On Focus: Carolyn Dean's "The Trouble with (the term) Art"

On Focus: Carolyn Dean's "The Trouble with (the term) Art" c. 2005


Full original article: https://www.bucknell.edu/documents/griotinstitute/deanarticle.pdf

Carolyn Dean
Professor of Art History at the University Of California, Santa Cruz
Author of the article

In “The Trouble with (the Term) Art” 2005, Carolyn Dean writes a compelling argument and analysis of the contemporary art history world, in which eurocentrism and western perspectives have created a one-size-fits-all terminology of the word “art” when it comes to foreign indigenous visual cultures. At first, Dean introduces the well-known controversial issue of the diction behind primitive art, but then exposes this popular debate as a cover-up from the real problem; the word “art”. Dean makes it apparent throughout her whole paper that the word “art” is not applicable to prehistoric visual cultures that measure their artistic worth differently than the western world. The author does this repeatedly, citing the indigenous cultures of Meso and South America and tribal Africa, as well as referring back to multiple credible art critics. Ultimately, Dean creates a confusing argument that is trying to identify change in the contemporary art world, hoping to “...open a conversation about how the discipline of art history all too often has, through many of its European epistemological technologies, reinforced what are in fact colonialist perspectives, judgements, and rationales.” (26).

City Plan of Cusco, Peru
Often thought to be inspired by the shape of a Puma

Dean expands on this bold claim by identifying multiple factors that come into play when coining indigenous visual cultures having “art”, including cultural worth of objects, the western demand and practices in categorizing and displaying indigenous objects, the western value and recognition of art, and the tendency to find cross-cultural artistic connections. Dean discusses the cultural worth of objects by introducing the Lega people in the Democratic Republic of Congress under the research of art historian Elizabeth Cameron, in which spiritual connection and ritual significance of an object correlates to its social standard and worth; while western art historians seem to base African object worth on intricate form rather than its original purpose (26). This continues on with the authors elaboration of anthropologist Shelly Errington’s research on western practices when acquiring indigenous art. The historic tradition of favoring indigenous objects that are portable and durable, as well as modifying masks by cleaning and structuring to be called a “sculpture”; created a set guideline for calling objects “art” that forced modification and appropriation (26). This is followed by Dean’s analysis of a personal anecdote of a video she showed to her Maya culture class, in which she analyzes the effect of the claim “this is art!” and how that triggers interest and value of the object. This choice of words when comparing a culture that has no concept of “art” creates our own classifying system of value that is imposed on these cultures. Dean’s final piece of evidence of the inapplicable term of “art” is our tendency to make cross-cultural connections between indigenous objects and modern abstractions. Where examples like Cusco’s Puma city plan are labeled as “images where the Incas likely didn't suggest”, Dean creates a very specific argument that is upheld with assumptions (28). Ultimately, Dean supports her arguments by referring credible sources from esteemed art historians and anthropologists, but contradicts herself in these citations by refusing to cite any indigenous perspectives; leaving many of her assertions questionable.

Maori tattoos
labeled as "sculpture"

I believe that Dean’s argument is overall relevant to the contemporary art history world, but it is comprised of too many assumptions and stretches to be taken as a serious study of the relationships between indigenous and western art. One of Dean’s most prevalent problems when trying to write this seemingly-convincing paper is that her bias as a western art historian is seen with her analyze of indigenous cultures. She can use as much conforming and nontraditional vocabulary as she wants, but her western perspective is still shown by her non inclusion of the indigenous perspective on many issues; mainly just relying on another western researcher’s assumptions. These assumptions, for example, Dean’s explanation of the possible significance of carves and un-carved rocks (29) and doubting the formality of the City of Cusco (28), have led to uncertainty in her line of reasoning. Additionally, Dean tends to use exaggerated pieces of evidence to support her conceptual thesis. This can be seen when Dean suggests that the Maori tattoos are labeled as sculpture, thus bringing significance to the word “sculpture” and its limits on indigenous objects that might not fit all of the regular requirements (29). When researching this bold claim, I could absolutely not find any supporting opinions on this matter; making me believe less and less in her credibility. Nevertheless, I believe that the global art community is finally reaching a consensus of identifying the western bias that is prevalent, through international talks regarding the ownership of cultural objects and the limits on the traditional art history curriculum, making this article relevant even more. When connecting to our course, I believe that many of our prehistoric and ancient civilization pieces are purely based on assumption; and our classifications of each piece, whether it be name-wise or form analyzing, is clearly defined and affected by our western views of traditional art vocabulary.


Ultimately, Dean’s analyzation of the term “art” and its limitations on foreign indigenous cultures brings and exciting and new perspective to the table. What Dean fails short upon is actually referring back to indigenous perspectives, and is in turn basing her argument on western assumptions of these cultures. Whether we will ever know the proper and appropriate name for “art” is probable or not, Dean’s western perspective of this issue is a deep dive into a matter not in their appropriate judgement, which can be perfectly summarized by modern the slang political term of being “fake woke”.