Monday, October 27, 2008

Tribal Totem


Spirits of the Tribal Totem © Lloyd Pollard 1994
14"x18"
acrylic paint & marker on paper

First exhibited in 1995 solo show.
Burkes Picture Framing Gallery, Toronto.
First blog publication.
Limited Edition Print in Private Collection

Our individual tribes place their marks inside and
outside of each of us.

This mark is our pass into an exclusive company of traditions, rituals and beliefs
All of which provide us with the comfort, protection and knowledge of ourselves.

Spirits of the Tribal Totem bears the soul of the Great Mother,
Who eternally comforts and nurtures us throughout a lifetime.

It possesses the spirit of the Ancient Warrior,
Who screams "Death" to those who offend us, while protecting us in every experience.

Finally, Spirits of the Tribal Totem holds the essence of the sacred twin,
With their identical images reflecting and revealing their deeply buried inner knowledge of each other and therefore themselves.

A symbol of tribe should be a symbol of pride.

+ Pollard © 940921



Stumble Upon Toolbar

7 comments:

SLP said...

Hello My Friend,

What is "Black Art"? Why the Label?
SLP

Pollard said...

Hi Sandy,
This is a printed card from an old show. Actually, my first professional exhibit (1994-1995), when it was about 'Black Art' not just "Art".
I thought it fun to see how folks will react and interpret this bold visual word statement.
So how does it make you feel? Is it marginalizing? Is there such a thing as "Black Art" now or ever before? Should it be Africa-American Art? African-North American Art? African - Canadian Art?

Talk to me. What do you think?

SLP said...

I saw the date, so I knew it was one of your early works.

I've got to tell you that I couldn't respond to this one without giving it some thought. I decided I really disliked that label, thus the question.

I found it both limited and small! I know there is a "black" experience, but I don't think there is such a thing as "Black Art". Actually I don't like any of the "Labels". It's ART, period! Why define someone's experience for them. I think it's pretty dismissive to package it as something which doesn't allow it do expand for someone else. Perhaps an Aboriginal person would resonate with the image until they see that Label! Then, the experience changes and all they see is an image that has nothing to do with them and their experience. One the other hand, they might see some commonality, but I still think it's best to let the art in this instance, speak for itself. The words work well, and don't limit the experience, they are much bigger than the label, which some might not get beyond.

How do you feel about the label?

Sandy

Pollard said...

Hi Sandy, this is the type of dialogue that needs to happen as we evolve and have less need of some of the disappearing cultural markers, such as the term 'black', ''white', etc.

Now your points are hugely valid but if you go to the Southern USA for example, where "black" means something potent, the argument could be a little different. When we start to claim our cultural markers we go through phases with them. What I mean by this is, when a "black" person starts to find their identity, at the start it is about the white wrongs vs. blacks - in other words purely racial. Then it evolves to being about "black Power". Then maybe "black is beautiful". Then " we were kings and queens". Then we move to claim being "African". Then maybe...we move beyond "African" to a being a "person of colour" etc etc on and on.

I've seen this process and I've been through it also. So there is still a place that many attach their identity and self-worth to. Colour is one of them.

This is an awesome topic and if we had people from across the world look at it, I would love to hear what they have to say. In Europe for example (and you may know more about this than me) they have a different code for dealing with"black". England and France are two examples that I know of. Their "black" is more "African" based with aspects of the "West Indian" thrown in (England in particular), but none-the-less loaded with some potential prejudgement, reservation and fear.

I agree with you about the word "black" limiting the experience and the person from a certain perspective. But not everyone is ready to evolve beyond it yet - black or white or red or whoever.

Personally, I don't need it as much any more. I did think twice about removing the words when posting this entry, but that is where I was when I made the piece and it was very important then to me and my culture that this word was used. It has a place, but many outgrow it, while the next generation embraces it temporarily until they evolve out of it. Until you establish a personal sense of identity, many will continue to use "black" as their marker of pride. We may have passed it but others are now starting to grapple with it, while many others need it to feel empowered and alive.

lloyd

SLP said...

Hey Lloyd,
Your points are well taken and I totally understand and agree with the "right of passage" that we all go through.
That said, I still don't get what "Black" means in that context. Were you saying this was created by a Black person, or were you referring to the art itself? Is the image what Black Art meant to you at the time?
What was your message - why the need to state so emphatically, that it was "Black Art"?
Sandy

Pollard said...

Hi Sandy, thank you for your feedback and further question.

I used the term 'black' to communicate, without any uncertainty, the racial original of the work's subject matter, the work's creator and the primary colour theme of the pieces in the show (all of the pieces were black & white with a couple of exceptions).

At the time of this show, there were very few art exhibition opportunities in the Toronto area and the national Canadian art community to consistently show the works of artists of African descent. With my first solo exhibit, I wanted to make it clear to my audience (regardless of their racial make-up) what kind of works they were going to see and what the racial make-up of the artist was.

I wanted them to understand that they were going to be viewing something that resulted from the experience of someone 'black'. This was going to be unique to them, since there is very little history of works by 'black' artists being show in the mainstream art culture.

The term 'black' was used to establish a presence in the mind of the art viewer. I wanted a term that would not be confused and be universally understood. Terms such as 'African-Canadian' and 'West-Indian' did not represent the racial presence that I wanted this show to communicate. Not to mention I did not think they represented me. Hence my use of the term 'black'.

The word "black' was and continues to be the most commonly used and understood term to describe people of African descent in North American western culture.

It may be worth challenging it's usefulness now, but it still carries a potent understanding of identity and racial definition.

I hope that helps to give a little perspective on my use of the term.
Thanks for the question Sandy.

lloyd

SLP said...

Hey Lloyd,

Thanks for clarifying that for me. I get it. I understand the implication of the "label" and accept it for what it was and still is.

Thanks,
Sandy