Text 1
Liv Kenney explores the power dynamics of Pakeha artists who appropriate the traditional Maori motifs. These artists are said to be influenced by colonization in Intersections – Maori – Pakeha (Kenny,2016). Kenney reviews the Art practices of four Pakeha artists -Theo Schoon, Gordon Walters, Dick Frizzel’s ‘Tiki’ and Peter Robinson’s ‘Percentage Paintings’. Ultimately, it challenges future practitioners to consider whether it is morally, culturally and socially appropriate for an artist to take something that does not belong to them and adapt it, make it their own or worse – become its expert.
There is no doubt Kenney thinks that Theo Schoon’s intentions as an artist were good. Schoon was sympathetic to Maori however his actions were still informed by a position of power which come from belonging to the dominant culture. This is seen clearly in the way he treated Maori Arts. Schoon drew over Maori rock drawings in black crayon probably to see the work better. It is argued however that he would not have drawn over European artwork. Schoon’s appropriation of Maori tradition was seen as justified. As an advocate, he pushed for Maori Art to be recognized yet he enjoyed advantages like access to art collections in Museums which Maori never had. This continued the agenda of colonization at a time when Maori traditions were stripped from their people. Kenney insists that Schoon enjoyed the privilege of judging what was valuable in Maori traditional Arts whilst escaping the criticisms that came with being the coloniser because of his relationship with Maori. Unfortunately Schoon saw himself as an authority on Maori tradition which Kenney saw as an abuse of his position because he had no right to treat that culture as if it was his own.
Gordon Walters relationship with Maori motifs was different but in the end, not so different from Schoon. Walters stripped cultural value from Maori symbols, drawing on Abstract Modernism to sift out its tribal significance to divorce the symbol from its culture. Walters argued his right to access spirals and koru based on the idea that the patterns are not unique to Maori but are present amongst other cultures. From Kenney’s perspective, treating patterns as if they belong to anyone therefore belonging to no-one doesn’t fit with the fact that Walters contextualized his art work, therefore the patterns which formed part of it cannot be separated from it. “Artists like Walters struggle to create art that is informed by Maori culture without appropriating it but the lack of acknowledgement also shows a sense of entitlement” (Margaret, 2018) that is characteristic of the colonizer.
Dick Frizzell’s practice is very much the same. Through ‘Tiki’ Frizzell is trying to figure out who the New Zealand artist is, neither foreigner, nor indigenous. ‘ Tiki’ spins that idea to force a conversation about appropriation which Keeney feels is like letting yourself off the hook. By poking fun at the cultural misuse, Frizzell gives himself permission to appropriate Maori motifs because he is engaging in the discussion. He does make a point as we interact with people all the time and are influenced by our experiences with others. However, Keeney finds Frizzell’s argument difficult to swallow. There is also a sense of entitlement here that supports a cultural insensitivity in his own practice which is not okay. By contrast, Peter Robinson’s mixed ancestry gives him a real voice to talk about cultural appropriation through his art work.
Clearly colonisation has had a huge influence on the ways in which indigenous cultures stories and traditions are viewed, presented and valued, especially when it comes to Pakeha art practices. Whether the challenge is about trust or ownership of Maori motifs, how we choose to practice says a lot about our personal values in the first place but mostly for Kenney, our power relationships. “The process of taking without any exchange of value is a continuation of the colonization of indigenous peoples” (Kenny,2016).
This tells me as a future practitioner it would be more practical to stick to your own culture.
There is no doubt that referencing other cultural symbols or traditions means more than asking for permission. There must be more trust or acceptance for using cultural motifs in your work if you are from that culture. This can only be because it is assumed that the practice comes from a good place. Colonisation does not. When appropriating someone else’s culture, people will judge you if they don’t feel you have a right, don’t respect the right, don’t acknowledge where you got your inspiration from, or misuse it in ways that aren’t culturally appropriate. How you choose to work is critical.
Refferences:
Kenney, L. (March, 2016)Intersections: Maori — Pakeha. Retrieved from https://medium.com/@livkenney/intersections-maori-pakeha-f14a317526dc
Text 2
Kenan Malik talks about cultural appropriation as being an issue of either Gatekeeping or Identity and both of those can come back to Inequality. “Future practitioners are forced to think about the kind of practices we should adopt and what gets in the way of fair treatment for all” (Kenan, 2017).
Emmet Till was a Black African American who was murdered. Dana Schultz painting of him was displayed in an exhibition. It also won a Whitney Biennial award. Yet there was a huge criticism and outcry because Dana is a ‘white painter’. Henry Taylor’s work ‘The times they aren’t changing’ received little attention. Depicting the death of Philandro Castile murdered by a Police Officer, the work was showcased at the same exhibition. Taylor was a ‘black artist’. Her work was praised for being ‘vividly haunting’. This tells us people were not okay with Dana Schultz speaking to this topic because she was white. “Critics of cultural appropriation want to protect marginalised cultures and ensure that such cultures speak for themselves and are not simply to be seen through the eyes of more privileged groups.” (Kenan, 2017). It is obvious there is a lack of trust that clearly gets in the way of some artists being accepted by the public. This is gatekeeping. Dana was rejected because she was ‘white’ and this tells us that an authentic voice like Henry Taylor’s is more respectful, trustworthy and appropriate.
Another way to think about the public’s reaction to Dana’s ‘Open Casket’ is that the freedom to express ideas comes with responsibility. Malik points out that “critics of Dana Schutz ‘have a point’ about ‘exploitation’: ‘Depicting Till is not a problem but using Till to garner profit and acclaim would be.” (Kenan, 2017). A good example of this is the debate between David Seymour and Golriz Ghahraman over the Christchurch shootings where he said she was a real menace to freedom in this country. He did nothing to help her case but he didn’t acknowledge how his comment made things worse for her. Malik points out that cultural appropriation does not solve the bigger challenges oppressed people face. The argument against cultural appropriation is that the dominant culture comment on other people’s lived experiences without making a difference to their lives. The dominant culture doesn’t take responsibility for the impact their actions have.
“Equality requires us to treat all people as autonomous moral beings with equal rights and dignity. But while that requires that we respect the right of others to hold different ideas and beliefs, it does not require us to treat all their ideas and beliefs and traditions with respect or deem all ideas and beliefs and traditions as being of equal worth”(Kenan,2017).
It makes me consider how I as a practitioner should express my own voice respectfully and stand confidently on my own two feet if I connect to someone else’s issue but I don’t live in their shoes? How could I even give it justice if I don’t have a cultural understanding or empathy with them. Even if I did, would it really be okay to take someone else’s ideas and motifs for my own? There is no doubt that it won’t be enough to understand. If it doesn’t add value to their cause then it won’t be enough. As a practitioner I would have to make a statement about the inequality that exists and find ways to address it. This is a pretty interesting challenge.
Reference:
Malik, K (2017). Kenan Malik On Cultural Appropriation. Retrieved from https://artreview.com/features/ar_december_2017_feature_cultural_appropriation_kenan_malik/
Text 3:
The underlying principle of Biomimicry is based on the need to seek sustainable solutions to human challenges by copying Nature who is considered to be the ultimate teacher. It is with thought that the over consumption of resources and climate change, the human race is coming to the point of no return if we don’t change our relationship with the environment.
The Article by Rachel Armstrong on Biomimicry as parametric snake oil critiques the book ‘Architecture follows Nature’. “Biomimicry using science and architectural design principles is discussed as a way to change the abusive relationship we seem to have with the environment. Biomimicry is applied to architecture where the properties of animals skins inspire building design.” (Armstrong, R. 2013)
Armstrong is positive about the potential of biomimicry to provide solutions to a more sustainable future. She describes the inspirational models Mazzoleni, has drawn on to link biological principles to the design of buildings such as the hummingbird feather filaments for a pavilion and greenhouses modelled on banana slugs. The examples show what the Authors of the book believe when it comes to how biomimicry works but Armstrong feels that their view is too shallow saying “ this book gives scant treatment to the thorny, complex political, cultural, historical and aesthetic discourses implied by the term ‘Nature’.” (Armstrong, R. 2013)
According to Armstrong, if Nature is inter-connected then the Authors have not done enough to explain what that actually means. There is criticism for the lack of discussion on the choice of design compared with alternative ecological architectural processes. There doesn’t seem to be any justification around why biomimicry is better than bio design, progressive modernism or green architecture. Because of this, Biomimicry as a preferred choice can be picked apart because it hasn’t been substantiated in the first place.
Armstrong appreciates that Biomimicry has an important role in inspiring visions of the future and being optimistic. This is a point in common. However she finds it disappointing Mazzeloni and Price have gone for the romantic version of nature inspired architecture, based on what she calls a millennial relationship with nature. This means we are distracted by the beauty which she describes is “sterilizing the natural world” (Armstrong, R. 2013) then editing out the bits that aren’t wanted and somehow calling it a sustainable practice.
I find Biomimicry as a hugely important change for all practitioners because there is an urgent need to actually be sustainable. Unfortunately, Armstrong feels the Authors of ‘Architecture follows Nature’ have failed in their responsibility to actually inspire anything other than a superficial belief in its philosophy. So how do we find confidence in adopting practices that build on Biomimicry when the Researchers and Scientists we need support from are more inspired by the beauty of nature more than the need for us to live in harmony with it? I will obviously need to be well informed myself and have a broad understanding of the approaches that support sustainable practices but do more than that. Rachel Armstrong is basically saying we need to believe in what we really want to do and stand behind what we say with conviction. Mazzeloni and Price didn’t do that according to Armstrong.
Reference:
Armstrong,R. (2013) Rachel Armstrong on biomimicry as parametric snake oil. Retrieved from https://www.architectural-review.com/essays/reviews/rachel-armstrong-on-biomimicry-as-parametric-snake-oil/8650000.article
Text 4
The desk, particularly in the work environment has undergone change. Inspired by her children’s recollections and an exhibition in 2001 where reimagining how people work for the Knowledge Economy was showcased, Akiko considers the purpose of the desk.
Akiko looks at the way in which desks have reinvented themselves to meet the changing environment of work. She identifies three aspects of change related to the Desk – changeability, security and interactivity.
The 8 hour day has gone and working anywhere and anytime has resulted in Industrial designers like Haworth designing the Wake Desk in 1996 and Ayse Birsel’s Resolve work station designed for Herman Miller in 1999. Both designs offer flexibility and fluidity to reflect the changes in the type of worker at the office. Akiko argues that the desk as an object that facilitates change is actually a part of its function, its role. When you sit at a desk, ideas flow, things happen. Since ideas are shaped and reshaped at a desk Akiko says that “mutability is essential to the character of the desk itself” (Akiko, 2004, p62.)
Another aspect of desk design is security. The need to protect your information has led to innovations that address security concerns such as the PowerDesk by Pablo Naruda. Design has also resulted in desks that have multiple purposes. Although Akiko appreciates that the Designers work for Pablo Antonelli’s Workspheres exhibition in 2001 would have been inspired by the brief that the workplace was generating new ideas, there is no doubt in Akiko’s mind, that Designers would also have been inspired by 20th century writers.
Hella Jongerius’s Soft desk disguised as a bed could easily have been inspired by Winston Churchill and Truman Capote’s tendency to write lying down. Add in other writers such as Kerouac who combined the mobile office with transport, the overall impression was a bit of a hit and miss. More importantly the idea of interactive desks wasn’t new either. As Akiko noted “Scholars of all ages, it seemed favour interactive desks” (Akiko,2004,p64.) such as the rotary reading desk 1588 by Agostino Ramelli. It is used a mechanical system that had tiled platforms which could hold texts and then rotated at will.
Akiko acknowledges Tom Newhouse, a product designer who sees human engineering as the only real innovation of significance to consider. Both himself and Tung Chiang work with creating office furniture pieces that are adjustable and easy to reconfigure. But more importantly Tom Newhouse talks about ‘Infinity’ or Ergonomics which is thought of as the combination of aesthetics, design and what it is to be human. Akiko draws on Henry David Thoreau who wrote over 150 years ago about the relationship between a desk and its natural environment. The idea conveyed was that the desk was happy to be outside where it once belonged. The big idea Akiko was showing us comes back to the idea that looking out the window when you’re sitting at a desk is really about how the work space invites people to imagine more, to imagine something worthwhile and purposeful as they sit at their table.
“The references to different designers in the book helps to understand their work better. Tom Newhouse is an industrial designer who emphasizes environmentally sustainable practices. This tells me his values and design practices are in line with each other. Design seems to be all about human experiences so your values are a huge part of what you will bring to design.” (Akiko,2004,p64.)
Akiko Bush shows me that the design product or experience should and can be more than a physical and emotional experience. It could almost be a spiritual experience, even if it is a big stretch. This means that Designers should be conscious of the end user and their needs as well as the purpose – functional, emotional and even spiritual. Akiko saw the big picture and this helped see the story of the desk from different perspectives. Having a story I see is a pretty important part of the design of a product.
Reference:
Bush, A. (2004) The uncommon life of common objects: Essays on Design and the everyday. New York, Metropolis Books
Text 5
Tomkinson tells us what Service Design is, what it isn’t and how it is different to the work that other Designers do. It gets more complicated. He starts off with an informative description of the role of Design “Designers can’t save the world, but they can make it worth saving”(Tonkinwise,2016). Regarding Service Design, Tomkinson says it not just about what but how people maintain their livelihoods. Designers are concerned not just with the product but with the wider context in which that activity, task or product lies and its environment. He recalls from Saarinen’s famous dictum, “Always design a thing by considering it in its next larger context — a chair in a room, a room in a house, a house in an environment, an environment in a city plan.” (Tonkinwise,2016) Designers are looking at the overall quality of the interaction and making experiences feel worthwhile.
Tomkinson argues in favour of Damien White’s worker centred design which says that Service Design also involves figuring out what workers need to do as part of the experience or product that is designed. He says that “designers want to improve the quality of the experiences of a service, for people; but to do so they must direct the activities of people” (Tonkinwise,2016). Service Design includes scripting what service workers do. These designers are invested in understanding how certain kinds and qualities work to influence people and get people to perform in particular ways.
Since Tomkinson has experience in Psychology, it is no wonder he thinks that all service designers need training in behavioural education, clinical psychology, environmental conditioning and human resources management. Tomkinson must feel that for Service designers to do their job best (knowing how it differs from other Designers) they need specialised training. This is the point of his article.
I understand that a good service experience is one where the worker goes above and beyond to achieve the goals of the company. Martin Buber calls it relational service. The Service Designer’s role is to find ways to achieve that whole person level service where the organisation is able to leverage the whole person not just the service the worker is paid for.
In his introduction Tomkinson says he has also written about Invisible Design. I think he is talking about Service Design because the designer is asked to script what the service provider will do in the experience as well as the recipient of the service. I guess it is predicting how things will play out and then trying to create a quality interaction.
Unfortunately it was a bit difficult to understand and I ended up having to read three of his articles to find one that I could read. It showed me that he talks at an academic level and is probably talking to Professionals who are already in the business or academics who should be incorporating Clinical Psychology into Design Programmes.
It makes sense for Service Designers in particular to get extra lessons on Clinical Psychology so they can understand how humans interactions can be manipulated to produce a certain result. However I am not convinced that we can deliberately manipulate people to believe in something that will make them work harder than they would if it was just a job. In my part time job, some people work hard and others don’t care. It is just a job. Some people’s values and work ethic demand they put everything in and others won’t give it another thought. So can we design services and experiences that will produce harder working people dedicated to the values of the organisation through a behaviour management course? I am not sure but there is a lot of work to do there.
Tomkinson starts off by saying designers are about making experiences worthwhile but in my experience in Hospitality, Managers exploit people who are empathetic and have a relationship oriented character to work harder. On the other hand it is possible for excellent service driven by high quality expectations such as my experience at Villa Maria to maintain a quality service and team dedicated to uphold that standard. So it must be possible.
Even though I didn’t understand everything that Tomkinson was saying I appreciate the thinking that has gone into arguing the important role of Service Design in designing quality experiences including the scripting of interactions between service and recipient. Tomkinson teaches me the importance of not underestimating the big picture view we need to have as designers and really think about the context of our work, the people we are trying to influence and the way we want people and the environment to interact with it.
Reference:
Tonkinson,C.(2016)What service designing entails. Retrieved from https://medium.com/@camerontw/what-service-designing-entails-f718ac0ebcd6
Retrospective
I’d like to think I would use my creative voice to say important things but that’s not how I thought on one day of this course. Understanding the cultural, political, social and environmental issues and concerns that creative practitioners face, means I have to make a conscious decision to do better. The texts that I read challenge artists and designers to do that, by addressing inequality, by developing sustainable practices, by making a difference to peoples’ lives rather than exploiting them. Yet it is a choice. Some designers and artists are advocates for a better future. Those people deliberately choose to be a more conscientious designer. Others believe their work has merit but are criticized as being superficial. Will I use my creative voice to say important things? Perhaps. No doubt I should.
I feel inequality, I know its effects. I understand what it is to be marginalized as a young women, as a Maori-Chinese. I am not immune to the politics of the time despite being a digital native versed in Facebook and Instagram trivia. I felt the harshness of the world despite the best efforts of my whanau and school to protect us. We talked at school and at home about Inequal opportunities. We saw it happen to ourselves and family members. Our family challenged inequality and racism. We were sometimes silent about it as it would have been for generations. We weren’t one of those families that argued about everything. My Dad was silent and strong. My Mum was quiet and strong. My nan was little and loud. I didn’t find my voice growing up because my upbringing protected me from the world as best they could. The experiences and analysis of the writers of the texts rewrote our cultural experiences in ways that are familiar, enlightening and show how unfair life is. Only as I grow into my own skin as an Adult in the world of work and study, have I begun to find my own personal power. How do I inspire myself to be more than a designer and artist but one that responds critically to the challenges in front of young people like myself? I guess I will have to listen to it and see what it has to say.
Cultural appropriation is close, it’s personal. The critique of Dick Frizzel’s work and Schultz in Liv Kenney’s Intersections – Maori – Pakeha describe experiences that are familiar and believable. So it instantly gives me a space to test my own voice, understand myself better and tell our own stories. I can see how artists continue to exploit disadvantaged groups and how the environment is set up to only listen to and praise some people. Yet we have in our culture, the women who overcome challenges like Hine nui te Po, like Hine Raukatauri. These women remind me that it is not the challenges but our ability to overcome it that speak to our achievements. Can I count myself as one of those people when I have not been raised to speak out against it? My whanau space taught me to behave in particular ways to keep me safe from harm so we were above criticism.
Fortunately the Adult space is much more creative and I have been that child that kept on pushing against my parents respectfully when it came to exerting my own right to decide for myself. As an adult my parents believe strongly in the need for me to find my own voice in a safe space and environment to do it. I think the Art and design space could be it.
Akiko taught me that good designers align their practice to their values and that human experience is an important part of that. Armstrong’s Biomimicry as parametric snake oil reminds us we are part of something much bigger and designers can and need to be influential. We need to do real things that actually matter. So if actions speak louder than words then my work will be an expression of my beliefs. I am confident that my voice is one that will empathize with marginalized groups, speak to the voice of those oppressed by Inequality and reflect a cultural understanding of the need to be in tune with the environment. This part for me is the easy part. Is this who I am now? Am I the designer who understands there is a higher purpose in mind and we can make a difference? I am not sure that is who I am at this very moment but I know I should get there.
Kuramahaurangi Kotlowski 