Intent

One artist throws paint at a canvas, calls it “Anger” and earns accolades and financial rewards.

Another does the same but suffers ridicule. Artists draw satirical images about Islam, causing some to convulse in laughter, provoking the wrath of others.

Brian MacFarlane’s offering for Carnival incited such violently opposing views, but for me it brought into sharp focus issues that I have been mulling over related to the interpretation and evolution of art. Though there is artistry in his portrayal, there are elements that disturb me.

Some would ask, is this not the purpose of art, to move you out of your comfort zone and at the very least cause you to think? A major factor is context. The global disgrace of legalised and institutionally sanctioned enslavement, murder, rape and torture of millions of Africans has not been resolved. Behind the achievements of this community lurk modern- day traumas ranging from the hierarchy of skin colour, to sense of self and persistent racism.

Against this backdrop, the beauty of the costumes may be interpreted as romanticising or glamourising the painful truth of enslavement.

Those with a wider appreciation of the subject may be able to separate the artistry from the socio-political argument.

However, the fact is that education, religion and other social structures have conspired to misrepresent this period of history, to almost deny that it even happened.

So for those who have little or no sense of what occurred, it may be argued that at some level those costumes serve to move consciousness further away from understanding the havoc that enslavement caused; indeed, the devastation that it is responsible for today.

This brings us to intent. Art is as much about what the artist intended, as how it is interpreted.

Speaking about his portrayal, Mac- Farlane is quoted as saying, “When I embarked on this production, I made an effort to invite designers of fashion and mas to share in the creative process that has been more than just a career to all of us. It’s what we love... My intention was never to offend anyone, or to come across as ignorant of our truth, or to idealise insensitivity. It was to depict the clothing of the time.” Khafra Kambon, in commenting on this matter, noted that in 1970 the UWI presented a band about enslavement entitled King Sugar.

The band “depicted the inequities of the plantation system, and ‘White Devils’ attacked the dominance of white values in the community.” This then is the key. In 1970, the mas represented an historically sensitive subject matter through a clear ideological lens. In 2016, the sores of 500 years of dehumanisation are still raw. The injustices that we witness via global media tell us that it is still not over. Thus, when treating with peoples who have suffered intense trauma, the artist is required to function from a heightened degree of sensitivity, knowledge and ideological clarity.

Further, Carnival is not and never was just about costumes. It was a battleground for cultural identity and served as a platform for Africans to rebel against oppression first by enslavers and then colonisers.

Prof Hollis Liverpool’s Rituals of Power and Rebellion is required reading to appreciate the complexity of our festival and dispel the misinformation that is spread about the contribution of the African to our festival.

Art, culture and heritage are evolutionary. They preserve history while laying the foundation for future expression. The artist must straddle being true to creativity, and negotiating the delicate balance of time and space. Whatever our intent, we must deal with the consequences of our choices.

D a r a Healy is a perform a n c e artist and founder of the NGO, the Indigenous Creative Arts Network – ICAN