by Ernie Stanley
Reviewing Sam Gill's description of the Navajo process of sandpainting I am struck by several distinct contrasts to the civilized notion of art and painting.
First, is the notion that I must use process when describing a sandpainting, because painting in the sand for the Navajo shaman is not designed to create a work of art, as painting in western society is. The purpose of Navajo sandpainting is to heal a person.
Second, I am struck by the fact that a sandpainting must be destroyed by sunset. Imagine if the great artists of our time destroyed their works of art after completing them. Instead most attempt to sell them to galleries or private collectors. I think that this puts emphasis on the artist, and painting rather than the subject of the painting.
Lastly I consider that the two previous contrasts are the result of literacy vs. orality. The oral consciousness is indebted to the human lifeworld, thus the art they create has a purpose which is found in the process. The literate consciousness, is afforded abstraction, because it is able to record abstract categories outside of memory. Thus painting becomes a different activity in "Civilized" cultures, one that is unconcerned with the human lifeworld
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
well an idea to hold onto in regards to the painting to be destroyed at night is- that if this painting (a portal between the shaman and individual indirectly) is left in it's location over time, other spirits can go through it.
once it has been created, the portal is then created. so in theory, in order for the portal to be closed, the painting itself has to be destroyed. if the portal is left open unattended, there is no telling what could happen. you could have another tribe's witch stumble across it, or have a spirit go through it, doing whatever it wants to do to that individual.
-Jason Rowley
Post a Comment