For instance, to speak more literally of “frames,” before I even noticed the conspicuous absence of artist names w/ objects (or their inconspicuous presence, as you contend), I was dismayed that it was quite unclear — as in the case of the “TV” photo — who did the various levels of framing: who took the picture, who had it taken, who put it into the painted wooden frame in which it appears, who “collected” it and when, why?? I don’t think these questions are asking too much, but perhaps they are. I just found a lot of context lacking, and as such, that the message of the exhibition seemed inherently compromised. If this exhibition is about public outreach and education of a sort, I think it could go further in making people reconsider their conceptual frames. That remains my critique, based on my experience, overlooked details notwithstanding. That may sound like a harsh verdict. But it’s only mine. (Though I should say that the person accompanying me seemed to agree, so I guess that’s 4 attentive eyes that failed to SEE the details.) And it’s only here on this little blog. I’m sure your write-ups in the papers and such are far less critical.

At any rate, I’ll get in touch (though I’m not sure how to send an email offline), and I apologize for the mislabeling (!), though perhaps that explains some differences in conceptual framing (&it certainly recontextualizes the use of “anthropologists” in the description) — will correct above.

As for “problematic” as a noun, you’re right, that’s as bad as “trouble” as a verb. (Not “troubling,” which is at least part of the non-academic vernacular.) I suppose I could have said “problem,” but I somehow wanted to signify that it’s a complex of problems? I dunno. I try to strive for precision as much as poetry, and often I hit neither!

&w/r/t anonymizing some of my (email-based) sources/interlocutors here on the blog, I usually do so in order to respect people’s wishes to keep themselves, or certain semi-private correspondence, ungooglable, if you will. It is a form of protection as well as explicit acknowledgment. I don’t think it’s nearly the same thing as the kind of anonymity applied in the conventional presentation of African or “primitive” art. I suspect that most artists, if they consider/describe themselves as such and know that their pieces are being presented in an art gallery, would choose not to be anonymous.

In general, I would prefer that people allow me to cite them by name (or comment as themselves themselves), but I know by experience that a good many people with something interesting to say prefer not to say it on the internet (or have it associated directly with them). Too bad, for any number of reasons. (Then again, there are the advantages/possibilities of avatars, jokenames, etc., which I wouldn’t want to rule out.)

Hoping the conversation can continue. Onwards and sideways –

It appears that there would be no unproblematic way to do an exhibit like this one because we neither want to reify nor ignore the differences in perception and practice between the artists and the audience. Your critque centers on the idea that western art audiences appreciate african art only when it is given a particular gloss. You suggest a partial solution that seems to boil down to presenting the artists more like we would present western artists. sk comes back with the observation that treating these artists like western artists perhaps imposes an equally distorting gloss. The history of presentation of african art to western audiences is the 800 pound gorilla in the room that, you argue, must explicitly acknowleged to the viewers of the exhibit. This responsibility, I think you rightly claim, rests on the shoulders of the presenter of the exhibit. I wonder what you would recommend to a curator. How should the implicit and unavoidable gloss be presented to a non-anthropologist audience? And, in the end, are we really talking about making sure that the artists are treated fairly in an economic sense regardless of representation? That is, being appropriately compensated in both $ and social capital?

And, um, for those non-anthropologists among us, is there import to the noun-use of the adjective “problematic” as opposed to the more straightforward noun-use of the noun “trouble”? Isn’t that even weirder than the past-participle use of “troubling”, which does seem to actually be grammatical, if metaphorical in the sense in which you use it? I’m a fan of new coinage–lexical stasis is, quite literally, an inhuman goal–but what does it mean?

And you’re right, Deborah. I totally missed those names. (And when I asked the people working the table at the front how I could find out who made a lot of the art on display, they didn’t/couldn’t point them out to me. But they did ask me if I wanted to buy a handsome Drums2Digital mousepad — the proceeds from which go where exactly?) I appreciate that you make such gestures, if, I must say, somewhat inconspicuously (I mean, I was looking) — and I was glad to see the video component — but I think my critique still stands. Mr.Motorola looms large, as do you. The framing of most of the pieces, and of the entire exhibition, seems pretty old school despite the sheen of the new.

I make this critique in good faith, just as, I’m sure, you present your exhibition in good faith. The general problematic I describe here, as I note with my turn to “world music” at the end, continues to inform representations of Africa and the non-Western world more broadly. I didn’t mean to offend or attack you, Deborah. I know that we all get rather invested in (and tied up with) our work and I’m sure that a great deal of work went into Africa.Dot.Com.

Finally, I just want to say that, judging by the subtexts of both of your comments, I’m really not out to fetishize the INDIVIDUAL here. I have no problem with communal art, with nameless art, with “outsider” art, with art that doesn’t want to call itself art, or with non-art. I do have a problem, though, with status quo notions of self/other, West/rest, etc./et al. And ultimately, I think that, for all their productive qualities (challenging stereotypes and all that), the mediations of labels like Sublime Frequencies or of this exhibit tend to shore up rather than tear down the spurious social divisions that continue to structure our world.

“In this day&age, it is hard to believe that there’s no way to bring actual individual African voices — voices with names and faces and dreams and bank accounts — into an art gallery here in Chicago”

Well, the INDIVIDUAL voices, names, AND faces of Gerard Atomkouri, Rim a Rim Idrisson, and Okala Ebode are projected on the 8′ x 8′ installation of ‘Beepez-le’, as they discuss in their own voices, the concept of culturally specific communication through coded systems. In addition, a transcription of the entire text is made available to take by anyone viewing the exhibition.

-e

Also, thank you for such a constantly interesting blog. I am soon finishing a BA in sociology with hopes of graduate school and academic career, and your blog has been constantly useful in indulging both musically obsessive and intellectually excited sides of my personality. I feel more certain now about being able to fuse personal and academic interests as a result. Thank You!
Zack