Edward Curtis was one of the most famous American photographers, and the most well known documenter of native american, and american indian cultures during the turn of the century into the fourties. He took tens of thousands of photographs, many of which have become icons of american indian culture. Curtis' relationships with the indian groups characterise the "going native" ideals from the reading. My question is, with his images coming to truly "represent" american indian culture, are we getting a relatively unbiased view of these cultures through his photographs, or does he do them no justice?
1 comment:
This artist kind of reminds me of C.F. Goldie, who I studied in relation to Maori people in New Zealand. Goldie was a skilled painter, but a controversial figure in New Zealand history. He painted Maori tribespeople with startling accuracy, but upon reflection is now accused of having a rather stereotypical and racist undertones to his work. Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia article about him:
"Goldie's work has been criticised as "racist", and certainly he held the Victorian attitudes he had grown up with that the Māori were a "dying race" and in many ways inferior to Europeans. However, many Māori value his images of their ancestors highly." (for more, go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Goldie)
White artists' depictions of Native people are almost always influenced by their ideology and stereotypes. In both of these cases, the artist's attempt to capture the "noble savage" is in a small way honorable, but they are guilty of both exoticizing indigenous peoples and promoting the idea of natives a dying race. They aim to capture the native people before they fade into obscurity to make way for the European population.
Post a Comment