Sunday, October 19, 2008

RESPONSE

The idea of anonymity as mentioned beforehand is similar to the idea of latent—in that there is a certain dimension present yet unrecognizable (phenomenally) in the emergence to being (the compounding of a certain existent and its existence) of a particular phenomenal-based knowledge such as that which might be determined by the relations identified between traditional ‘moko’ and a certain popular context. I think this is a case of appreciating from the outset the essentiality of intangible dimensions in the existence of a certain phenomenon.

If the distinctions made by the two ‘moko’ artists are based on the relations between separate cultural dimensions with regards to ‘fashion accessory’ versus ‘cultural statement’ then I think it begs from the outset the in-depth understanding of essential reasons behind appropriation. So that the distinctions are already from the outset anonymously emerge out of an already determined dialogue between the idea of a traditional ‘moko’ dimension and the image of which is posited as the essential source of the statements ‘cultural statement’ and ‘fashion accessory’.

Here’s where I don’t think its viable to even make such distinctions since, for many young people, ‘cultural statement’ is also a ‘fashion accessory’ with regards to the significance of inked-skins. Both are intertwined and stylistically weaved into a dynamic mechanism of identity processing.

A cultural statement in itself is externalised partly through an appeal to fashion and aesthetics. A fashion accessory is itself implemented in servitude of a certain statement emerging from weaved fibres of the individual and the context(s) in which he or she occupies.

The context here is many and multi-dimensional. It is in one aspect represented by the ‘moko’ itself in that its availability determines the kind of context(s) or field from which one draws. We move closer to a context imbued with various elements and their availability defines the resistance to cultural protocols and historical confinements.

Thursday, October 2, 2008

Response continue

Response continue

I think its important to note that what these two artists are on about is right in the sense that an element perhaps quite sacred and valuably treasured by a certain people should be fundamentally acknowledged prior to one’s own utilization of it—regardless of reasons for using it. I believe that an element dynamically attached to a system in a sacred and profound ways should therefore be treated at least with the same level of value before appropriation. However, I also believe that this act is impossible in that to understand the values attached to it in its original historical and cultural soil is only possible through a certain consciousness shaped, mentally and spiritually coherent with that specific cultural soil of origin.

Hence, we should begin our criticism with the question whether there is any sense of recognition inherent in the process of appropriation. This is a question directed at those looking to utilize a certain fundamental element such as moko to their own personal (and also perhaps cultural) needs. There, we can determine whether there is respect and value inducing some elements of this process. To conclude that people’s appropriation of elements such as moko is purely for fashion is perhaps quite misleading in that such claims needs to be uttered from a context already informed of reasons behind appropriation. For, we might not even know that moko’s disseminations within a popular cultural mechanism (and paradigm) is induced by some senses of respect and value not identifiable from the outset but which perhaps also remains anonymous—I am using the idea of ‘anonymous’ closely to Levians’ interpretation in ‘Existence and Existents’ (1947).

To be cont…

Response

Fashion Accessory or Cultural Statement?

I am already aware of the fact that I am making a statement based on a media report and to make conclusive judgements on these two traditional Moko artists based solely on it would be unfair. However, I am not making judgements on the entirety of the written report; just the above statements regarding reasons behind people's interest in traditional Maori Moko-whether its therefore perceived as a 'fashion accessory' as opposed to a 'cultural statement'.

Firstly, fashion accessory for me is still a cultural statement; and I think we should be sensitive to the complexities of popular cultures rather than the widely spread criticism based on preconceptions suggesting as well as assuming the elements (especially visual) of such a mechanism as having no attachment to a particular history or cultural paradigm.

Sure popular culture can be criticised as holding little attachment, respect and therefore obligations to elements of morality and ethics based or emerging from a certain and overarching historical and cultural dimension; yet, do we also take into considerations the idea that at some point of the genealogical thread of our own cultural history, our ancestors also engaged with elements initially outside their own systematic understandings? That at some point or level of what has been handed down to us as a people giving force (and vice versa) to a certain cultural dimension, were things accepted by our ancestors based predominantly on their aesthetic and visual qualities?

I am not supposing a certain standpoint which disregards Maori values (as I do hold a great deal of respect to this culture and their mana); rather, I think it’s not enough for us to just say that the ways in which our own cultural elements (fundamental to our own existence as a culture) has been accepted and re-utilized out there in a paradigm other than our own should remain within the same scope of value we ourselves assign to it. Is it enough to just say that moko that has been inked on people other than our own is merely fashion? Or, has our moko become something other than we have historically utilized it within our very own system of values? Has it transformed into an embodiment of another system of value? This, I think is the case!!

Popular cultures (and I am speaking here about those which has been consistently consumed by people in close relations to the media as a kind of aesthetic as well as identity source) shouldn’t be firstly perceived through a binary-glass; where we tend to (perhaps unconsciously) bestow our own systematic values upon it and therefore in cases where what we are engaging with don’t seem to fit in accordance to our own sense of values, we look upon it as lacking the same principles with which we are gazing.

I will talk about this idea of fashion accessory as an essential element of cultural statement—as two sides of the same coin in the next post…Perhaps justify what I had just claimed since it really does seems as if it is expressed in a quite disrespectful tone with regards to Maori culture and heritage--something which I greatly admire and respect fully

How widespread is Moko on non-Maori?

--taken from tv3 site--
http://www.3news.co.nz/News/HowwidespreadisMokoonnonMaori/tabid/423/articleID/74221/Default.aspx?_cobr=MSN

How widespread is Moko on non-Maori?

Is it possible to copyright a culture? And can Maori protect the unique art form of Tau Moko from exploitation? Two Maori Moko artists have travelled to London for Te Uhi a Mataora - a group of Maori artists backed by Toi Maori - to look at how widespread the use of Moko has become. They are on a fact-finding mission but at the same time they want to spread the word that Moko is so much more than just a cool tattoo.

The International Tatoo convention is where all manner of weird and wonderful skin art and skin artists are on show. In amongst all this twenty first century body work are Richard Francis of Te Arawa and Patrick Takoko, Ngati Porou, exponents of the ancient Maori art of Tau Moko. They are here on a cultural mission in search of the inappropriate use of Moko

"Just been here half a day now and we've seen a lot of Moko on non-Maori people walking around so that's a sure indication that it's really popular within the mainstream now," says Ta Moko artist Richard Francis,

True Moko was originally a sign of great mana, a highly personal expression, often depicting the story of a person's journey through life.

But because it can so easily be copied Europeans and Americans are walking around with Mt Taranaki on their shoulder or the Waimakariri across their back, without realising it.

"I suppose the concern that I have is that designs are used inappropriately and they become culturally insensitive in a sense….where a Moko Kowhai which is a Moko design that is predominately used on females. It is inappropriate to see that in on a male, and there are lots of incidents around here where those sorts of activities happen," says Ta Moko artist Patrick Takoko.

None-the-less, there are many non-Maori who wear Moko, singer Robbie Williams is one. Another is American singer Ben Harper, while French designer Jean Paul Gaultier used the art form to promote his collection, each case prompted debates about cultural sensitivity.

"I think one's job as a Moko artist is that they create advocates for the art form. People like Ben Harper seem to be on the right track. I don't know too much about Robbie Williams being on the right track in terms of the way he talks about what he's got, and what he's adorned his body with," says Takoko.
They are not here to behave like the ‘Moko Police’, but Francis and Takoko are looking through as many portfolios as they can from Europe and America, to see just how widespread the reproduction of Moko has become.

They expected to find it being used as a fashion accessory, rather than a cultural statement. Surprisingly what they have found is tatooists are prepared to learn about the true meaning of the Moko.

"I don't copy Maori stuff on non-Maori people. I make them their own variations or designs. If they bring me something, a design, I say forget about it, go," explains one tattoo artist.

The reality is there is no way to control the copying of Moko.. But what they can do is promote appropriate use of it. So they've invented a specific style of tattoo for non-Maori.

"We reserve our Moko patterns for our own people within our own iwi, but for non-Maori we have a set of patterns that we call kirituhi that they receive, and they may tell a story and resemble a Moko but it's not the tribal patterns that we reserve for our own," says Francis.

Protecting the honour of Ta Moko is no easy mission, but the global meeting place of tattooists is as good a place as any to start spreading the message

"Just bringing back the integrity, the integrity of the art form so that people are wearing Moko now back home and being proud to be Maori," says Francis, proudly.

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...