In his article “Taranaki Gothic and the Political Economy of New Zealand Narrative and Sensibility” sociologist David Craig creates a discourse between New Zealand’s economic history and our national identity, as presented in our art, literature and film. Craig describes “gothic” as our primary national narrative, a direct result of our semi-peripheral economy.
The notion of “gothic” applies comfortably to writers like Ronald Hugh Morrieson and Bill Pearson, and can be used to describe some of New Zealand’s most notable films, as depicted in the 1995 documentary, Cinema of Unease. Craig emphasises the presence of psychological discomfort in the ideas about ourselves that we like to sell to others, offering a pigeonhole for New Zealand artists to exist within.
Craig refers to the “provincialism problem,” a term first coined by Australian art-historian Terry Smith in 1974. Closely associated with cultural cringe and concepts of colonial mentality, the provincialism problem presents a choice between two poor alternatives for artists: by following the aesthetic fashions of the mature cultures, artists are dubbed “provincial imitators,” but by showing freshness and originality, artists in peripheral cultures appear naïve and unaware of global norms. (Craig 26)
The conversation about this idea exists in many societies, not just in New Zealand, which suggests a global contextualisation of the search for national identity that Craig’s article ignores. Australia, particularly, has been a active in examining their own cultural cringe, with exhibitions like 1984’s An Australian Accent at The Art Gallery of New South Wales. New Zealand traditionally positions itself against Australia when attempting to describe and define its identity - ""the little country that couldn't" myth that stands in doubtful relief to "the little country that could."" (Craig 20) Despite this, it is likely artists working within both countries face similar hurdles in establishing their creative practice.
In Smith’s 1974 article he described a model for contemporary art where all art has to “funnel through” the world’s artistic centres before it has a chance to signify “cultural change” – even of the culture back home. (Smith 56) New Zealand requires some acceptance from the dominant culture before it can accept its own worth – Craig describes this with the image of "hobbits" waiting for a "plausible visiting guru," probably a wizard. (Craig 24)
Smith states, "far from encouraging innocent art of naïve purity, untainted by “too much history and too much thinking,” provincialism, in fact, produces highly self-conscious art, “obsessed with the problem of what its identity ought to be.”" (Smith 56)
Thus, he suggests, the real issue that exists for provincial artists is finding a way to allow their art to escape this “relentless entrapment” that “the provincial artist cannot chose not to be provincial.” (Smith 59)
Craig makes little reference to contemporary art - only noting that "yes it can still be dark here" in relation to the work of Peter Robinson, Jacqueline Fraser and Mike Stevenson for recent Venice Biennales (Craig 36). Much of his rhetoric is concerned with earlier work - the aesthetic of Landfall in the 1970s and the work of Colin McCahon, which Craig uses to tidily explain his ideas. The hope is here that the pigeonhole exists less as the global art scene and ideas of national identity change.
References:
Craig, David. “Taranaki Gothic and the Political Economy of New Zealand Narrative and Sensibility” New Zealand Sociology volume 20 number 2 (2005) pp. 18-40
Hughes, Robert. The Art of Australia Harmondsworth, England (1970) p. 31
Smith, Terry. “The Provincialism Problem” Art Forum volume 13 number 1 (September 1974) pp. 54-59
http://www.nzonscreen.com/title/cinema-of-unease-1995
Jane, I was interested in the point you made about other countries having to deal with the "cultural cringe". The frustration of having to deal with our own search for identity in NZ often makes it feel as though we are infact the only ones who suffer from it. It is relevant to mention that we are not the only ones.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I still feel frustrated... Call me delusional but I often pick up on an almost smothering vibe of oppression and a needy desire to be noticed in New Zealand. One thing I noticed from my two years in Australia was how easy it was to live there. People didn't take themselves too seriously, they knew how to have fun. The place felt wide open, like a land of opportunity. Upon returning to NZ I became depressed by the anti-climax like vibe of surly stand-off posturing that seemed to circulate like a bad smell. I would not want people to think I were bad mouthing New Zealand. I am a citizen, I grew up here, it is my home. I do, however, feel that for a country that plays up the image of the hard working, beer drinking, rugby enthusiasts many of us demand to be taken a little too seriously.
Getting back to the provincial problem, I believe what separates us from Australia is the fact that Australians (generally speaking) seem to accept who and what they are and get on with life where as New Zealanders (in general) often seem to be waiting around petulantly for some sort of back-slap, compliment or acknowledgement from someone out there. As I said in my blog on the same subject, being in with the rest of the action around the world means you have to stop segregating yourself from it. I believe a lot of New Zealand has a hard time letting this guard down. You pointed out yourself that "New Zealand traditionally positions itself against Australia when attempting to describe and define its identity". This is certainly true but it reinforces this desperate compusion we feel to separate ourselves from the herd. The next time an uninformed tourist asks me if New Zealand and Australia are the same country I might just laugh and say "Yes". I'm sure it would be quite liberating to let go.
Perhaps I'm just rambling here and I take comfort in the fact that, like me, you think our national identity could infact change. I do worry though that we might not live to see any significant change. Small changes have already occured but given we are a very young country I imagine a change of any signicance will take some time. What do you think Jane? I also like that you pointed out that Craig made little reference to contemporary art. Could you think of any examples of contemporary NZ art work that you think might seriously flaw Craig's position on the Taranaki Gothic label?
In response to Toby'd idea that what separates us from Australia is the fact that Australians (generally speaking) seem to accept who and what they are and get on with life where as New Zealanders (in general) often seem to be waiting around petulantly for some sort of back-slap, compliment or acknowledgement from someone out there. - There is a lot of evidence to suggest that Austalians are just a affected by a 'cultural cringe' as New Zealanders are; in the same way that perhaps any post-colonial nation would be affected.Even the small fact that the term 'Convict Stain' is in common usage indicates that there is a depth of anti-heritage sentiment I'll attach a few links to articles about how a sense of unease in regards to identity affects contemporary life Australia.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/10/1974488.htm
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/18/1092765013665.html
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/measuring-the-cultural-cringe-20100122-mpvs.html
http://blogs.brisbanetimes.com.au/yoursay/archives/2009/01/the_proud_austr.html
I do consider that general attitudes in New Zealand and Australia may be quite different - however, in regards to David Craig's article, although the stereotypes for New Zealand and Australia may be not be the same, it is likely they are just as limiting for artists working within their confines.
ReplyDelete