The right
to voice—both one’s own as well as the voices of others—has long been a problem
in the Western world. While previously, the voices of minority groups were
ignored if not entirely denied, the problem now seems to be who has the right
to represent the voices of certain groups. The problem to right to voice seems
to be especially problematic with regards to modern Native American groups.
In the
past, the Native voice was entirely disregarded, as the history of the U.S. and
Native groups is littered with broken treaties, stolen land, and genocide. The
problem of Native voice now, however, seems to be a conflict of who has the
right to represent the needs and desires of Native groups. While many Native
groups are not only willing but also desirous of the ability to speak for
themselves, they seem to be continually hushed. While the art world is particularly sensitive to the needs of these artists, their progression in the arena still highlights core problems.
Undoubtedly,
Native American artists have come a long way from the heyday of the Santa Fe
Indian School, where their needs and abilities as artists were dictated by the
white director of the school. Yet, unfortunately, it seems that Native groups
still have some way to go before they obtain sovereignty in the art world. This
problem arises at the MAD Museum’s Changing Hands exhibit. While the exhibit undoubtedly progresses the field of Native art and is considerate the needs of Native American artists, it still works to illuminate how much work needs to be done.
The three
part exhibit aimed to be progressive in its showing of modern Native Art. Surely, it is more progressive than most. It allows the artists to present their works as they choose, and to give their own artists' statements. While the exhibit tends to discourage tribal affiliation, it accommodates artists that express tribal affiliation as particularly important. Yet,
there is some irony in the curators of the ‘progressive’ exhibit, advocating
Native sovereignty and presence, being a middle-aged white man and woman. While the curators seemed particularly adapt and sensitive to the rights and needs of their artists, it still begs the question of why Native Americans aren't running their own exhibits, or why they aren't fully integrated into the art world without being isolated as Native artists. It seemed
to indicate the notion that, yes, Native Americans still exist, and can adapt
to the times, but their voice is better represented by us. It is surely a
marvel that the charge for Native groups to transcend stereotypes and other
boundaries is led by non-Natives. The sub-title of one of the exhibit’s events
is particularly striking: “We Are Still Here”. Well certainly, Native groups
are. But why is it Ellen Taubman and David McFadden declaring
it?
