|
Nigeria is a
cultural bazaar. The same can be said about her rich art tradition
in terms of stylistics. In the aftermath of postmodernism, when it
remains fashionable for artists to return to their roots and history
in search of an identity, Nigerian art, like much of other African
art, has become very eclectic indeed. This diversity also derives
from the fact that Nigeria has many universities, polytechnics and
colleges of education which offer art as a course of study, a factor
that is non-existent in most other countries of Africa, especially
among Nigeria’s francophone neighbours. These schools of higher
learning impact positively and negatively on art in Nigeria through
their curricula and ideologies. And this is very important in
discussing any major issue on art in relation to Nigeria. Unlike
most of her neighbours, Nigerian artists are largely products of
academic systems which retain art as a branch of scholarship. About
90% of artists in Nigeria have received academic training in their
specialties, whereas in some countries, the reverse seems to
prevail.1
No doubt, European
perverted purists, who believe that art in Africa is an all-comers
affair would frown at university-trained artists, but the feeble
logic of tainted and untainted art is perforated by the fact that it
is not only art that is “tainted” by the colonial intercourse in
Africa. If indeed we concede any art of Africa to be tainted simply
because its producer was ground in the mill of Western education,
then it logically follows that all Africa is “tainted”, as there are
no aspects of living not affected by Europeanization. The erroneous
model of African art still held among some scholarly circles in the
Occident is a product of the Occident’s hegemonic, supremacist
perception of itself in relation to the others, a situation
that was reinforced for many years -- until recently -- by the
West-led colonialist anthropological discourse.
Nigeria’s art ecology is
replete with subsistence artists whose principal perception of art
is that of a “meal ticket”. But it is not an isolated case. All
over the world, art has been used to address extra-artistic issues
and problems, including those bordering on economics and mundane
subsistence. Every art tradition has its heroes and its charlatans.
In Nigeria, as elsewhere, the charlatans are many. But a vanguard
of highly committed artists has equally ensured very high standards.
Without denying the preponderance of mercantilism which is the bane
of every profession in Africa in the face of the economic downturn
and social disasters, art in Nigeria can be said to be fairly
professionalized. However, the issue of professionalization is one
that cannot be discussed outside the prevailing realities of the
Nigerian geography. The social condition in Nigeria, as in much of
Africa, does not encourage any sustainable pursuit of
professionalism or excellence. The survival-of-the-fittest syndrome
which dictates the dynamics of living in these parts is not strange
in the art circles. Hence, some of Nigeria’s most successful artists
and critics are those domiciled in the West.
Nigerian Art and the Politics of Development
What is generally
regarded as modern Nigerian art is a by-product of the colonial
encounter. It began in Lagos through the creative exertions of
Aina Onabolu, the first easel painter in West Africa. Onabolu’s art
was only modern in the sense that it broke away from the
traditional, nay, classical paradigm. Otherwise, Onabolu’s was a
representational project, consisting mainly in portraiture. Rather,
it was Ben Enwonwu, the first African artist to achieve
international renown, who brought some modest radicalism to Nigerian
art with the encouragement of his expatriate teacher, Kenneth
Murray.2
But further
modernist radicalisation of Nigerian art was to occur in 1958 in the
hands of some young students at the Nigerian College of Arts,
Science and Technology (NCAST), Zaria. These visionary art students
included Uche Okeke, Simon Okeke, Bruce Onobrakpeya, Demas Nwoko,
Yusuf Grillo, William Olaosaebokan, F.N. Ekeada, Okechukwu Odita,
E.N. Nwagbara, among others. Through their works (mainly painting)
and their informal group which they named the Zaria Art Society,
they engineered the first critical departure from normative art in
Nigeria. Although it could be argued that the ideology of the Zaria
Art Society lacked novelty since it was merely an exploitation of a
pattern already initiated by Enwonwu, it remains significant for the
fact that it was fully home-grown, having arisen from the euphoria
of nationalism which pervaded Nigeria in those dying years of
colonisation. To this extent, it has also been argued that
Zarianism was political at heart and that it only explored the
culture-artistic angle of the nationalist/independence struggle in
Nigeria.3
Politics apart, the Zaria
artists continued to make significant impact on the Nigerian
landscape beyond their Zaira experience and activities at various
levels in addition to engaging in highly professional practice.
Thus, they have been able to influence a large number of artists as
pioneers in the field of modern Nigerian art.
The interesting thing
about the pioneers of Nigerian modernism, including Onabolu and
Enwonwu,4 is their composite creative sensibility, which
enabled them to excel in every ramification of art. Most of them
were writers, poets, critics, teachers, theorists and gallerists in
addition to being painters or sculptors. Thus, it is to them that we
owe much of the initial writing on Nigerian. In fact, it is to them
that we owe the dynamism of Nigeria’s modernism.
Up until the present, the
artist-critic-historian tendency initiated by the pioneers has
survived. Although professionally-trained critics and historians
have appeared on the scene since the 1980s, some of Nigeria’s most
active critics and theorists today are people who received their art
training in the studio areas of art. Generally, however, the reality
of the African environment, with the lacklustre art-culture
infrastructure, makes extra demands on the artists. Not only that.
The preponderance of highly mercantile galleries, the absence of
stable, focused, and professionalised museums have not helped
matters. In most cases, therefore, the typical African artist is a
jack of all trade saddled with the misfortune of multiple
professional lives which he/she often has to live at the risk of
non-excellence. In this regard, Nigerian art is not an exception.
Although the country may boast of the largest number of artists,
historians, and critics, given the relatively large number of
universities, polytechnics, and colleges of education (most of which
offer art courses), it shares in the peripheral attention which is
the bane of modern art in Africa. Only few of the artists live a
committed professional life. Even much fewer art historians and
critics do practice; for the majority of art historians, their
training and qualification, are merely cosmetic and only serve the
basic mundane purpose of subsistence.5 Although many of
Nigeria’s most successful art critics have tended to operate
outside the country -- mainly in Europe and America -- Nigerian
art has enjoyed a professionalised critical tradition in the course
of its development. However, whether this has made enough impact on
the art production remains another matter. After all, criticism does
not run parallel to art. If anything, it is the palm oil with which
art is to be eaten.
What is Art Criticism?
The notion of art
criticism is not alien to Africa. Criticism was central to the
classical African art traditions, albeit, at a very informal level.
Like art itself, it was an experience that was shared by everyone.
The art audience in pre-contact Africa was not usually a passive
one. Its reactions and observations were germane to the shaping of
the vision and imagination of the artist. Excellence in art was
easily applauded; the finest artists were the most sought after. In
traditional Igbo society, for instance, the most creative carvers
were well celebrated in the community; the best uli6
women painters were honoured in songs and their services were in
high demand. As Eziafo Okaro, an uli painter, told me
recently:
Nke mụnwa bụ Eziafọ
Agbaelo, bụ n’ọnye m delụ uli pụta raa n’ọfala igwe, mgbe igwe
n’agba ọfala, a sị ya, Eweee! Ọkwọ Eziafọ Agbaelo delụ ọnyea uli. A
gbakọnyọ n’ebefu…A n’ẹnẹnẹ ụdị uli edel’ye n’arụ…7
Thus, appreciation and
criticism belonged to the public domain the way art also belonged
there. There was no hard and fast rules regarding aesthetics, art
appreciation and interpretation. The ability to create and
appreciate art was not the monopoly of a select few. Art in the
traditional setting was a virile means to cultural democracy.
But the notion of art and
art criticism changed diametrically from this pattern with the
advent of colonisation. The colonial system of education transformed
art into a branch of scholarship, and criticism became one of the
ancillary courses of study. No doubt, the phenomenon of colonisation
engendered the nihilist process of normalization and Westernization
which have thrived on their own tendentious capacity to impose a
Euro-American visage on non-Western cultures and traditions within
the bounds of the negativizing tendencies of otherisation and
the neo-colonising concept of globalisation.
The emergence of
formally-trained artists in Nigeria, for instance, coupled with the
rise of the new Western style art consecrating institutions, such as
galleries, exhibition centres, and museums, brought a sense of
esotericism to art and other complementary enterprises. Today, art
in Nigeria, as in most African countries, is not readily a means to
cultural democracy, but an elitist experience in its training,
production, and enjoyment. Africa’s poor sense of social development
has also helped to glorify raw politics over and above every other
human endeavour. This scenario has flagrantly dislodged art from the
centre where it originally belonged and placed it on the fringe. As
art has become a luxury in post-colonial Africa, so also has its
audience shrunk significantly. This has not augured very well for
criticism as an art-related engagement. If art and artists have
become elitist in Nigeria, for example, the situation is much worst
for art criticism and critics. There are much fewer critics than
there should be for a thriving art tradition like Nigeria's. In most
cases, art criticism is often misconstrued and ill-appreciated. So
in the modern sense, who is a critic and what are the expectations
of the art community from such a person?
Fundamentally, art
criticism may be defined as that branch of art scholarship which
deals with the hermeneutics of art. Although art criticism is often
misconstrued as an exercise in fault-finding, it is rather engaged
with the creative and insightful appreciation of a work of art for
the purposes of analysis and interpretation. Criticism could be
broadly divided into four parts: constructive criticism, destructive
criticism, detective criticism, sympathetic criticism, and
totalitarian criticism. These are not water-tight compartments, nor
do they encode hard and fast principles which the critic must aspire
to. In practical terms, criticism is merely an open market to which
everyone can bring his/her wares, but the wares and their prices
ought to have a human face, for as Protagoras insists, "Man is the
measure of all things."
Criticism’s human face is
to be seen in its relation to the artist and his/her work. While it
is logical that destructive criticism, as the name implies, can be
inimical to the growth of the artist and, by implication, the
tradition to which he/she belongs, sympathetic criticism is often
deceptive and harbours very adverse tendencies also. Detective
criticism sets itself the task of unfolding every experience that
has gone into the work of art. But is it ever possible to unearth
every psychological ingredient that underlies the work of art? This
can be very difficult and at times useless, except when it aims at
providing unhindered access to the inner essences of the work in
question and the personality of the artist, with a view to
facilitating verstehen. Thus for criticism to become a
meaningful gauge for art, it has to be constructive without being
palliative; it should also serve as a bridge between art and the
history of art.
In Nigeria, much of the
art criticism is hardly constructive and this is due to many
factors. There is no training in art criticism in Nigeria. The few
professional critics are either artists or art historians. Another
group of art critics comprises mainly art-culture journalists who
mostly have very minimal understanding of the meaning and dynamics
of art. The most curious of these factors, perhaps, is the fact that
most Nigerian artists, as in some other parts of Africa, do not
appreciate criticism, especially when it is not overtly sympathetic.
Many artists are totalitarian in thinking and outlook and do not
appreciate the position of the critic as a creative watch dog. They
believe in the beginning and end of their own experience and
judgment and cannot afford to have their creative works critically
interrogated.
In modern times,
criticism has become as sophisticated and complicated as art itself.
Although its continuance depends on the existence of art, it also
relies on the availability of some extra-artistic determinants in
its role as art’s purveyor. In this regard, newspapers, magazines
and journals are very useful. But in this era when the Internet has
changed the face and heart of the modern world, the critic faces
more challenges if he/she is to be heard and seen in the fleeting
and often cacophonic world of art. And the challenges are daunting,
given the socio-economic reality in these parts which has not
allowed any real development to take place in most spheres of human
endeavour, excepting, perhaps, the economics of politics and
soldiery. In other words, criticism of Nigerian art is as
under-developed as the country itself. It lags far behind the art
and is partly responsible for the inability of art and artists in
the Nigerian to realize their full potentials in spite of the huge
promise and expectation in the last two decades.
For art criticism to
succeed it should not be an end in itself. It is part of the
creative process and is as creative as the actual production of the
work of art. It is criticism that enables art to attain its dialogic
goals. In that sense, it is one of the consecrative processes of art
and a function and a relation, that is, in the sense that it is not
carried on for its own sake. The measure of its usefulness depends
on its impact on the individual talent and the general tradition.
Factors/Issues in Art Criticism in Nigeria
Criticism as the driving force of art depends on the prevailing
realities - both artistic and otherwise - in the pursuit of its
goals. Of course, it cannot thrive on nothing. The presence of
artists is highly important. The kind of work they produce will
also affect the quality and thrust of criticism. Consecrating
agencies and institutions, such as museums, galleries, and cultural
centres must be in place and should be alive to their roles and
responsibilities. Then there should be such purveyors of discourse
as the print and electronic media, publishing houses with interest
in art, and organised discursive forums (e.g. conferences and
symposia) where art could be critically discussed. Above all these,
trained and untrained critics in a given art landscape should be
active enough to animate the fields of both practice and critical
theory and lead the crucial debates from which art history draws.
In Nigeria, all these factors abound in varying degrees, but they
seem to be lacking in effectiveness. Although it could be said that
relative to some other African countries the Nigerian art scene is
more vibrant, the recurrent question here is whether the vibrancy
has been sustained. Beyond crass studio practice, art criticism and
other aspects of theorisation are yet to be fully developed.
This situation can be traced to the art training curricula which
tend to glorify studio art over theory. Most universities and
polytechnics have what they call “Department of Fine and Applied
Arts” whose curricula are highly functional in nature. Most of these
schools offer specialization option in art history in addition to
the core studio areas in Fine and Applied Arts, but never art
criticism. In most cases, criticism is taken as a lean course at
the undergraduate level as one of the theory courses. At the
University of Nigeria, Nsukka for instance, art criticism is a
300-level course. Only very few students ultimately make use of
knowledge gained in the course in the course of their development as
artists. For others, art criticism as a course of study or a factor
in the propagation of art has little or no meaning.
But in some very strange way, Nigeria has been
fortunate in its critical tradition, at least relatively. There are
a good number of artists in the history of Nigerian art who have
been able to combine practice with theorisation. The tradition goes
back to the times of Aina Onabolu, Enwonwu and the radicals of the
Zaria Art Society. The phenomenon later crystallised at the
University of Nigeria, Nsukka, where Prof Uche Okeke, one of the
Zaria radicals took up a teaching appointment and was head of the
department of art for several years in the 1970s and 80s. Thus, the
artist-writer phenomenon is a common feature in the Nigerian art
scene but one which has distinguished the university at Nsukka for
many years.8 Although the artist-critic (or -writer)
pattern is one the artists continue to exploit, only few artists
actually make a success of such combination.
The first graduate in art history (major) was
produced at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, in 1982, supervised
by one of Nigeria’s leading art historians, Prof. Ola Oloidi.9
Although few other artists have taken their first degrees in art
history ever since, the majority of university-trained art
historians have been in the higher degree category. Nigeria can
boast of a large number of certificate-carrying art historians. But
only very few of this number are actually engaged in full practice.
For majority the academic qualification is merely cosmetic and is
only used for routine promotion in their places of work. For
instance, today in Nigeria, one can count less than 10 critics who
are active in the field, that is, those who have consistently
operated along professional lines inside Nigeria over the years.
There are still others also recognized internationally who are
domiciled in Europe and America, but their works have mainly
influenced the African/Nigerian Diaspora much more than they may
have the contemporary art trend in Nigeria.10 Some
foreign critics have also done some work on Nigerian art,
contributing to its growth and development.
But criticism of Nigerian
art, at best, remains a drop in the ocean when compared with the
rate of work produced and the activities organized by Nigerian
artists and art institutions over several periods in history. Beyond
essays in exhibition catalogues, on pages of newspapers, and a few
published books, Nigerian art critics have yet to engage the artists
more critically in order to imbue the art with the kind of
perspicacity that it needs to be able to contain the challenges and
demands of new internationalism. Though the critics may be few, it
is pertinent at this juncture also to find out what kind of
condition they operate in and whether other complimentary factors
have been very favourably disposed.
One of such factors is
the availability of scholarly and semi-scholarly journals which can
become the vanguard of criticism. In this regard we can name but a
few: Nigeria Magazine, published by the Department of Culture
, New Culture (published by one of the Zaria radicals in
1978), The Eye Journal (published between 1992 and 1994 at
Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria), Glendora Review (published
in Lagos since 1995), Uso: Nigerian Journal of Art (published
by the National Gallery of Art), Letter from Africa
(published by the Pan-African Circle of Artists) and Position
which have appeared mainly in the new millennium, published also in
Lagos. Nigeria Magazine, New Culture, and The Eye
are dead or hibernating. Glendora and Position seem to
be operating, but they appear rather too esoteric and temperamental
to influence critical theory in Nigerian art. Of all the journals
mentioned above, only The Eye and Uso have shown a
strong inclination to the visual arts. The others were/are a bit
generalized in their approach to the arts and related matters.
Although Glendora and Position have maintained the
most international outlook and standards, their interests are not
strictly restricted to the visual arts.
Perhaps the greatest
problem in the history of journal publishing in Nigeria is that none
has lived long enough to enact a tradition in the business. Poor
funding, lack of professionalism, and bureaucracy (in the case of
public-institution-based journals) have been some of the greatest
misfortunes of art journals in Nigeria. The situation has
contributed to the usually short life span of most the publications
and the epileptic issuance of others. Moreover, the dissemination of
art, including publishing of art literature, can be a very expensive
and demanding enterprise. In Africa, it is even more difficult,
considering that there are usually no funds for such ventures. Thus
some of the major journals like Glendora and Position
occasionally depend on Euro-American funding for their continued
existence. Those published by government institutions, like
Nigeria Magazine and Uso often depend on scarce and
meagre government subventions and thus may not live up to
professional and other expectations. Other private initiatives such
as Letter from Africa and The Eye have not succeeded
due to problem of funding.
This situation is
certainly a major impediment in the practice of art criticism in
Nigeria, as it narrows the publishing opportunity for practitioners.
Although a few critics have published abroad, the gap created by the
absence of a critical tradition among Nigeria’s few art journals
remains the bane of art and criticism in these parts.
But newspapers and news
magazines often come to the rescue. Not only have they put their art
pages at the disposal of professional art critics, they have also
published materials and critiques on art written by their own
reporters. These reporters are usually not trained in the
technicalities of critical theory. Some of them are visual artists
who happen to have the ability to write. In other cases, they are
graduates of the English language, theatre, or mass communication. A
few actually write intelligently on art, while others are capable
only of jejune and uninformed news reports on art and art events.
Yet one cannot deny that these journalists represent a certain
category of critics. For when they are insightful and persistent in
their writing, they are able to influence the art trend. A few also
become so committed to art that they attain proficiency and
professionalism.
Yet it is a fact that
media-based criticism if often a cash-and-carry affair. Media-based
criticism can be sponsored and sympathetic and this obviously can
miscarry the core essence of criticism which is to look art in the
eye, praise it where it so merits and spit in it where and when
necessary. Although sympathy and attraction to sponsorship are not
possible only in media-based criticism, it is more common there,
being an extension of the hyper-commercialism that attends media
practice in general, not only in Nigeria, but in most parts of
Africa. The “brown envelope”11 syndrome is as rife in
art-culture journalism as it is in other aspects of the profession,
and it derives from the prevalent monetization of values in Africa.
This, however, does not
discount the role played by media-based critics in the development
of art in Nigeria. As against the peripheral treatment that was the
norm about two decades ago, most magazines and newspapers now
publish reports on art as regularly as they are issued. Most of them
now devote at least two pages to art in one issue as against the
traditional one page that previously obtained. As agencies of the
mass media, newspapers and magazines certainly make more impact
within a wider circle than would scholarly journals. The implication
here can be two-fold, however. While they fill a crucial gap in the
dissemination of art through their wider coverage and implicit
ability to influence public opinion, they also portend danger to art
when their art pages are manned by incompetent and uninformed
editors and reporters who may make misleading comments on art and
artists.
Media-based criticism
often takes as its focus art activities and art personalities and
rarely deals with very critical theoretical issues. Thus, there is a
tendency for practitioners to liaise with galleries, museums, and
other art institutions as they seek for possible critical resources.
Like journals and the mass media, galleries and museums are some of
the consecrating agencies of art. In fact, they are more so when the
consecration of art means the transformation of the work of art from
a monologic experience into a concrete basis for diversified
dialogue. Thus, the importance of museums and galleries in the art
ecology cannot be over-emphasised, for their temporary exhibitions,
permanent collections and sundry professionalizing activities
represent some of the wheels on which art, its criticism and history
all turn. One may then ask, how have such institutions fared in
modern Nigeria? How have their successes and failures affected the
growth of criticism as an art complementary vocation?
Nigeria’s National Museum
was set up by the colonial government as an arm of the Federal
Department of Culture. The Exhibition Centre at Marina, Lagos, was
established in 1946 and later moved to the ground floor of the
Independence Building near at Racecourse, also in Lagos, in
December 1966. It was the first public gallery in Nigeria and was
also under the supervision of Department of Culture. As at the time
the Exhibition was established in Marina, there were already about
half a dozen galleries owned by Nigerian artists,12 but
private galleries did not become a major catalyst in the development
of art in Nigeria until well after the civil war, especially from
the 1980s onwards. Nigeria’s National Gallery was also established
in 1981, but its presence was not felt until the 1990s. Today
Nigeria boasts of more than 20 art galleries with majority of them
located in Lagos and Abuja. A few galleries may be found in such
cities as Port Harcourt, Kaduna, Jos and Enugu, but they are usually
not very influential galleries. The concentration of the major
galleries in Lagos, Nigeria’s economic capital, only affirms the
fact that art harbours some economic essences and that the history
of art is written, primarily, not in history books but on bank
ledgers.
If the success of
Nigeria’s galleries is to be measured by their sheer number, they
would be scored very highly. But professionalism in the
dissemination of art demands much more. Individually, the galleries
are usually battling to survive, mainly through the sale of art
works. This, of course, is the traditional preoccupation of
galleries all over the world, but often this tendency is pushed
beyond the boundaries of sense by galleries in Nigeria. Apart from
organizing periodic art exhibitions which have commercial visions
and on which newspaper/magazines reviews could be anchored, most of
the galleries hardly initiate or engage in projects which aid
critical theory or the professionalization of art and its
dissemination. Normally, exhibition catalogues should be a useful
purveyor of art criticism in the form of introductory essays and
other critiques. But most often both the galleries and the
exhibiting artists undermine the potentials of the catalogue as a
major instrument of art criticism.
Only in rare cases
are incisive, insightful introductions published. In most cases,
praise-singing is preferred to meaningful, constructive criticism.
Yet in other cases, important exhibitions have been held without any
documentation and, therefore, no critique. Of all the private
galleries in Lagos, for instance, only two – Nimbus Art Centre and
Pendulum Centre for Culture and Development – have undertaken
projects which transcend the commonplace. Pendulum, particularly,
has in the last two years published two major books on aspects of
Nigerian art with contributions from reputable Nigerian critics,
artists, and art historians.13
On its own part the
National Gallery in Nigeria has played some role in the development
of art criticism in Nigeria. In 1996 when its Director-General Paul
Dike was named patron of the newly-formed Nigerian chapter of the
International Association of Art Critics (AICA), it seemed that the
gallery was convinced that it should support not only the creation
of art but also its verbalization. But the Nigerian AICA has never
worked and one cannot judge the gallery’s interest or otherwise in
art criticism on that. The National gallery’s support for critical
theory is, perhaps, evidenced in some of its recent exhibitions,
annual lectures, and publications in which some prominent Nigerian
artists have played key roles. Of course this is very significant
considering that it is a government establishment and that for such
institutions in these parts the greatest achievement is often the
payment of staff salaries. But the National Gallery is yet to become
the real flagship of art in terms of the quality, scope, and impact
of its activities. In spite of palpable efforts by its management to
brace it with the challenges of contemporary art and society, its
activities and publications evince some evidence of a struggle
between bureaucracy and professionalism.
It would have been
pertinent to discuss the National Museum in Nigeria alongside the
National Gallery, but unfortunately the museum in Nigeria, as in
most parts of Africa, prefers to live in the past. Almost all over
Africa, museums are dead ends. They have a hackneyed definition of
culture and lack the resources necessary for the dissemination of
modern art. In the 1980s and up until the mid-1990s, the National
Museum, Onikan, Lagos, played host to major exhibitions in Nigeria.
Today, many artists would not go there. This is as a result of the
museum’s inability to modernize and professionalize its vision and
activities in relation to visual arts and artists. Unfortunately,
apart from the national and private galleries, there are no state,
municipal, or private museums to compete with the National Museum.
The only private museum – Didi Museum – was established in the late
1980s, but is only as good or bad as most galleries in Lagos. Since
its inception, it has not seen its role beyond the hosting of
exhibitions; it has shown very little or no appreciation of the
importance of art criticism in the dissemination of art. This is
evidenced in the catalogues of its exhibitions and the fact that
there is no single publication on art that can be credited to it. In
recent times, it has become most commercialized and unpopular among
Nigerian artists.14
All told, museums
and galleries in Nigeria have not driven art as vigorously as they
should. In most cases, their activities are encircled in the pursuit
of monetized gains. Money is vital to the survival of these
institutions and the artists themselves, but should it impede the
pursuit of a professional vision that is fundamental to the
development of art and criticism? I am unaware of any gallery or
museum in Nigeria – both private and public – which has consistently
organized conferences and workshops where general issues and
critical theories in Nigerian art could be discussed and
interrogated as a basis for perpetual development. Even the
tradition in some other parts of the world where mini-roundtables
are organized as part of opening receptions of exhibitions remains
unattractive to galleries and museums here. To them, an art
exhibition is often a variant to the open market where chicken and
kola nuts are sold. Apart from the National Gallery, none other
publishes an in-house newsletter, magazine or journal. I am aware
that Nimbus Art Centre and Pendulum Centre for Culture and
development both in Lagos, have been mouthing their intention to
initiate a magazine and a journal respectively, but this has not
materialized. 15
The point being made here
is that exhibitions are not all it takes to make an art ecology
vibrant. They are only a means to an end. They are raw materials
open to diverse uses by art critics and art historians. When they
are configured as the beginning and end of art dissemination, they
run the risk of counter-productivity. And in most cases in Nigeria,
galleries rarely engage the services of professional art critics in
their activities, including exhibitions. Art, to them, is an
all-comers thing; the gallery proprietor is an all-knowing
hydra-headed animal; his/her ultimate goals are defined by economics
and he/she is often impatient with the demands of professionalism.
Conclusion
Art and art criticism
complement each other. Art without a responsive critical tradition
is like a masquerade without followers and audience. The critic must
not necessarily be an artist, but he/she should have a deep
understanding of extant trends and be able to monitor and follow
them scrupulously. At best, he/she can operate as a legless person
who teaches running. But for the critic to function effectively, all
the enabling factors must be in place and should be fairly
operational, at least.
In Nigeria, as indicated
above, the art tradition is very rich and eclectic. Like the art,
the critical tradition has also come a long way, but it leaves much
to be desired, not because there are not enough critics, but because
the enabling factors and conditions have not been too favourable. No
doubt, Nigerian art critics operating inside the country are very
few, but their exertions over the years cannot be minimized or
neglected. Although I would grudgingly give it a pass mark, Nigerian
art criticism, like her modern art tradition, remains very dynamic
and promising. In spite of all the shortcomings mentioned above, it
is most adaptable to contemporary demands and the challenges of
internationalism. This is obviously in contradistinction to some of
her neighbours where the development of the art traditions remains
lacklustre, in spite of the obvious preponderant European interests.
In neighbouring Benin and Togo, for instance, it is only one
professional art critic and historian that keeps the flag flying.
Domiciled in Porto Novo, Prof. Joseph Adande shuttles between
Cotonou and Lomé on a regular basis to give art history lectures to
students and other people. In Abidjan, Professor Yakouba Konate has
been filling the gap, although he trained in philosophy. In Zambia,
William Miko holds forte, and in Uganda, Margaret Nagawa claims she
is the only professional curator in that country.16
Similarly, for most other countries in the West African sub-region
and beyond, critics are shockingly few or totally non-existent.
Comparatively, the
situation in Nigeria is relatively heartening. And I should hasten
to affirm that art and art criticism cannot be isolated from the
general condition of their time and environment. The socio-political
situation in Africa neither appreciates nor rewards excellence or
creativity. In this regard, art is not an exception. The
intellectual desertification and the anti-art syndrome which pervade
Africa in this era of political bankruptcy are factors that have
been very corrosive to the arts as they have been to other
humanizing enterprises. This, perhaps, is the bane of art and art
criticism in Nigeria. But it cannot pulverize the modest
achievements of Nigerian artists and critics in the last one hundred
years. Nigerian art, as well as its critical traditions, are among
the most decolonized in Africa.
Notes and References
1.
In the West African sub-region, Nigeria stands out as one country
with an impressive number of academically trained artists due to her
large number of universities and other higher institutions. In most
of the other neighbouring countries, most of the artists are
autodidacts. Whether or not this fact contributes to the quality of
the art produced in the different countries is yet another matter.
But there is no doubt that the notion of art in much of francophone
Africa suffers from normalization in relation to Europe’s (France’s)
notion of what African art should be.
2.
Simon Ottenberg, “Teacher of Modern Nigerian Artists”. Position:
International Arts Review, vol.1, no. 4, pp.38-42. See also C. Krydz
Ikwuemesi, 2003. The Triumph of a Vision: an Anthology on Uche
Okeke and Modern Art in Nigeria. Lagos: Pendulum Art Gallery.
3.
Babaseinde Ademuleya,2003. “Synthesis: Between Onabolu, Enwonwu,
and the Zarainists”, in C. Krydz Ikwuemesi, ibid, pp.
145-154.
4.
Aina Onabolu is a modern artist, but not necessarily a modernist,
in the sense that he was the bridge between the so-called
traditional mode and the stylistic and paradigmatic shifts which
occurred in Nigerian art in the early years of the 20th
century as a result of the colonial encounter. The earliest signs of
modernism are to be seen in the works of Ben Enwonwu and the
modernist principle in Nigeria received full impetus from the works
and activities of the Zaria Art Society in the late 1950s.
5.
Because of the new requirement in Nigerian universities for all
academics to hold the PhD as the prerequisite for attaining the
highest possible position in the university system, most artists
have obtained M.A. and PhD. Degrees in art history and other odd
areas just to ensure their onward momentum in their teaching job,
but hardly ever practice in the field as historians or critics.
6.
Uli is the name of the indigo dye extracted from the pods
of certain plants and used as a medium for drawing on the human body
among the Igbo of eastern Nigeria, as well as the name of the
four-colour palette used in Igbo traditional wall paintings. It is
also the name of the painting tradition in which it is used and
equally described the drawings or paintings themselves. The uli
painting tradition is generally a feminine one.
7.
“As for me, Eziafọ Agbaelo,
whoever I decorated, when she/he appeared at the king’s coronation
anniversary (ọfala), there would be uproar and it would be
immediately acknowledged that I was the designer who decorated the
person. And people would gather… my client would be admired all
round with the uli designs on the body...” See C. Krydz
Ikwuemesi, 2005. “Ayi nọ n’Ọmenanị: Nkata Eziafọ Ọkarọ, If’ude
Ejiọfọ, Ezechinyelugo, C. Krydz Ikwuemesi Kpalụ n’Ogidi,
Anambra State, Nigeria, n’ọnwa August 2004”, in C. Krydz
Ikwuemesi, 2005. Uli and the Politics of Culture. Lagos:
Pendulum Art Gallery, pp. 104-112 (and in English, pp.114-122).
8.
“Poetry and Art of the Nsukka School: A Panel Discussion”, in Simon
Ottenberg 2002, The Nsukka Artists and Nigerian Contemporary Art.
Seattle and London: National Museum of African Art in association
with University of Washington Press, pp. 147-177
9.
Crucifix Anonyuo is the name of this first art historian major of
University of Nigeria. He has not practised effectively. Two other
art history major from Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Simon
Ikpakronyi and Epko Udo-Udoma, have done some writing on Nigerian
art, but their impact is yet to be felt within and outside
Nigeria.
10.
Critics who have been operating from Nigeria include Chike Aniakor,
Ola Oloidi, Kunle Filani, C. Krydz Ikwuemesi, Peter Ezeh, Ozioma
Onuzulike, Simon Ikpakronyi, and few committed others some of who
are media-based critics. Among those in the Diaspora can be counted
Olu Oguibe, Okwui Enwezor, Sly Ogbechie, Nkiru Nzegwu, Ikem Okoye,
and Chika Okeke.
11.
The “brown envelop” refers to bribe or prior appreciation, usually
money, given to journalists in Nigeria for
expected reviews or commentaries on particular
issues, personalities or events.
12.
See C. Krydz Ikwuemesi, “From The Nigerian Teacher to The
Eye: Journals and Magazines in the Development of Nigerian
Art” in Ezumezu: A Festschrift for Demas Nwoko, Obiora
Udechukwu and Chika Okeke (eds.) under publication.
13.
A full list of Pendulum’s publications, especially the recent ones
can be viewed at
www.pendulumartgallery.com.
14.
As at 2002, a solo exhibit at Didi Museum, Lagos, cost
100,000.00naira (about $800.00), while a group show cost
250,000.00naira (about $1,750.00). The charges covered only the
procurement of the exhibition hall.
15.
Since 2001, Nimbus Art Centre has been planning to initiate a
magazine known as Bogobiri. Pendulum Centre for Culture and
Development in 2003 called for articles to produce the maiden issue
of its journal The Art Field. Up until now, both publications
have not appeared.
16.
In a personal conversation with Margaret Nagawa at the Symposium
Africa 2001in Tokyo, 2001.
Painter and theorist C.
Krydz Ikwuemesi teaches art at the University of Nigeria. He is a
member of the International Advisory Council of The Pan-African
Circle of Artists and is also Chair of the Advisory Board, Pendulum
Centre for Culture and Development, Lagos.
|
