ALTACO
FORUM
ALTACO
brings up topics for commentary from time to time. These are relevant issues
that have been picked up on the internet, in the media, or from conversations.
The public is invited to submit comments by email.
Included in
the scope of this forum is comments to the book “IN THE SHAPE OF
TRADITION: INDIGENOUS
WOODCARVING IN BONTOC
In her review of In
the Shape... in Arts of Asia 1, 2011, Ana Maria
Theresa P. Labrador forwards a proposal, namely that “…the Bontoc
do not have a tradition of woodcarving especially anthropomorphic figures. So
they do not have wooden figures that represent ancestors.” She mainly bases
this on the fact that Jenks (1905) does not report finding wooden figures in
the area, and a comparison between contemporary human figure representation in Sagada and Bontoc.
There is not nearly as much information available
about Bontoc and Kankanay
woodcarving as Ifugao woodcarving. Therefore Laborador’s comment can be seen as an interesting challenge
to popular conception. Actually, it is never stated in In the Shape... that the anthropomorphic figure galgalawa-en (or tinagtagu)
is made in Bontoc, but it states that figures
collected in Bontoc allow us to draw conclusions on
the stylistic treatment of the human body among the Bontoc.
This is clearly not correct if all galgalawa-en
collected in Bontoc are produced by the Kankanay (and even Ifugao).
Specifically, the figures collected in Bontoc are figure 70 on page 94 and figure 77 on page 97.
Figure 76 on page 97 also appears to have a connection with Bontoc,
for example because the loincloth worn by it is red rather than blue. However,
the slanted interface at the feet and pedestal of figures 76 and 77 is also
present for figure 71b, which was collected in Kayan
(Kankanay).
It should also be mentioned that D. E. Tolentino Jr. has recently surveyed the Bontoc
area for galgalawa-en / tinagtagu, but could not find a
single village that could remember ever having such figures.
-------------------------------------------------------
ALTACO: In conclusion, Laborador
may be correct that galgalawa-en and other anthropomorphic figures are
not carved by the Bontoc. But this would also mean
that the tangkil
figure 569 on page 324 is Kankanay, as well as
figures 577, 578 and 579 (from Barlig) on page 328.
Furthermore, the apolog
figure from Tucucan described on page 132 will then
be based on an original figure from the Kankanay
people.
However, examples of non anthropomorphic woodcarving
that ALTACO yet attributes to Bontoc are shields,
coffins, containers and bowls, such as figure 271 on page 177, also from Barlig. Photograph 62 on page 79 shows a Bontoc man carving a container.
The belief among some dealers and collectors is that
the Bontoc traditionally carved rough and ungraceful
anthropomorphic figures (tinagtagu),
which have largely been ignored in the literature. Some confusion may have
arisen due to the improper use of the word tinagtagu that refers to all figures in human shape, not only house
guardians (galgalawa-en).
Another problem is that knowledge about the material
culture has been forgotten to a great extent in many villages.
If it is correct that the Bontoc
carved roughly hewn anthropomorphic figures, then it will be a problem to
distinguish between roughly hewn Bontoc
anthropomorphic figures, roughly hewn Kankanay anthropomorphic
figures, and roughly hewn Kalanguya anthropomorphic
figures. Well documented examples are required in order to establish a basis
for comparison.
IS LESS MORE?
Some tribal art museums
today are expressing a preference for exhibiting few singular artifacts instead
of extensive general collections. The motivation behind this could be based on
space limitation, however, more likely it is a trend.
Museums compete for recognition, and the manner in which artifacts are presented
is given more and more attention.
It boils down to weather a
museum should be serving art or education. If the purpose of a tribal art
museum is to enlighten the public about tribal culture, then it needs a large
number of representative artifacts. An example of a museum that has
accomplished this is the Pitt Rivers Museum at Oxford. Here every square inch
of available space is taken into use. The overall effect is most inspiring.
Series of similar objects allow the visitor to discover aesthetic trends,
divergences and regional differentiation. The same approach has been used very
successfully by the publisher Thames and Hudson.
The minimalist approach, on
the other hand, would call for only the highest quality artifacts, displayed with
plentiful empty space in between. Although the overall effect of this is
impressive, it leaves the public with a less true picture of tribal culture. It
also creates unrealistic expectations.
In tribal art the initiated
may argue that more is more. The highest quality artifacts may be impressive,
but they should supplement, not displace.
WHAT IS "TRIBAL
ART"?
The collector’s
interpretation of ”tribal art” is not the same as the
anthropologist’s. It is not important which of these interpretations is the
best; it is only important to identify, distinguish and be aware of the
difference.
The divergence in
interpretation stems from a difference in reaction to tribal art’s assimilation
to “modern” culture. Whereas modern anthropology accepts that mainstream industrialised culture has a legitimate role in influencing
development of tribal art, the tribal art collector equates assimilation with
degradation.
For example, as an organisation representing the interests of traditionalists,
ALTACO only considers unassimilated tribal art as being authentic. Picasso is
applauded for being inspired by tribal art, while Tagiling
is criticised for abandoning his roots. Watering down
of tribal art is seen as something that perhaps will eventually result in a
complete disappearance of tribal aesthetics.
To the tribal art
collector, Russeau’s call for “back to nature” is
music in one’s ears. However, with the realisation
that most tribal people yearn for the same modern comforts that tribal art
collectors enjoy daily, any notion of halting assimilation is ludicrous.
Nevertheless, the tribal art collector’s love for tribal style has far reaching
implications. The tribal art collector argues that with erosion of culture and
art comes loss of identity, pacification and
exploitation. A Philippine law states that all land over a certain incline
belongs to the government. Most land in the Cordillera thus qualifies as
government possession. Consequently, many a tribal warrior has joined the
guerrillas out of sheer frustration. Preservation of tribal art will not give
tribal people their land back. But, showing apreciation
for unassimilated tribal art and indigenous culture is a way of showing
solidarity with tribal people.
Tribal art is beautiful, skilfully crafted, and expressive. This can be said about
much other art as well. But, what makes tribal art different is its intensity
derived from being part of something ancient, supernatural, yet earthy -
something worth preserving.
SELLING OF FAKES
To feed demand for
"antique" Luzon tribal art, a widespread cottage industry of dyers, waxers and pollishers has
emerged, mostly producing innocent low price decorative pieces. With less and
less authentic tribal art objects in circulation, some Philippines dealers are
now supplementing their business with decorative oldish
tribal art. There is nothing unethical about this as long as it is clear to the
buyer what the true quality of the item is. However, particularly on the
international market, what you pay for is not always what you get.
Not all bad deals involve
malicious intent from the seller's side. For example, some American and
European dealers have had to widen their spectrum of tribal art to include
cultures they are not always experts in, such as Luzon tribal art, leaving them
susceptible to trading fake art in good faith.
Unfortunately it is not
possible to disclose here how one tells the difference between real and fake
tribal art, since giving away the expertise would only inform unethical
individuals producing fakes how to make even better fakes. However, by raising
awareness about fakes, it is hoped that a positive effect in stemming the trend
will be achieved.
In 1989 Alain Schoffel published an article about fakes from the Northern Philippines. He categorised five types collectors should take heed of:
|
|
1. Colonial and post colonial tourist objects. These objects are made by tribal artisans, but they do not adhere to
traditional tribal forms, and are not made for use. Still, some items, such
as early 1900 sculptures by Tagiling, fetch high
prices. 2. Less than cunning
copies of traditional objects. Demand for low price decorative traditional pieces has resulted in
production of low quality replicas that are easily recognised.
3. Cunning copies of
traditional objects. Some makers of replicas have become so skillful that it is difficult
to recognise the difference in style. Such replicas
are then processed to obtain an old appearence in
order to dupe the buyer.
4. Non
traditional objects. Tribal art designers come up with new ideas to attract buyers. They
make beautifuly crafted objects, but it is not
normally beauty alone that makes tribal art expensive.
5. Transformed objects. It is very easy to transform - or "improve" - objects, increasing their apparent value considerably. For this reason transformation is common. For example, by sewing on embroidery beads to an old textile, the value of the textile may easily triple. Clearly, weather the embroidery beads are new or old makes a big difference in this case. To some connoisseurs certain transformations - or "repairs" - may be acceptable while to others they are not. The subject is somewhat subjective. |
Even though ALTACO does not
accept type 1 through 4 objects on its web site, it is acknowledged that there
is a market for them. What ALTACO considers to be unethical is to mislead
buyers regarding the true status of objects.
EFFECTS ON WILDLIFE
CONSERVATION
Traditional tribal art from
Luzon occasionaly contain components consisting of
skeletal parts of endangered species. This issue is of serious concern to
ALTACO, and responsible behaviour to prevent
exacerbation of this situation is urged.
The primary reasons for
endangerment of wildlife in the tribal areas of Luzon are high population
density, pressing economic circumstances, and the ease with which trapping and
killing of animals now is possible. For example, residents of Paracelis described how the area was abuntant
with wildlife at the time they migrated there in the 1950's as a result of a
land grant. Today there is virtually no wildlife around Paracelis.
Although the main purpose for killing wildlife is to provide food, the
additional income attained from selling replicas of traditional artefacts can only be seen as a further incentive.
Beaks of hornbill birds and
teeth of the cayman, as well as sculls from animals
such as monkeys - when used on modern replicas - should not be aquired under any circumstance. Other animal parts from
wild species, for example wild boar's tusks and deer's antlers, should also be
avoided when used on modern replicas.
The fact that very little
is being done to prevent the deplorable use of endangered animals for medical
"remedies" in countries such as Japan and PRC should only strengthen
our resolve to set a good example.
EXPORT OF HERITAGE
As a result of population and resource distributions there will nearly always be greater international demand than national demand for fine art that is internationally known. It has, therefore, been questioned if export of traditional tribal artefacts from Philippine soil should not be made unlawful in order to keep important cultural relics at home for the enjoyment of future Philippine generations? ALTACO opposes such proposals for two reasons:
- International
access has not only resulted in higher demand for Philippine tribal artefacts, but also for information about Philippine
tribal culture, creating a stronger market for publications and
photographs, a factor that will help fund documentation of an important
aspect of Philippine heritage, and increase awareness domestically and
internationally.
- Sale
of important family heirlooms was generally done to generate direly needed
funds for education or medical treatment. An export ban would not have
benefitted tribal people, since they would merely have received less for
their belongings.
It should also be noted
that considerable important collections, both in private and public hands,
fortunately, are still located in the Philippines today.
The view of ALTACO is that
restricting export of artefacts is counterproductive,
and that promotion of tribal culture in the Philippines is the most effective
means of ensuring that as much tribal art as possible remains in the country.
THE SHUTTING OUT OF MUSEUMS
DUE TO HIGH PRICES
It has become increasingly
difficult for museums to obtain important artefacts
due to the rising costs of high quality items. ALTACO recognises
that public access to view cultural relics is a basic right, and hopes to see
museums increasing their role in collecting Luzon tribal art. Furthermore,
ALTACO hopes that governments to a greater extent will offer sufficient
incentives to encourage private and corporate entities into donating artefacts to museums. Better collaboration between private
collectors and museums needs also to be established, so that collectors readily
will be willing to lend artefacts to exhibitions, and
all museums will be willing to borrow. Museums and collectors owe this to the
public.
However, unless museums
also obtain additional funding needed to provide exhibition space for their
archived Luzon tribal art collections, the subject is rendered moot. The locations of the exhibition spaces is also an important consideration.
A priority should be to locate museums in the tribal areas, a possibility that
is being seriously considered by the National Museum of the Philippines.
Unfortunately, due to the high cost of providing adequate security, this has
not been possible to implement.
In spite of its support for
public access, ALTACO is not opposed to the commercialisation
of tribal art. This is because without high monitary
value, many important tribal artefacts would have
been destroyed. The best example of this is the Baptist missionary practice of
burning objects associated with pagan culture. When it was discovered that
these items could be sold for good money, the practice was virtually abolished.
It is not many years ago that old textiles from the Cordillera were used to
clean silver by lowlanders. Today these people are heard lamenting when they
see the prices of similar textiles in antiques markets.
PRIVATE COLLECTING
References regarding the
subject of private collecting, and commercial "looting" of heritage
are listed at the following site: The "Looting Question"
Bibliography.
First of all, it is
important to underline that regarding ALTACO the subject is limited to cultural
heritage heirloom articles of museum quality. These are items that were once
personal belongings of private individuals. This must not be confused with archaelogical items removed from public land. ALTACO does
not include archaelogical items.
The opinion of ALTACO is
that in an ideal world tribal heirlooms should remain with their associated
tribal people. The next best thing is to establish museums for these items,
preferably not far removed from the associated tribal areas. However, because
the artefacts in question are personal belongings -
not public property - it is market forces that decide where these items end up.
ALTACO recognises the right of individuals to dispose
of personal properties as they see fit.
Nevertheless, in the case
of cultural heritage properties a certain responsibility is associated. A
person owning a cultural heritage object should take responsibility for
protecting such an object, so that future generations may also enjoy them. In
other words, a collector of tribal art should be thought of as a person holding
protective custody of artefacts that in turn will
outlive the collector. Eventually important artefacts
will be sold or donated to museums. In this way, the path from maker to museum
is a long and winding path depending on mainstream commercial culture.
WERE MINORITIES OF LUZON TRIBAL?
In the Philippines, if one uses the word “tribe” it is
often described as incorrect. Opponents to the word refer to political
organization, which they argue is a factor in terms of a group of people
being or not being a tribe. However, the definition of the word
"tribe" does not normally include reference to political
organization, and the discussion therefore ends up being nothing but a
manipulation of semantics.
So why is it really that
academics are so sensitive to the use of this word in connection with the
Philippines? To understand this, we have to go back in history over one hundred
years, when the discussion was first brought up by David P. Barrows (who
preferred the term “community” and Dean C. Worcester (who preferred the term
“tribe”).
The word “tribe” had been widely used in connection
with indigenous Americans. Barrows wanted to avoid a comparison between
American tribes, and what he described as Philippine “communities”. On the
other hand, Worcester wanted to take advantage of the experience the United
States had gained dealing with American tribes, and applying it in the
Philippines. He therefore favored using the word “tribe”.
History has come down hard on Dean C. Worcester, and
in solidarity with Philippine emancipation from colonial rule, it has become
taboo to use the word “tribe” in connection with Philippine ethnography. It can
thus be said that it is politically incorrect to use the word “tribe”, but it
is not linguistically incorrect.
For collectors it would be perfectly OK to substitute
the word “tribe” with “community” in order to avoid being branded politically
incorrect. The only problem is that nobody would understand what “community
art” is.
There are many synonyms for “tribal art”:
- Primitive Art (not acceptable, because tribal people
are not primitive)
- Ethnographic Art (not precise, because “ethnography”
refers to writings about people, thus it is a very general term)
- Indigenous Art (not precise, because not all
indigenous art is tribal, and because highland minorities are no more
indigenous than lowland majorities)
- Minority Art (not precise, because not all
minorities are tribal)
- Traditional Art (not precise, because not all
traditional art is tribal)
On the other hand, when one uses the words “tribal
art” everyone (who wants to) knows exactly what is meant.
Wikipedia states: Tribal art is an umbrella term used
to describe artefacts and objects created by the indigenous peoples of (controversially named) primitive cultures. Also known as Ethnographic art, or Arts
Primitive. Here the word “primitive” is described as controversial, but
“tribal” is not.
Until convinced otherwise, ALTACO will continue to use
the words "Tribal Art" and refer to a group of people producing this
art as a "Tribe".