an entitlement to the property that is transferred. They are fortunate because under entitlement theory no one is entitled to any holding unless they have legally acquired it[4], which alienates and excludes people who are too poor or powerless to own or hold a claim to land. Nozick does not believe that justice is about patterns of distribution of property but about entitlement to property[5]. He objects to patterns of distribution, such as the egalitarian principles of the equal distribution of societal goods, because of a lack of central distribution[6]. He states that there is no person or group entitled to control all resources or to decide how they should be allocated[7]. Further, Nozick contends that patterns of just distribution cannot be realised without there being an unreasonable amount of interference in a person’s life[8].

Nozick’s main principle of distribution is that is it legally and justly acquired. This condition is a problem for Nozick’s argument as, historically, much of the land that has been acquired upon the Earth has been through invasion, colonisation, war or oppression, not through any legal or just means. This assertion prioritises the rights of colonisers over indigenous peoples and undermines Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in which the civil and human rights of all people are equal[9]. Nozick’s libertarian view of property rights relies upon John Locke’s assertion that property is a moral right by virtue of human labour[10]. However, an objection to this assertion could be the question: Whose labour? Is the labour of colonisers more important than thousands of generations of indigenous people’s labour? In Theory of Social Democracy[11], Thomas Meyer and Lewis Hinchman argue that Locke’s linking of freedom to property was problematic because there are people whose existence depends upon the property of others which negates their access to a moral right to liberty. Michael Thompson, in his review of Meyer and Hinchman, states that ownership, which is the province of the minority, gives inequitable access to positive liberty, thereby creating a material inequality which perpetuates into inequity at the level of human and civil rights[12].

Nozick’s objection to distributive justice can be addressed through looking at the Athenian economic crisis of 594 BCE. Civil unrest occurred because of the enslavement of farmers and their families, who defaulted upon their mortgages. The civil administrator, Solon, was chosen to mediate the dispute and he enacted social, legal and moral reforms that served as the foundation for later Athenian democracy. Through his law reforms, Solon implicitly subordinated wealth to an ethical code[13]. His authority stemmed from an agreement by both sides that he administrate the dispute, and also his reasoning that the whole society would suffer if the imbalance was allowed to continue to occur[14]. Solon’s political reforms established the basis of a moral and legal framework in which individuals could pursue wealth in a social context[15]. For Solon, it was necessary to see beyond short-term gain to long-term success through the use of reason. Reason becomes the authority that legitimises a government to control and allocate resources so that there is enough equity in society to enable it to be stable. Reason also makes it acceptable for citizens to comply with the demands of society without undue interference. In contemporary society social democracy theory reflects the ideals of Solon’s reforms. It reconciles the contradiction in libertarian appeals to civil and human rights by providing a framework for the government to provide the necessary means to enable these rights to become concrete[16].

John Rawls holds a contrasting egalitarian perspective of distributive justice to Nozick. He sees society as ‘a cooperative venture for mutual advantage’[17]. According to Rawls, people are not indifferent as to how the resources, on which society depends, are distributed. Conflicts of interests arise when there are marked inequalities between individuals or groups within the system. So Rawls advocates that we should look at distributive justice with the notion of an ‘original position of equality’[18]. The main idea of an original position is that life is a lottery, with no one having knowledge of what their place in society will be when they are born. Nor do they have knowledge of how they will be allotted natural assets or abilities, or whether they will be subject to liabilities, such as being born in a refugee camp, in wartime, in slavery or servitude, or with some form of disability. In choosing the principles of justice to which we would desire to be subjected if we were placed in the original position, Rawls contends that we would make our choice through a ‘veil of ignorance’[19]. This ‘veil of ignorance’ will ensure that, as we cannot know what advantages or disadvantages we will be placed under, we will choose principles that will be of the most benefit to the least advantaged.

Considering that, in the modern world, the production of goods and services relies upon a vast network of workers and consumers; Rawls has a strong argument that society is a cooperative effort that should result in mutual benefits. The companies that produce these items or services rely upon systems of utilities, education, health, transport and communication. Even if one of these systems fails, such as when a strike or natural disaster happens, many of the other systems may also fail with the effect upon a company or community sometimes being ruinous. Therefore, we all benefit from these systems being cooperative. Nozick rejects Rawls’ theory by stating that there is no guarantee that people would be motivated to adhere to his difference principle if they emerged from the ‘veil of ignorance’ being naturally well-endowed[20]. As far as Nozick is concerned, a government has no right to interfere with a person’s liberty in order to enact the distribution of social goods, and its only role is to protect the property of persons[21]. Just as the civil strife affected Athens in 594 BCE and no estate could be cordoned off for its own protection, under Nozick’s theory the government would have an onerous task trying to protect one person’s property from the many who do not have any property. Therefore, the motivating factor to adhere to the difference principle may be that the naturally well-endowed could not be guaranteed of keeping their position if they unfairly took advantage of their situation.

Nozick’s person does not live in a vacuum, relying upon the cooperation of others to make sure that he or she is protected. As John Stuart Mill stated:  “…everyone who receives the protection of society owes a return for the benefit, and the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest”[22]. Nozick’s theory results in an unequal society that is insecure and tenuous. Under such conditions, a person’s ability to maintain their hold upon property is also tenuous. Rawls’ theory of distributive justice recognises the benefits that people should enjoy when they cooperate for mutual advantage, and is based upon principles under which there is a balance of equality, liberty and productivity and so encourages all to adhere to it.

Nozick’s entitlement theory is weak because the legal right to property can be seen to be contentious, especially with regard to land obtained by invasion and the disenfranchisement of indigenous peoples. Rawls’ theory, that we should consider our position in society from the ‘original position’, is based upon a real understanding of the unreliability of existence, as we have no concept of our potential societal or physical position before we are born. If we can cooperate to form principles of justice based upon mutual long-term self-interest, these will have more possibility of being upheld because we all benefit from them, rather than just a select few. Therefore, for the establishment of secure, stable and cohesive communities, Rawls’ argument has the most strength.

Bibliography

  1. Clare, J., The Mores, comp. 1821-24; publ. 1935, viewed 10 July 2012, http://orion.it.luc.edu/~sjones1/mores.htm
  2. Lamont, J & Favor, C, 2007, “Distributive Justice”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Viewed on 1 July 2012, URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/justice-distributive/ .
  3. Lewis, J.D, 2008, ‘Solon of Athens and the Ethics of Good Business’ in Journal of Business Ethics, (2009), 89, Springer, pp. 123-138, viewed on 13 July 2012, DOI. 10.1007/s10551-008-9989-4
  4. Mill, JS, 1869, “Of the Limits to the Authority of Society over the Individual”, Ch.4 in On Liberty,1869, Viewed on 8 July 2012, http://www.bartleby.com/130/4.html
  5. Monbiot, G., 2012, ‘John Clare, the poet of the environmental crisis- 200 years ago’ guardian.co.uk, 9 July 2012, viewed 9 July 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/09/john-clare-poetry
  6. Rawls, J. 1972, ‘An Egalitarian Theory of Justice’, extracts from A Theory of Justice, reprinted in Tom Beauchamp & Norman Bowie (eds.). Ethical Theory and Business, 6th edition, (Prentice Hall, 2001), pp. 649-656.
  7. Shaw, WH & Barry, V,1995, ‘Justice and Economic Distribution’, Ch. 3 of Shaw & Barry (eds.) Moral Issues in Business, 6th edition, (Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, 1995), pp. 101-126.
  8. Thompson, M, 2009, ‘Theorising Social Democracy’ in Studies in the Culture and Politics of Antiurbanism, Autumn 2009, Palgrave Macmillan, viewed on 14 July 2012, http://dissentmagazine.org/democratiya/article_pdfs/d16Thompson.pdf
  9. Townley C, J 2012, Justice, Markets and Capitalism, Lecture notes distributed in unit, PHI230, Business and Professional Ethics, Macquarie University, Sydney on 2 July 2012
  10. United Nations, 1948, ‘Universal Declaration Of Human Rights’, viewed on 15 July 2012, http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ .

 


[1] Clare J. The Mores, (1821-24)

[2] Monbiot, G., 2012, ‘John Clare, the poet of the environmental crisis- 200 years ago’ guardian.co.uk, 9 July 2012.

[3] Nozick, 1974, ‘The Entitlement Theory’, extracts from Anarchy, State and Utopia, reprinted in Tom Beauchamp & Norman Bowie (eds.). Ethical Theory and Business, 6th edition, (Prentice Hall, 2001).

[4] Nozick, 1974, p.658

[5] Nozick, 1974,  p. 658

[6] Nozick, 1974, p.657

[7] Nozick, 1974, p.657

[8] Nozick, 1974, p.660

[9] United Nations, 1948, Universal Declarations of Human Rights

[10] Nozick, 1974, p. 660

[11]  Thompson, M, 2009, ‘Theorising Social Democracy’ in Studies in the Culture and Politics of Antiurbanism, Autumn 2009, Palgrave Macmillan, p.96

[12] Thompson, M, 2009, p.96

[13] Lewis, J.D, 2008, ‘Solon of Athens and the Ethics of Good Business’ in Journal of Business Ethics, (2009), 89, Springer, p.124

[14] Lewis, J.D, 2008, p.129

[15] Lewis, J.D, 2008, p.131

[16] Thompson, M, 2009, p.96

[17] Rawls, J. 1972, ‘An Egalitarian Theory of Justice’, extracts from A Theory of Justice, reprinted in Tom Beauchamp & Norman Bowie (eds.). Ethical Theory and Business, 6th edition, (Prentice Hall, 2001), p.4.

[18] Rawls, 1972, p. 12

[19] Rawls, 1972, p.12

[20] Townley C, 2012, Justice, Markets and Capitalism, Lecture notes distributed in unit, PHI230, Business and Professional Ethics, Macquarie University, Sydney.

[21] Townley, C, 2012

[22] Mill, J, S 1869, “Of the Limits to the Authority of Society over the Individual”, Ch.4 in On Liberty,1869.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Judy Watson

touching my mothers blood 

1988 etching and black ink

A New York University academic, Fred R. Myers states that an intractable problem with Aboriginal art is that while it exists outside the art system the more it is valued. However, once it is in the art system unprepared viewers do not know how to respond to it because, without the information they receive in an ethnographic museum, they cannot relate it to other contemporary art. They cannot see an informed consensus providing the basis for the work (Myers 1998). This retrogressive view of the adaptability of Aboriginal art is fortunately not the way it is viewed within the Australian contemporary art world. Changing attitudes have allowed both remote and urban artists to benefit from a growing popular interest. Aboriginal artists have extended the parameters of how their art is viewed, and this has allowed them to present their work in new contexts such as installation art and photography. This essay will explore the background to the advent of the careers of the artists Gordon Bennett, Robert Campbell Jnr, Fiona Foley, Tracy Moffatt, Lin Onus and Judy Watson. It will also explore how these artists have contributed to change through their work.

By the 1970s, viewing Aboriginal art through a primitive paradigm was becoming unpopular. New ways were being developed to look at global arts and liberate them from the pigeon holes of Western art history. An exhibition in Paris in 1989, Magiciens de la Terre, attempted to challenge primitivist paradigms by showing the work of fifty artists from the West together with a similar number of artists from non- Western traditions. The exhibition presented all the artists as ‘contemporary’ with an example being a huge mud circle painted on a wall by the British environmental artist Richard Long, alongside a ground sculpture by a group of Aboriginal artists from the Yuendumu community in Central Australia (Morphy 1999).

The background to this exhibition began in the early 1980s when, for the first time, Aboriginal artists were included along with other contemporary white artists in the Sydneyexhibition of Perspecta 1981. In 1983, the Musee d’Art Moderne in Paris exhibited a large ground painting made by twelve Warlpiri men from the Lajamanu community. The ground painting’s ephemeral quality reflected the exhibition’s theme of Dream and Reality. It also created an avant-garde interest because it was an ephemeral ‘dematerialized’ art object and was considered to follow on the legacy of avant-garde challenges to mainstream expectations of an object-orientated art world (Myers 1998). However, although the recognition of Aboriginal art as being contemporary rescued it from being marginalised, it was only the art of remote communities in the north and centre ofAustralia that were achieving recognition. The art of the south that was being done by Aboriginal people in urban and rural areas remained unrecognized in what W.E.H. Stanner called ‘the great Australian silence’ (Morphy 1999).

Although Aboriginal artists in south-eastern Australiacontinued to produce art and craftworks, and some such as Ronald Bull (1942- 79) gained a reputation in the art world, they were negatively viewed as either producers of tourist art or, if they were mainstream contemporary artists, as being assimilated into Western culture. In 1993 the Aratjara Exhibition that touredEurope attempted to rectify the situation. The curators adopted the broad conception of Aboriginal art because, as the art historian Ian McLean notes, it was ‘not until 1990 were there signs of an institutional shift towards the inclusion of urban Aboriginal artists’ (Morphy 1999, p.378). Many of the artists included in this exhibition had been developing from the 1970s onwards in the art world and art schools of urbanAustralia. They drew their inspiration from many different sources reflecting the diversity of their backgrounds. Many found inspiration through personal pilgrimages back to the country of their forebears or in visiting fellow artists in remote communities (Morphy 1999).

Dijon Mundine facilitated communication between Aboriginal artists in the south-eastern states and those in Central Arnhem Landcreating ‘an environment of shared experiences in which mutual understanding developed’ (Morphy 1999, p. 392). Some of the artists that visited Arnhem Landduring this time were Campbell, Fiona Foley (b.1964) and Gordon Bennett (b. 1955). Bennett, a Brisbane-based artist, says that his paintings are ‘an ethnography of representation’ (Morphy 1999, p.399). He characteristically uses a representational system to draw complex analogies between Western art history and the colonial domination of Aborigines. In Outsider (1988) he uses Vincent Van Gogh’s Bedroom at Arles (1889) to show a headless Aboriginal person standing over a bed with two classical heads lying upon it. This postmodernist appropriation seems to challenge both his understanding of his formal art education and his sense of identity within that framework.

After graduating in 1988 with a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree, Bennett had first major solo exhibition in 1989 and has since achieved critical acclaim. He continues to engage his work in questions of cultural and personal identity (National Gallery of Victoria 2008). He describes this personal journey: “I was socialized into a Euro-Australian system of representation which included an art school education. However, my approach to aesthetics is to seek to extend my concepts of it and by extension to expand my concepts of representation’ (Morphy 1999, p.403). His paintings include much graphic detail, narrative, words, grids and commercial logos During the 1990s his  Home Décor series uses the aesthetics of the De Stijl art movement to depict stylized Aboriginal figures, (appropriated from the work of 1940s print artist Margaret Preston), as decorative artefacts entrapped upon a Modernist grid. After travelling toNew York in 1998, he developed a street-style appropriated from the 1980s neo-expressionist Jean-Michel Basquiat to convey the graffiti of racial and political activism.

The complex nature of the influences and history that involves much contemporary Aboriginal art is exemplified in the work of Fiona Foley. After graduating from the SydneyCollegeof the Arts in 1986, Foley, along with other ‘urban’ artists such as Tracy Moffatt, Bronwyn Bancroft and Michael Riley, was a founding member of the Boomali Aboriginal Arts Cooperative in Sydney. She has worked in many different types of media and became well-known for her collaboration with the artist Janet Laurence on the installation The Edge of Trees (1994) for the Museum of Sydney (Allas 2008). Drawing on other Aboriginal art forms, Foley’s work becomes a commentary on the history of racism and oppression. The sculpture The Annihilation of the Blacks (1986) looks much like Fish on Poles (1962) an Aurukun sculpture that formed the focal point for a ceremonial dance. Foley’s sculpture, rather than being hunted fish, show dead bodies of Aboriginal people being hung upon poles. Also, in 1996 she made a ground sculpture much like traditional ground sculptures. Using flour as a material signified its importance in subjugating Aboriginal people in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Foley’s photographic work, such as Native Blood (1994), explores the Western representational genre through photographing herself as an ‘erotic primitive’ (Morphy 1999). Again, like Bennett, she works from the position of postmodernism to change historical context.

The academic Chris Healy describes Foley as a witness; ‘her work is all about determined efforts of remembering- bearing witness to both specific instances and pan-Aboriginal experiences of colonialism- and refusing to remain silent’ (Healy 2003). Originally from FraserIsland, also the birthplace of the poet Oodgeroo Noonucal, her work brings a connection between art, Aboriginality, and place. Djon Mundine observed about her work; ‘this raw material- [is] a form of cultural memory- from FraserIslanditself… For Foley, this was an art practice carried out in a custodial role, a way of reclaiming the history of her people and their land’ (Healy 2003). In her piece Lie of the Land (1997), Foley lists the names of objects traded with Aboriginal people in the 1835 ‘treaty’ with John Batman. These words are engraved on seven sandstone slabs three metres in height and effectively records on giant headstones the objects which cost so many lives (Healy 2003).

While the urban Aboriginal art movement has grown in significance since the 1990s, the focus of it being somewhat marginalised has changed into it joining, without differentiation, to mainstream contemporary art. With this change, artists such as Bennett, Foley and photographer Tracy Moffatt (b.1960) insist on their recognition as artists not simply ‘Aboriginal artists’ (McCulloch 2001). Moffatt explores issues of race, history and gender through staged Surrealist photographs and films. Nice Colored Girls (1987) was a film that staged contemporary encounters between Aboriginal women and European men montaged with references to colonial history and racist attitudes (Morphy 1999).

Like Bennett and Foley, Moffatt was born in Brisbane, and took her first snapshots at the age of 13 in the backyard. These formed a series of coarse-grained off-set prints called the Backyard Series (1998), with one of the photos featuring a nativity scene played by children. Moffatt was adopted into a white family and these garden photographs reflect both the normality and surreal undercurrents which strain relationships in society. The film Night Cries: A Rural Tragedy (1989) is an ambiguous story about the relationship between an elderly white woman and her half-Aboriginal child (Versloot 2000). In a Moffatt wrote to theNew York curator Lynne Cooke she explained: ‘Making art is quite therapeutic, like chopping vegetables, it calms me and keeps me off the streets’ (Moffatt 1997). She went on to state how important it is to advance your art and be influenced by others; not to be scared of taking anything new. She also states that her influences were mainly women artists such asFrida Kahlo,Georgia O’Keefe and the photographer Anne Brigman (Moffett 1997).

Lin Onus (1948-1996), who was also introduced to the artists of Arnhem Land by Mundine, had a different background to Foley, Bennett and Moffatt. His art also grew from a personal pilgrimage, but he was born in Melbourne where his father was an Aboriginal entrepreneur and craftsman, and his mother was Scottish. Onus grew up in an atmosphere full of Aboriginal art and, although he had no art school training, by the age of seventeen his early paintings were being sold by his father. These paintings were landscape inspired by the work of Albert Namatjira (1902-59) and Ronald Bull. However, the late 1970s and early 1980s brought a change in his work inspired by Trevor Nickolls (b.1949), an Aboriginal artist who went to art school in the early 1970s and was exposed to a wide range of contemporary art. He then spent much time in Arnhem Land and was taught clan paintings by artists such as Jack Wunuwun and Johnny BulunBulun. He painted a series of portraits of these artists in a hyperreal style on a background of their own paintings.

Towards the end of his life Onus turned increasingly to sculpture, using parody as a theme. His group Dingoes (1989) are realistically formed but painted in ochred colours of the Aboriginal flag. The group illustrates the life cycle of a dingo and includes a dingo breaking through a dingo-proof fence which was, according to Onus,  ‘a commentary on the treatment of these native animals which in Aboriginal eyes approximates the treatment of Aboriginal people themselves’ (Morphy 1999, p.391). He also used three-dimensional installations to display his strong sense of irony and humour. Fruit Bats (1991), is an example of the cross-cultural references and meticulous detailing for which he became so well-known (McCulloch 2001).

Aboriginal art has now become part of the mainstream in contemporary art inAustraliaas it is collected by the same institutions, exhibited within the same gallery structures, and written about in the same journals. This has come about because of the struggle by Aboriginal artists to have their work incorporated rather than assimilated into the institutional structure. Artists such as Judy Watson (b.1959) show how the adaptability of Aboriginal art contributes to an overall push in it being judged on its aesthetic qualities rather than its story-telling properties (McCulloch 2001).

Watson uses painting, sculpture and print media to create complex, subtle works that evoke the spirit and feeling of place. Her style is predominantly non-figurative, using the texture and surface qualities of the painted canvas, lithographic stone, or plywood base to express meaning. Her set of sculptures the guardians/ guardian spirit (1986-87) represent the matrilineal part of her family. The figure forms allude to termite mounds and the spirits that they represent. Many of her paintings are designed to hang without frames like textiles (Morphy 1999). Another Brisbane-based artist, in 1990 she was able to experience her Aboriginal heritage when she visited her grandmother’s country in north-westQueensland.

Although art from the south-east of Australia generally fits into a global category of contemporary art that emphasizes individual style, there are common themes and patterns of influence that distinguish Aboriginal art. Many artists draw on themes of their identity, past and also shared experiences of oppression. The subject matter of Robert Campbell (1944-1993) ranged from the history of racism in rural NSW to its mundane existence. Growing up in Kempsey, he learnt to draw at the primary school at Burnt Bridge Mission where he also helped his father decorate boomerangs. Whilst working as a seasonal worker around Kempsey and a labourer in Sydney, he developed what Djon Mundine calls a ‘confident’ and ‘idiosyncratic’ style (Mundine 2008) painting for tourists and local art shows using available materials.

Campbell’s work is both humorous and insightful and he wrote: ‘As an urban Aboriginal artist my work does not look “typically Aboriginal”… My paintings are in fact very much what I feel in my own heart. Very personal’, (Morphy 1999, p.380). A characteristic of his work is the contrast between the bright optimism conveyed in the colours of the paintings and the dark themes they explore. In Death in Custody (1987) he documents an important issue of contemporary Aboriginal politics; that Aboriginal people are the most imprisoned segment of the Australian population and the number of young men who die in custody (Morphy 1999).

It is because of the starkness of the statistics of Aboriginal poverty, infant mortality, sickness, and prison populations that these artists continue to address these issues. However, this should not necessarily pigeon-hole them as “Aboriginal” artists. Their work is political as well as being concerned with identity. These are subjects which interest many contemporary artists. By extending the boundaries of popular response through the use of new contexts, these artists have been able to change attitudes to the way their art is viewed. Furthermore, there is a need for Aboriginal artists to continue to explore their Aboriginality and through their work, aid non-Aboriginal people in understanding the impact of racism and disinheritance.

References:

Gordon Bennett, 2008, Retrieved January 23, 2009 from http://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/gordonbennett

Healy, C., 2003, Fiona Foley. Silent witness? Retrieved January 26, 2009, from http://www.anu.edu/hrc/research/WtoS/Healy.pdf

McCulloch, S., 2001, Contemporary Aboriginal Art- A guide to the rebirth of an ancient culture-Revised Edition, Allen & Unwin Sydney

Moffatt, T., 1997, A letter from Tracey Moffatt to Lynne Cooke, curator of Dia Centre for  the Arts, New York, in advance of her show “Free Falling”, Retrieved January 27, 2009 from http://www.diacenter.org/exhibs/moffatt/project/traceymoffatt.html

Morphy, H., 1999, Aboriginal Art, Phaidon Press,London

Myers, F., 1998, Uncertain Regard: An Exhibition of Aboriginal Art in France, Ethnos Vol. 63, No.1, Retrieved January 22, 2009 from http://www.homepages.nyu.edu

Versloot, A., 2000, Roller Queens and Narrow-minded Machos- The World of Tracey Moffatt, Retrieved January 27, 2009 from http://www.radionetherlands.nl/features/cultureandhistory/moffatt000602.html

Bibliography:

 

Allas, T. (n.d), Fiona Foley, Retrieved January 30, 2009 from http://www.daao.org.au/main/read/2575

Gordon Bennett (n.d.), Retrieved January 29, 2009 from http://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/gordonbennett/

Green, C., 1999, Beyond the Future: The Third Asia-Pacific Triennale Art Journal Vol.58, No.4 pp.81-87, College Art Association

Healy, C., 2003, Fiona Foley. Silent witness? Retrieved January 26, 2009, from http://www.anu.edu/hrc/research/WtoS/Healy.pdf

Judy Watson (n.d.), Retrieved January 26, 2009 from http://www.nga.gov.au/Landscapes/Wat.htm

Ladds, A. (n.d.), The Reconciler, Retrieved January 31, 2009 from http://www.theblurb.com.au/Issue27/LinOnus.htm

McCulloch, S., 2001, Contemporary Aboriginal Art- A guide to the rebirth of an ancient culture-Revised Edition, Allen & Unwin Sydney

Moffatt, T., 1997, A letter from Tracey Moffatt to Lynne Cooke, curator of Dia Centre for  the Arts, New York, in advance of her show “Free Falling”, Retrieved January 27, 2009 from http://www.diacenter.org/exhibs/moffatt/project/traceymoffatt.html

Morphy, H., 1999, Aboriginal Art, Phaidon Press,London

Mundine, D. 2008, Robert Campbell (Junior), Retrieved January 26, 2009 from http://www.daao.org.au/main/recent

Myers, F., 1998, Uncertain Regard: An Exhibition of Aboriginal Art in France, Ethnos Vol. 63, No.1, Retrieved January 22, 2009 from http://www.homepages.nyu.edu

Nelson, R., 2007, Gordon Bennett, Retrieved January 27, 2009 from http://www.theage.com.au/news/arts-reviews/gordon-bennett/2007/09/19/11898815568

Through artists eyes: Tracey Moffatt and Gordon Bennett Retrieved January 29, 2009 from http://www.artmuseum.uq.edu.au/index.html?page=97971&pid=0

Versloot, A., 2000, Roller Queens and Narrow-minded Machos- The World of Tracey Moffatt, Retrieved January 27, 2009 from http://www.radionetherlands.nl/features/cultureandhistory/moffatt000602.html

White, A., 2000, Aboriginal Art: Sacred and Profane, Review of Susan McCulloch, Contemporary Aboriginal Art: A Guide to the Rebirth of an Ancient Culture, Art Journal Vol. 59, No.4, pp.105-107, College Art Association

The Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 was crafted to preserve the great powers at the time so that they could serve their self-interest in staying in their prime position at the top of the global pyramid. It left the contemporary global system being a socially constructed reality which does not reflect the inherent resemblance of all nations as being made up of human beings. The post-colonial reality allows that hierarchy to continue with Western governments benefiting from centuries of seizures of territory and resources and its legacy to persist through ethnic conflict derived from colonially-imposed borders and unequal exploitative relationships. It is this legacy which creates the imperative for the notion of universal human rights to be an overriding issue of global politics.

Most wars now occur in the Global South, a circumstance which is derived from their colonial origins. The Global South has the highest number of states with the largest populations on the least income and with the most unstable governments. These factors lead to failed states which lead to mass emigrations of refugees, disease and famine. The armed conflict which happens within these failed states happens more frequently than armed conflict between states with 2009 seeing 36 armed intrastate conflicts in 26 locations. These civil wars have a high cost of life, have child soldiers as participants and perpetrate genocide, an example being the slaughter of eight hundred thousand Tutsi and moderate Hutu people during a few weeks in Rwanda.

Under current international law state sovereignty is supreme, meaning that no authority is above the state. In fact international law actually protects a state by giving it ‘a complete freedom of action to do whatever it takes to preserve its sovereign independence’. Even though in 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was signed by many states to protect individuals, states still have the right to perform within their territories in any which way they choose. Up until 1952, ‘a citizen was not protected against the state’s abuse of human rights or crimes against humanity’. International law, being fashioned by realist thinkers, does not protect humans but protects the instrument of humans being the state. This goes against liberalist thinking of not using humans as a means to an end.   

This liberal view that the individual is the seat of moral value is fundamental to the notion of universal human rights. One of the corollary concepts of liberal theory stresses the unity of humankind, the importance of the dignity and equality of individuals, and the need for the promotion of human rights and liberty. Rather than being a ‘subject’ of the state, the general consensus in contemporary global politics is that people are important and have worth and therefore ethical and moral issues belong in the realm of international relations. However, the accuracy remains of Jean Jacques Rousseau’s observation that ‘man is born free, and everywhere is in chains’. Globally, a select few of the total population are prospering while there are many who can barely survive.

Constructivists make humans the primary level of analysis, with human ideas defining the identities that impart meaning to the behaviour of others. This contemporary thinking has shaped a consensus that claims that all humans have the same moral status and that ‘to accept human rights [is to make on the state] the moral demand to respect the life, integrity, well-being and flourishing of…all human beings’. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserted many civil and political rights such as freedom of assembly, freedom of thought and expression, the right to participate in government, and indispensable social and economic rights. The Declaration also asserts that ‘if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law’. This is the essential argument of why human rights are integral to global politics.  

Although the Declaration and the further multilateral treaties which enumerate these rights are legally binding on states, there have been many who have not ratified these agreements or have objected to specific provisions. For instance, the United States ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with reservations, but did not ratify the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Considering that the US is the most powerful state in the liberal democratic world, this is an indictment against the moral values purported to be so important to this global group. Human rights abuses continue with 350 million indigenous peoples being without a homeland or political representation and subject to persecution and genocide; with women in the world continuing to be disadvantaged in comparison to men; with up to 4 million people subjected to slavery and human-trafficking; and with children being subjected to neglect and abuse through slavery, hunger, conscription and sexual exploitation.

With so many people of the world being the target of oppression and violence by states, the global community is morally challenged as to whether international treaties can go on being blatantly disregarded by the states that have ratified them or have some consensus with them. In principle, international law now provides protections for all people everywhere to live in freedom and security. So that these protections can finally apply to all people, traditional notions of sovereignty must be transcended. Global politics must now recognise and respect these laws so that the assertion of the Declaration of common interests of all citizens in all states is recognized and upheld.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfo7TjwRwXI&feature=youtu.be