非洲纺织品,时尚纺织品:史学

IF 0.3 3区 艺术学 0 ART AFRICAN ARTS Pub Date : 2023-08-21 DOI:10.1162/afar_a_00715
Sarah Fee
{"title":"非洲纺织品,时尚纺织品:史学","authors":"Sarah Fee","doi":"10.1162/afar_a_00715","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"I did not go looking for textiles, they came looking for me. I originally went to southern Madagascar in the late 1980s with the intention of studying funerary monuments, which from the nineteenth century had become ever more visible and elaborate. But in the village that graciously hosted me, women soon drew me into helping them card and spin cotton, which the neighboring village then dyed and wove into burial cloth. It became apparent that as much— or more—energy, artistry, and money went into weaving and shrouds than into tombs. Yet, when I proposed the dissertation topic of handweaving to my supervisor, a French archaeologist, he was aghast. Why this frivolous topic? He, like many others, would continually try to steer me to Malagasy funerary monuments, made by specialists—by men—of stone or carved wood. A microcosm of early African art history—with its notorious preference for sculpture—perhaps compounded by the fact that in Madagascar weavers are most always women. Female and frivolous, associations that scholars show fed into the academy’s longstanding rejection of textiles, dress, and fashion as serious subjects of inquiry. What set me free, and many in my generation, was the collective volume Cloth and Human Experience (Schneider and Weiner 1989). Its mostly feminist-anthropologist authors shed blinding light on the great social and aesthetic significance of cloth around the world and women’s creative agency in making and activating it. The volume’s chapter on Madagascar by Gillian Feeley-Harnik ultimately helped win over my supervisor to my cause. Typical of the time, few chapters focused on dress, and my own dissertation was in the mold of “the anthropology of cloth,” exploring the making, gifting, and ritual use of handweavings. Still far in the distance in the 1980s, as Victoria Rovine (2015) has observed in hindsight, was seeing fashionability in Africa; only in recent years has she, and many colleagues, replaced the noxious F-words with a set of I-words: innovation, impetus, intention, individual .... Thus, if some quarters were debating whether African textiles were worthy of study, others simply got on with it. Textiles rank among “the most potent field of an indigenous aesthetic,” as John Picton, an early pioneer in the field, concludes (this issue, p. 82). And researchers, for this and many other reasons, simply could not ignore them. In the 1970s and ‘80s, the pages of African Arts offered a steady stream of articles, mainly by female scholars, on particular traditions, many of which have come to form the familiar African textile canon: resist-dyed indigo, kente, ikats of the Dida, Kuba raffia, kaasa blankets, Akwete brocades, Sokoto robes. Articles included, too, newly invented traditions such as tapestry and screen printing, born of cooperatives. Major monographs and surveys appeared, with a volume of Textile History (Idiens 1980) dedicated to “traditional African weaving and textiles.” (For detailed overview of the historiography of African textiles, see Rovine 2015: 21–25; Eicher 2010; Picton, this issue.) And while these early works mainly documented techniques, technologies, trade, and stylistic spread, even so, one finds—in retrospect, surprisingly frequent— references to “adaptability” and innovation, to coproductions between clients and makers, even the recognition of short-lived fashion trends. The fall 1992 issue of African Arts on African textiles, guest edited by Lisa Aronson—herself among the trailblazers, identifying individual artist-weavers—marked a major moment, with articles by Monni Adams and T. Rose Holdcraft, Susan Domowitz, Lisa Aronson, Judith Perani and Norma Wolff, and Elisha Renne. Dedicated to the “Language of West African Textiles,” it moved the conversation from description to analysis of gendered dimensions of cloth making and the power of dress to communicate identities. During the same decades, art museums were opening their doors to African textiles, introducing them more widely to scholarly and public audiences alike, beginning in 1972 with Roy Sieber’s landmark exhibition African Textiles and Decorative Arts at New York’s Museum of Modern Art. John Picton’s equally influential 1995 exhibit The Art of African Textiles at the Barbican Gallery in London moved past the many intervening debates on “traditional” and “authentic” to broadly widen the canon, embracing contemporary textiles woven with new materials such as lurex, as well as industrially printed fabrics, so-called African prints, of which there will be more to say. In 2009, the Metropolitan Museum’s first exhibit on Africa textiles stressed their “essential art” and design. Hand in hand with exhibiting African textiles, several museums in Europe and the United States in the 1970s and 1980s sponsored large-scale collecting missions in West Africa. And although “African textiles” most usually meant (and today, still, often continues to mean) only sub-Saharan textiles, anglophone art historians would increasingly study and (re)connect the textile traditions of North Africa (Becker 2006; Gilvin 2015; Spring and Hudson 1995; Gerschultz 2019), and Madagascar (Green 1998; Mack 1988) to the subcontinent, expanding knowledge on “north-south” ties across the Sahara, the Mediterranean, and the Indian Ocean. If textiles were, largely, unquestionably recognized as art, or, à la limite, good design, voices were rising that they could not be truly understood outside their usual end-use as dress, and to display textiles as twodimensional pieces “denies a vital part of their reality” (Becker 1995: 49). Some studies acknowledged—but usually did not develop—links between radical and rapid innovations in textile technique or design and patron desires for new clothing fabrics. In my own world of museums and textile studies, the term “textile” itself can be a systemic hindrance, one of the many unwanted categories inherited from the past, as JoAnne McGregor (2022: 7) laments in her introduction to Creating African Fashion Histories. In its strictest definition, “textile”— from the Latin textilis—includes only cloth woven on the loom, thus all too often excluding hides and barkcloth from overviews of African dress. Further tied to the root word for “text,” the term has led occasionally to forced readings of textiles as texts. Eurocentric divisions stalk my professional worlds, riding rough-shod over the wrapper (or draped) fashion systems of the Global South: many North American museums contain departments named “Textiles and Costume” or “Fashion and Textiles.” The unintended imputation is that a textile alone— an unstitched garment—is not dress or fashion. Our professional societies divide along the fault lines of Textile or Dress, with few crossing the line to participate in both worlds. Enter from stage left in the 1990s methodologies, theories, and interests from anthropology, history, and cultural studies, together with the wider “consumer culture” turn in the humanities which legitimated consumption as a creative act and topic of inquiry (Evans 2015). Anthropologist Joanne Eicher and her colleagues, notably T.V. Erekosima, blazed many methodological and analytic trails, within and without Africanist circles, the duo publishing on the “fashionable attire” of Kalabari cut cloth as early as 1981 in African Arts (Erekosima and Eicher 1981). They developed terminologies and tools for analyzing dress writ large—including imported goods—as a form of artistic expression, and dress’ roles in constructing identities of many kinds. Karen T. Hansen (2000) turned attention to imported secondhand clothing, how Zambian agency and creativity rendered it meaningful and fashionable. Historians such as Laura Fair (2001) and Colleen Kriger (2006) located fashion systems in the past, while multidisciplinary collective volumes edited by Allman (2004) and Hendrickson (1996) explored African fashion as practice, performance, and embodied identity. Institutional support for studies and publishing on African textiles and dress emerged at Indiana University with Roy Sieber and his cohorts, along with John Picton at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies, and Joanne Eicher at the University of Minnesota. Simultaneously, dress and fashion studies were themselves rising, maturing, and looking to break with their Western focus, while the “global,” “material” and “consumption” turns in the humanities saw many disciplines—from cultural studies to literary criticism—turn their lenses on dress and, later, fashion. “By the late 1990s, fashion studies had truly emerged as a field in its own right. Fashion had become an acceptable topic of academic enquiry, instead of a notorious ‘f-word’” (Almila and Ingliss 2017: Sarah Fee is a Senior Curator of Global Fashion & Textiles at the Royal Ontario Museum and affiliated faculty at the University of Toronto. Her major exhibitions have explored the textiles arts of Madagascar and the painted and printed cottons of India. sarahf@rom.on.ca","PeriodicalId":45314,"journal":{"name":"AFRICAN ARTS","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"African Textiles, Fashionable Textiles: A Historiography\",\"authors\":\"Sarah Fee\",\"doi\":\"10.1162/afar_a_00715\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"I did not go looking for textiles, they came looking for me. I originally went to southern Madagascar in the late 1980s with the intention of studying funerary monuments, which from the nineteenth century had become ever more visible and elaborate. But in the village that graciously hosted me, women soon drew me into helping them card and spin cotton, which the neighboring village then dyed and wove into burial cloth. It became apparent that as much— or more—energy, artistry, and money went into weaving and shrouds than into tombs. Yet, when I proposed the dissertation topic of handweaving to my supervisor, a French archaeologist, he was aghast. Why this frivolous topic? He, like many others, would continually try to steer me to Malagasy funerary monuments, made by specialists—by men—of stone or carved wood. A microcosm of early African art history—with its notorious preference for sculpture—perhaps compounded by the fact that in Madagascar weavers are most always women. Female and frivolous, associations that scholars show fed into the academy’s longstanding rejection of textiles, dress, and fashion as serious subjects of inquiry. What set me free, and many in my generation, was the collective volume Cloth and Human Experience (Schneider and Weiner 1989). Its mostly feminist-anthropologist authors shed blinding light on the great social and aesthetic significance of cloth around the world and women’s creative agency in making and activating it. The volume’s chapter on Madagascar by Gillian Feeley-Harnik ultimately helped win over my supervisor to my cause. Typical of the time, few chapters focused on dress, and my own dissertation was in the mold of “the anthropology of cloth,” exploring the making, gifting, and ritual use of handweavings. Still far in the distance in the 1980s, as Victoria Rovine (2015) has observed in hindsight, was seeing fashionability in Africa; only in recent years has she, and many colleagues, replaced the noxious F-words with a set of I-words: innovation, impetus, intention, individual .... Thus, if some quarters were debating whether African textiles were worthy of study, others simply got on with it. Textiles rank among “the most potent field of an indigenous aesthetic,” as John Picton, an early pioneer in the field, concludes (this issue, p. 82). And researchers, for this and many other reasons, simply could not ignore them. In the 1970s and ‘80s, the pages of African Arts offered a steady stream of articles, mainly by female scholars, on particular traditions, many of which have come to form the familiar African textile canon: resist-dyed indigo, kente, ikats of the Dida, Kuba raffia, kaasa blankets, Akwete brocades, Sokoto robes. Articles included, too, newly invented traditions such as tapestry and screen printing, born of cooperatives. Major monographs and surveys appeared, with a volume of Textile History (Idiens 1980) dedicated to “traditional African weaving and textiles.” (For detailed overview of the historiography of African textiles, see Rovine 2015: 21–25; Eicher 2010; Picton, this issue.) And while these early works mainly documented techniques, technologies, trade, and stylistic spread, even so, one finds—in retrospect, surprisingly frequent— references to “adaptability” and innovation, to coproductions between clients and makers, even the recognition of short-lived fashion trends. The fall 1992 issue of African Arts on African textiles, guest edited by Lisa Aronson—herself among the trailblazers, identifying individual artist-weavers—marked a major moment, with articles by Monni Adams and T. Rose Holdcraft, Susan Domowitz, Lisa Aronson, Judith Perani and Norma Wolff, and Elisha Renne. Dedicated to the “Language of West African Textiles,” it moved the conversation from description to analysis of gendered dimensions of cloth making and the power of dress to communicate identities. During the same decades, art museums were opening their doors to African textiles, introducing them more widely to scholarly and public audiences alike, beginning in 1972 with Roy Sieber’s landmark exhibition African Textiles and Decorative Arts at New York’s Museum of Modern Art. John Picton’s equally influential 1995 exhibit The Art of African Textiles at the Barbican Gallery in London moved past the many intervening debates on “traditional” and “authentic” to broadly widen the canon, embracing contemporary textiles woven with new materials such as lurex, as well as industrially printed fabrics, so-called African prints, of which there will be more to say. In 2009, the Metropolitan Museum’s first exhibit on Africa textiles stressed their “essential art” and design. Hand in hand with exhibiting African textiles, several museums in Europe and the United States in the 1970s and 1980s sponsored large-scale collecting missions in West Africa. And although “African textiles” most usually meant (and today, still, often continues to mean) only sub-Saharan textiles, anglophone art historians would increasingly study and (re)connect the textile traditions of North Africa (Becker 2006; Gilvin 2015; Spring and Hudson 1995; Gerschultz 2019), and Madagascar (Green 1998; Mack 1988) to the subcontinent, expanding knowledge on “north-south” ties across the Sahara, the Mediterranean, and the Indian Ocean. If textiles were, largely, unquestionably recognized as art, or, à la limite, good design, voices were rising that they could not be truly understood outside their usual end-use as dress, and to display textiles as twodimensional pieces “denies a vital part of their reality” (Becker 1995: 49). Some studies acknowledged—but usually did not develop—links between radical and rapid innovations in textile technique or design and patron desires for new clothing fabrics. In my own world of museums and textile studies, the term “textile” itself can be a systemic hindrance, one of the many unwanted categories inherited from the past, as JoAnne McGregor (2022: 7) laments in her introduction to Creating African Fashion Histories. In its strictest definition, “textile”— from the Latin textilis—includes only cloth woven on the loom, thus all too often excluding hides and barkcloth from overviews of African dress. Further tied to the root word for “text,” the term has led occasionally to forced readings of textiles as texts. Eurocentric divisions stalk my professional worlds, riding rough-shod over the wrapper (or draped) fashion systems of the Global South: many North American museums contain departments named “Textiles and Costume” or “Fashion and Textiles.” The unintended imputation is that a textile alone— an unstitched garment—is not dress or fashion. Our professional societies divide along the fault lines of Textile or Dress, with few crossing the line to participate in both worlds. Enter from stage left in the 1990s methodologies, theories, and interests from anthropology, history, and cultural studies, together with the wider “consumer culture” turn in the humanities which legitimated consumption as a creative act and topic of inquiry (Evans 2015). Anthropologist Joanne Eicher and her colleagues, notably T.V. Erekosima, blazed many methodological and analytic trails, within and without Africanist circles, the duo publishing on the “fashionable attire” of Kalabari cut cloth as early as 1981 in African Arts (Erekosima and Eicher 1981). They developed terminologies and tools for analyzing dress writ large—including imported goods—as a form of artistic expression, and dress’ roles in constructing identities of many kinds. Karen T. Hansen (2000) turned attention to imported secondhand clothing, how Zambian agency and creativity rendered it meaningful and fashionable. Historians such as Laura Fair (2001) and Colleen Kriger (2006) located fashion systems in the past, while multidisciplinary collective volumes edited by Allman (2004) and Hendrickson (1996) explored African fashion as practice, performance, and embodied identity. Institutional support for studies and publishing on African textiles and dress emerged at Indiana University with Roy Sieber and his cohorts, along with John Picton at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies, and Joanne Eicher at the University of Minnesota. Simultaneously, dress and fashion studies were themselves rising, maturing, and looking to break with their Western focus, while the “global,” “material” and “consumption” turns in the humanities saw many disciplines—from cultural studies to literary criticism—turn their lenses on dress and, later, fashion. “By the late 1990s, fashion studies had truly emerged as a field in its own right. Fashion had become an acceptable topic of academic enquiry, instead of a notorious ‘f-word’” (Almila and Ingliss 2017: Sarah Fee is a Senior Curator of Global Fashion & Textiles at the Royal Ontario Museum and affiliated faculty at the University of Toronto. Her major exhibitions have explored the textiles arts of Madagascar and the painted and printed cottons of India. sarahf@rom.on.ca\",\"PeriodicalId\":45314,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AFRICAN ARTS\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AFRICAN ARTS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1162/afar_a_00715\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"艺术学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ART\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AFRICAN ARTS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/afar_a_00715","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ART","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管“非洲纺织品”通常只指(今天,仍然经常指)撒哈拉以南的纺织品,但英语艺术历史学家会越来越多地研究并(重新)将北非的纺织品传统(Becker 2006;吉尔文2015;Spring和Hudson 1995;Gerschultz 2019)和马达加斯加(Green 1998;Mack 1988)与次大陆联系起来,扩大对撒哈拉、地中海和印度洋“南北”关系的了解。如果纺织品在很大程度上毫无疑问地被公认为艺术,或者说,在有限的范围内,是一种好的设计,那么人们就有越来越多的声音认为,在通常作为服装的最终用途之外,人们无法真正理解纺织品,而将纺织品展示为二维作品“否认了其现实的一个重要部分”(Becker 1995:49)。一些研究承认——但通常没有发展——纺织技术或设计的激进和快速创新与顾客对新服装面料的渴望之间的联系。在我自己的博物馆和纺织品研究世界里,“纺织品”一词本身可能是一个系统性的障碍,是从过去继承下来的许多不受欢迎的类别之一,正如JoAnne McGregor(2022:7)在《创造非洲时尚史》一书的引言中所哀叹的那样。在最严格的定义中,“纺织品”——来自拉丁语textilis——只包括在织机上编织的布,因此经常将兽皮和树皮布排除在非洲服装的概述之外。这个词进一步与“文本”的词根联系在一起,偶尔会导致将纺织品作为文本进行强制阅读。以欧洲为中心的分歧困扰着我的职业世界,在全球南方的包装(或覆盖)时尚系统上横行霸道:许多北美博物馆都有名为“纺织品和服装”或“时尚和纺织品”的部门。意外的指责是,单凭纺织品——一件未缝合的衣服——就不是连衣裙或时尚。我们的职业社会沿着纺织或服装的断层线划分,很少有人越界参与这两个世界。从20世纪90年代剩下的阶段进入人类学、历史学和文化研究的方法论、理论和兴趣,以及人文学科中更广泛的“消费文化”转向,将消费合法化为一种创造性行为和研究主题(Evans 2015)。人类学家Joanne Eicher和她的同事,尤其是T.V.Erekosima,在非洲主义圈子内外开辟了许多方法论和分析道路,两人早在1981年就在《非洲艺术》杂志上发表了卡拉巴里切布的“时尚服装”(Erekosia和Eicher,1981年)。他们开发了术语和工具来分析服装作为一种艺术表达形式的重要性,包括进口商品,以及服装在构建多种身份中的作用。Karen T.Hansen(2000)将注意力转向进口二手服装,赞比亚的代理和创造力如何使其变得有意义和时尚。Laura Fair(2001)和Colleen Kriger(2006)等历史学家定位了过去的时尚体系,而Allman(2004)和Hendrickson(1996)编辑的多学科集体卷则将非洲时尚探索为实践、表现和具体身份。印第安纳大学与Roy Sieber及其同事、伦敦东方与非洲研究学院的John Picton和明尼苏达大学的Joanne Eicher一起,为非洲纺织品和服装的研究和出版提供了机构支持。与此同时,服装和时尚研究本身也在崛起、成熟,并希望与西方的关注点决裂,而人文学科的“全球”、“物质”和“消费”转向,从文化研究到文学批评,许多学科都将目光转向了服装,后来又转向了时尚。“到20世纪90年代末,时尚研究已经真正成为一个独立的领域。时尚已经成为学术界可以接受的话题,而不是臭名昭著的‘f字’。”(Almila and Ingliss 2017:Sarah Fee是安大略皇家博物馆全球时尚与纺织品高级策展人,也是多伦多大学的附属教员。她的主要展览探索了马达加斯加的纺织艺术以及印度的绘画和印刷棉。sarahf@rom.on.ca
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
African Textiles, Fashionable Textiles: A Historiography
I did not go looking for textiles, they came looking for me. I originally went to southern Madagascar in the late 1980s with the intention of studying funerary monuments, which from the nineteenth century had become ever more visible and elaborate. But in the village that graciously hosted me, women soon drew me into helping them card and spin cotton, which the neighboring village then dyed and wove into burial cloth. It became apparent that as much— or more—energy, artistry, and money went into weaving and shrouds than into tombs. Yet, when I proposed the dissertation topic of handweaving to my supervisor, a French archaeologist, he was aghast. Why this frivolous topic? He, like many others, would continually try to steer me to Malagasy funerary monuments, made by specialists—by men—of stone or carved wood. A microcosm of early African art history—with its notorious preference for sculpture—perhaps compounded by the fact that in Madagascar weavers are most always women. Female and frivolous, associations that scholars show fed into the academy’s longstanding rejection of textiles, dress, and fashion as serious subjects of inquiry. What set me free, and many in my generation, was the collective volume Cloth and Human Experience (Schneider and Weiner 1989). Its mostly feminist-anthropologist authors shed blinding light on the great social and aesthetic significance of cloth around the world and women’s creative agency in making and activating it. The volume’s chapter on Madagascar by Gillian Feeley-Harnik ultimately helped win over my supervisor to my cause. Typical of the time, few chapters focused on dress, and my own dissertation was in the mold of “the anthropology of cloth,” exploring the making, gifting, and ritual use of handweavings. Still far in the distance in the 1980s, as Victoria Rovine (2015) has observed in hindsight, was seeing fashionability in Africa; only in recent years has she, and many colleagues, replaced the noxious F-words with a set of I-words: innovation, impetus, intention, individual .... Thus, if some quarters were debating whether African textiles were worthy of study, others simply got on with it. Textiles rank among “the most potent field of an indigenous aesthetic,” as John Picton, an early pioneer in the field, concludes (this issue, p. 82). And researchers, for this and many other reasons, simply could not ignore them. In the 1970s and ‘80s, the pages of African Arts offered a steady stream of articles, mainly by female scholars, on particular traditions, many of which have come to form the familiar African textile canon: resist-dyed indigo, kente, ikats of the Dida, Kuba raffia, kaasa blankets, Akwete brocades, Sokoto robes. Articles included, too, newly invented traditions such as tapestry and screen printing, born of cooperatives. Major monographs and surveys appeared, with a volume of Textile History (Idiens 1980) dedicated to “traditional African weaving and textiles.” (For detailed overview of the historiography of African textiles, see Rovine 2015: 21–25; Eicher 2010; Picton, this issue.) And while these early works mainly documented techniques, technologies, trade, and stylistic spread, even so, one finds—in retrospect, surprisingly frequent— references to “adaptability” and innovation, to coproductions between clients and makers, even the recognition of short-lived fashion trends. The fall 1992 issue of African Arts on African textiles, guest edited by Lisa Aronson—herself among the trailblazers, identifying individual artist-weavers—marked a major moment, with articles by Monni Adams and T. Rose Holdcraft, Susan Domowitz, Lisa Aronson, Judith Perani and Norma Wolff, and Elisha Renne. Dedicated to the “Language of West African Textiles,” it moved the conversation from description to analysis of gendered dimensions of cloth making and the power of dress to communicate identities. During the same decades, art museums were opening their doors to African textiles, introducing them more widely to scholarly and public audiences alike, beginning in 1972 with Roy Sieber’s landmark exhibition African Textiles and Decorative Arts at New York’s Museum of Modern Art. John Picton’s equally influential 1995 exhibit The Art of African Textiles at the Barbican Gallery in London moved past the many intervening debates on “traditional” and “authentic” to broadly widen the canon, embracing contemporary textiles woven with new materials such as lurex, as well as industrially printed fabrics, so-called African prints, of which there will be more to say. In 2009, the Metropolitan Museum’s first exhibit on Africa textiles stressed their “essential art” and design. Hand in hand with exhibiting African textiles, several museums in Europe and the United States in the 1970s and 1980s sponsored large-scale collecting missions in West Africa. And although “African textiles” most usually meant (and today, still, often continues to mean) only sub-Saharan textiles, anglophone art historians would increasingly study and (re)connect the textile traditions of North Africa (Becker 2006; Gilvin 2015; Spring and Hudson 1995; Gerschultz 2019), and Madagascar (Green 1998; Mack 1988) to the subcontinent, expanding knowledge on “north-south” ties across the Sahara, the Mediterranean, and the Indian Ocean. If textiles were, largely, unquestionably recognized as art, or, à la limite, good design, voices were rising that they could not be truly understood outside their usual end-use as dress, and to display textiles as twodimensional pieces “denies a vital part of their reality” (Becker 1995: 49). Some studies acknowledged—but usually did not develop—links between radical and rapid innovations in textile technique or design and patron desires for new clothing fabrics. In my own world of museums and textile studies, the term “textile” itself can be a systemic hindrance, one of the many unwanted categories inherited from the past, as JoAnne McGregor (2022: 7) laments in her introduction to Creating African Fashion Histories. In its strictest definition, “textile”— from the Latin textilis—includes only cloth woven on the loom, thus all too often excluding hides and barkcloth from overviews of African dress. Further tied to the root word for “text,” the term has led occasionally to forced readings of textiles as texts. Eurocentric divisions stalk my professional worlds, riding rough-shod over the wrapper (or draped) fashion systems of the Global South: many North American museums contain departments named “Textiles and Costume” or “Fashion and Textiles.” The unintended imputation is that a textile alone— an unstitched garment—is not dress or fashion. Our professional societies divide along the fault lines of Textile or Dress, with few crossing the line to participate in both worlds. Enter from stage left in the 1990s methodologies, theories, and interests from anthropology, history, and cultural studies, together with the wider “consumer culture” turn in the humanities which legitimated consumption as a creative act and topic of inquiry (Evans 2015). Anthropologist Joanne Eicher and her colleagues, notably T.V. Erekosima, blazed many methodological and analytic trails, within and without Africanist circles, the duo publishing on the “fashionable attire” of Kalabari cut cloth as early as 1981 in African Arts (Erekosima and Eicher 1981). They developed terminologies and tools for analyzing dress writ large—including imported goods—as a form of artistic expression, and dress’ roles in constructing identities of many kinds. Karen T. Hansen (2000) turned attention to imported secondhand clothing, how Zambian agency and creativity rendered it meaningful and fashionable. Historians such as Laura Fair (2001) and Colleen Kriger (2006) located fashion systems in the past, while multidisciplinary collective volumes edited by Allman (2004) and Hendrickson (1996) explored African fashion as practice, performance, and embodied identity. Institutional support for studies and publishing on African textiles and dress emerged at Indiana University with Roy Sieber and his cohorts, along with John Picton at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies, and Joanne Eicher at the University of Minnesota. Simultaneously, dress and fashion studies were themselves rising, maturing, and looking to break with their Western focus, while the “global,” “material” and “consumption” turns in the humanities saw many disciplines—from cultural studies to literary criticism—turn their lenses on dress and, later, fashion. “By the late 1990s, fashion studies had truly emerged as a field in its own right. Fashion had become an acceptable topic of academic enquiry, instead of a notorious ‘f-word’” (Almila and Ingliss 2017: Sarah Fee is a Senior Curator of Global Fashion & Textiles at the Royal Ontario Museum and affiliated faculty at the University of Toronto. Her major exhibitions have explored the textiles arts of Madagascar and the painted and printed cottons of India. sarahf@rom.on.ca
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
33.30%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: African Arts is devoted to the study and discussion of traditional, contemporary, and popular African arts and expressive cultures. Since 1967, African Arts readers have enjoyed high-quality visual depictions, cutting-edge explorations of theory and practice, and critical dialogue. Each issue features a core of peer-reviewed scholarly articles concerning the world"s second largest continent and its diasporas, and provides a host of resources - book and museum exhibition reviews, exhibition previews, features on collections, artist portfolios, dialogue and editorial columns. The journal promotes investigation of the connections between the arts and anthropology, history, language, literature, politics, religion, and sociology.
期刊最新文献
Sane Wadu: I Hope So curated by Mukami Kuria and Angela Muritu Textiles in the History of the History of African Art African Textiles, Fashionable Textiles: An Introduction African Textiles, Fashionable Textiles: A Historiography Kanga Cloths at Vlisco: An Object-Based Study of Dutch Printing for the Colonial East African Market, 1876–1971
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1