Though art is typically perceived as an independent concept that exists solely for aesthetic gratification o the viewer, it cannot be considered outside of the sociocultural contexts in which it was created and placed. As a result, the art pieces of the past, which used to be regarded as morally neutral, are currently revisited to be found questionable, at best, and offensive, at worst. The works of Emily Carr known for her portrayals of indigenous people and their culture are an accurate example of the described permutation in the public perception. Initially lauded as elevating the history and cultural legacy of indigenous people, these artworks are currently regarded as cultural appropriation. Since Carr’s artworks are tethered to the cultural context that was alien to her, Carr’s interpretation of the specified culture needs to be seen not as the representation of the indigenous cultures of North America, but, instead, as indigenous cultures viewed through the prism of European one.
Reassessing the contribution that Carr has made to Canadian art might seem as an unnecessarily harsh judgment of the artworks that were produced in an entirely different era and, therefore, under the influence of completely different values. However, the specified factor cannot excuse the misrepresentation of indigenous art pieces, as well as the fact that the actual artists remained in the shadow while Carr’s analysis and her perception of the specified items remained at the forefront of the discussion. Indeed, with a clear imprint of Carr’s cultural background and her insistent attempt at inserting it into the art pieces that she represented as indigenous cannot but be seen as a harmful and rather reductionist approach to understanding indigenous philosophies and traditions: “The interiors of the great houses were dim. Smoke teased your eyes and throat. The earth floors were not clean.” (Carr). Limited by the Western perspective and restrained by the persistent framing of indigenous artifacts as the addition to the realm of western culture, the interpretation that Carr offered could be seen as harmful more than it was useful to the promotion of indigenous cultures and philosophies.
Furthermore, when approaching the issue at hand, one should ask oneself a question of what the purpose of Carr’s art reassessment is. Specifically, the process of reevaluating Carr’s art should be seen as an attempt to introduce the art piece sin question through the prism of the artist’s vision. According to Crean, the manner in which Carr introduced indigenous art pieces to the general audiences implied the integration of her perspective into the representation, which ultimately muddied the perception of indigenous art (par. 2). Consequently, while Carr’s efforts could be seen as an attempt to salvage the legacy of ancient cultures that have been marginalized and nearly ousted from the sociocultural context of Canada and North America, in general, I still incorporated a substantial part of the European cultural perspective. Therefore, Carr’s endeavors could be seen not only as the process of salvaging the remnants of indigenous cultures but, rather, as a means of revisiting them and reinterpreting them through the European cultural lens.
At the same time, it is crucial to recognize the necessity to abstain from attributing a specific moral value to Carr’s art pieces. Despite the intuitive need to condemn the artwork that obviously mimics the stylistic and aesthetic characteristics of art pieces belonging to indigenous cultures, one should also acknowledge the fact that Carr did bring attention to the specified culture. Namely, Carr managed to shed light on the culture and artworks of the people that had been oppressed by European colonialism and, therefore, required representation.
Nevertheless, one will have to admit that the representation offered by Carr, while being well-meaning, was still largely misguided and, therefore, illustrated the underlying meaning of the indigenous culture in question rather vaguely. Specifically, despite profound research that Carr conducted in order to describe the artworks created by indigenous people correctly, the manner in which she depicted indigenous people and their culture still contained the imprint of the colonialist thinking (Bear and Crean 67). As a result, the works of Carr still represent the racist perspective that is highly destructive to the proper representation of ethnic ad racial minorities: “Carr’s career as an artist and writer is inescapably connected to the history of White Canada and the First Nation” (Bear and Crean 67). Consequently, Carr’s work, while deserving being represented as an important contribution to the historical analysis, still must be regarded as a product o its time.
Although one must give Carr credit for her honest and sincere desire to revive the ancient culture of indigenous people of North America, her efforts have been largely misguided by present-day standards due to the representation of indigenous art through the lens of colonial culture, which is why her work ought to be considered as secondary to the original art. While attributing a specific moral value to her art pieces would be unfair given the tremendous difference in values and perspectives of the present-day society and that one of Carr’s era. However, the cultural legacy that Carr has left ought to be represented as a reference to original artworks and culture of indigenous people as opposed to the accurate representation thereof.
Works Cited
Bear, Shirley, and Susan Crean. “The Presentation of Self in Emily Carr’s Writings.” Emily Carr: New Perspectives on a Canadian Icon, pp. 63-71.
Carr, Emily. Klee Wyck. Project Gutenberg, 2001, Web.
Crean, Susan. The Presentation of Self in Emily Carr’s Writings. SusanCrean, Web.