|
Maps as boundaries and
frontiers of creativity in Africa
Introduction
There was a popular Atlas used in primary schools in the
60s in Nigeria. The Atlas confronted my elementary
senses with sinuous webs of mobile lines which were
often delineated with bold and thick strokes in order to
depict boundaries. Maps therefore became one of my
earliest exposures to line as a functional element of
design. In Atlas, there were various maps, each serving
as detailed diagram, illustration, and territorial
chart. The peculiarity of each map was determined by its
necessitating factors:
natural or artificial representation. Hence, there were
maps factored by natural phenomena such as oceanic
borders that define continents and other elemental
occurrences such as rivers, mountains, forests, deserts,
temperature and wind. There were also those factored by
artificial boundaries the human creation of dividing
lines based on cultural affinities, political
exigencies, and sometimes as in Africa, derivatives of
colonial conquests.
Beyond being dynamic concatenation of lines which
sometimes form interesting artistic shapes and patterns,
map as a concept can be pushed beyond the ordinary
geographical limits and extended to more complex
frontiers where it could serve as index of
liberation/coercion, integration/disintegration and
civilization/ossification.
Unlike the clear-cut geometrical shapes used in
delineating geographical boundaries in Europe and
America, there seem to be a peculiar organic pattern of
formation in the mappings of African borders. This
dynamic mobile formation that is organic in form may be
attributed partly to natural barriers as well as
cultural factors which define the states and countries.
There is no doubt that a major factor responsible for
the dynamic shapes in the linear formation of African
maps is the indigenous organic world view which
subconsciously manifests in the wavy contours of
bush-paths, farm ridges and art motifs. This is in
tandem with William Fagg’s position that unlike the
Europeans, there is a tendency in the Africans to avoid
straight lines. This instructive philosophical
distinction between European and African communities
could be interrogated to justify the organic delineation
of Africa’s geography. Fagg’s justification for
distinction is empathising to the “spirit essence” of
African values. He is however self-asserting and
arrogant by arguing further that the Europeans are more
precise and systematic in their attitude towards life.
He nevertheless seems to have made a point based on
visual observation that can also be stretched to a more
complex realm of philosophy.
The implication of Fagg’s theory of organic tendencies
by Africans as it relates to map (as a plan showing
clear-cut positions of specified and related by Kunle
Filani
interests) is that the factors responsible for marking
of borders such as cultural affinity are more
intertwining in Africa than in the West. For example, an
attempt to map out the borders of Yoruba nation in
Nigeria using dialectal compartments of Ekiti, Oyo, Egba,
etc. will not accommodate precise and geometric
outlines. This is due to the fact that the dialects
spoken within Yoruba language are generally interactive
and interwoven among border towns and districts. Mapping
out each dialect area will demand organic movement from
district to district in order to capture the language
essence. In contrast, in most European communities where
there are dominant languages spoken among the people the
factor of dialect may not be relevant, rather the basis
for partition will be more geometric in charting. Such
seemingly inconsequential differences between Africa and
the West may be significant to the understanding of
attitudes in the two continents.
Maps are therefore not only graphical representation of
geographies but also echo nuances of identity, tradition
and history of the people. When the abstract frontiers
of maps are excoriated, more complex issues bordering on
facts about our past, present and future are bound to
manifest. Such perceived associations necessitate why
maps must be connotatively studied so as to highlight
problems and possibilities relating to continental
issues of race, tradition, colonialism, diaspora,
globalisation, disintegration, transition,
transformation and identity.
Boundaries in the realm of art are a tool used to
compartmentalise and appropriate related values and
virtues. It nevertheless becomes dangerous when cruelly
used. For example, the broad classification used by
labeling all artistic feats of ancient Africa as
“African Art” could serve as a pointer to the broad
stylistic affinities that the different parts of Africa
South of the Sahara offered in material culture
irrespective of the distance of one place to the other.
However, the same classifying phrase could also be a
derogation of the artistic feats as monolithic,
repetitive and unchanging. While the former argument is
inclusive and suggests oneness and openness of
boundaries of creativity, the latter seems to be
exclusive and encourages partitions. This example of
broad classification of African art seems to have
continued up to the 20th century despite the barriers of
maps that were occasioned by the partitioning of Africa
into the present day independent states. The question to
ask is whether such maps serving as artificial barriers
need to be overcome or encouraged.
Before the advent of the European civilisation in
Africa, there was no rigid compartmentalisation of
peoples. Although there were people from distinct
villages, cities, clans and kingdoms, there was an
overriding factor of integration through language and
other cultural manifestations. Boundaries were,
therefore, determined essentially by cultural factors.
Classifying artistic practices was also based on the
boundaries set by culture. Therefore art practised in
distinct cultural enclaves were called by their peculiar
names such as lfe carvings, Ekiti carvings, Oyo
carvings, Osi-Ilorin carvings and Egba carvings despite
the fact that they were all Yoruba communities.
Atthatperiod itwould have been odd to lump all together
as “Yoruba carvings” as we are wont to do today. This
example could be equated with most other communities in
Africa where there are sub-cultures within major
cultures. Could one then affirm that the present
classification ofYoruba sub-cultures into one broad
style reflects an attempt to overcome maps just as the
phrase “African art” also overcomes borders?
Some artists in Afnca have rejected being qualified by
the adjective “African”. For example, Olu Oguibe a
Nigerian artist and scholar (or do we say a scholar and
artist from Nigeria) who now lives in the United States
of America once rejected the idea of being called an
African artist, Nigerian artist or uli artist. He felt
that the qualifying adjective was derogatory to his
individuality as an artist. He queried why Picasso for
instance was not classified as European artist or
Spanish artist. While his argument could be valid within
the context of ‘globalisation of the self, questions are
bound to arise concerning issues of collective stylistic
identity and personal stylistic identification. It may
then be inferred that Oguibe wants to lose his
collective identity and acquire an independent one
devoid of broad classification. This individualistic
approach to identity is like defining maps for selfish
reasons. To what extent can maps be personalised? Map in
its actual sense of social relevance defines scales and
proportions of a thing or place within the context of
the whole. An individual artist can only be measured
within specified space and time. History has shown that
individual styles often spring from personal
appropriation of collective styles. Are there no
interwoven destinies among mankind? Is there no process
before the product? Is the creative individual not
nurtured by culture? Is there no dominant cultural
traits in the works of artists who relocate to other
continents? Does crossing boundaries wipe out previous
experiences? Is there no integration in the frontiers of
knowledge? Can ideas be re-mixed and synthesised? These
are possible questions that must be raised in an attempt
to appropriate maps as frontiers.
Artificiality of partitions and creative boundaries
since the geographical maps that define the boundaries
of states and nations are not permanent because of
political exigencies, artists should not allow the
artificial curtains to delimit their interaction and
creativity. Many African artists often box themselves
into canons of tradition therefore ossifying creativity.
While individual traditions in Africa must be encouraged
to grow and expand, an inclusive approach must be
adapted so as to reflect the changing values of
contemporary times.
Commenting on the need to define nationhopd according to
the dictates of political expediency, Wole Soyinka noted
in his book The Open Sore of a Continent that the
inviolability of national boundaries is a fictitious
concept. It then follows that maps are artificial and
could be re-drawn. The political equations in Africa
have started changing. Leaders in Africa are now
sensitive to integration as a major source of power and
unity; groups are now constantly redefined. The
Organisation of African Unity (OAU) has given way to
African Union (AU), while EGO WAS in West Africa is
about to unify currency. These attempts at transforming
the face of Africa are basic germs of integration. The
creative disciplines cannot afford to be excluded;
efforts must be geared towards networking boundaries of
artistic sensibilities and initiatives.
The visual artists have an advantage over others since
art is an open dictionary that can be read and possibly
interpreted by all. Certain artistic concepts are common
to Africans, and could be regarded as pan- African. For
example, some motifs used in a particular region may
also be used in others and may sometimes share the same
significance in terms of symbolism and context of use.
These shared motifs are pan-African in orientation.
The use of indigenous motifs by contemporary artists in
Africa seems to have risen considerably. This is an
appropriate step taken by contemporary artists rather
than limiting their affinity to sculptural traditions.
It has been noted by Pat Oyelola that most European
scholars who wrote on African art usually focused on the
sculptural form and its significance, while neglecting a
major aesthetic criterion of surface decoration where
smoothness and low-relief designs offset each other.
By appropriating shared forms and motifs from indigenous
sculptures and crafts, stylistic barriers are being
broken within countries with ethnic peculiarities and
among African countries. A typical example is the recent
trend of unification of motifs and linear forms by the
uli and ona artists in Nigeria. While uli linear art is
the most popular contemporary style that emanated from
the Eastern part of the country, the ona decorative and
symbolic motifs emanated from the Western region. Many
Nigerian artists now engage in appropriating the two
idioms in their works.
The use of similar motifs by various nationals in Africa
seems to integrate further contemporary African art and
artists. For example, the painting “Awakening” done by
Wiz Kudowor of Ghana could have been done by any uli/ona
artist. Also, the prints of Henry Mujunga of Kenya seem
to have adapted the folkloric images of the Oshogbo
artists of Nigeria. Many of such parallels abound in the
works of many artists from Africa, especially South of
the Sahara.
This bond of integration that is rooted in related
traditions of Africa’s ethnic groupings should not be
allowed to die. The spirit essence that manifests as
life paradoxes and contradictions in African
philosophical woridview should be encouraged to persist
in spite of all the changes consequent upon modern
contacts with the rest of the world. This certainly is
not advocating for isolation and private territories for
Africa; rather, in the words of Isidore Okpweho, it is
to create something new out of the materials of a
dependable patrimony.
Many scholars have queried the bandwagon effect that
“African” as an adjective lends to a person. Simon Njami
(2000) feels that it is tantamount to denying an artist
his natural peculiar characteristics if he is qualified
in relation to a geographical fact. He thinks that by
such qualification, the person in question is ultimately
sent into “anonymous limbo a fleeting, elusive same that
can never be defined”. Njami’s opinion is similar to
Roslyn Adele Walker (1994) who disputed the notion of
anonymity attached to African artists by early
ethnographers who never bothered to ask “who made this?”
Maintaining certain indigenous institutions in order to
ensure the essential homogeneity of African culture,
does not in any way deny the personal characteristics of
the artist. For a fact that Obiora Udechukwu and
ChikeAniakorareAfrican artists and more so uli artists
does not disrobe each from peculiar characteristics even
when they draw and paint with the same stylistic
framework. The mistake or mischief made by early
European ethnographers should not be made by present day
scholars who should be sensitive to the delicate nuances
of politics in art historical issues.
In Lines of Continuities, Nkiru Nzegwu (2002) wrote
about “visible lines of continuities” that link those —
whom the ‘ocean currents” have dispersed to different
parts of the Atlantic with theirAfrican origin. Nzegwu
cited Cheikh Anta Diop, the Senegalese Egyptologist,
nuclear physicist, and historian who highlighted the
resilient nature of human cultural consciousness that
derives from ties of ancestry. Diop made a clear pan-Africanist
move that cut across gulfs by culturally reconnecting
Blacks in America to Africa, their ancestral home. Such
cultural tools could be found in religious worship and
artistic creativity.
In the same vein, Moyo Okediji (1999) pointed out that
ethnic reality often transcends the borders of the
Nigerian nation state. He cited the arm of Yoruba people
living in the Francophone Benin Republic, excised by the
colonial divide from the body of Yoruba people in
Anglophone Nigeria. Okediji also cited a more complex
example of the transatlantic kinship between Yoruba
people in Africa and those in America. Despite the long
distance, time and geographical dislocation of the
Yoruba in diaspora, there still exist today iconographic
connections between them and those in Nigeria. Thus,
despite the politics of alienation occasioned by
geographical division or distanciation, there exist
artistic and aesthetic affinities. This is made possible
through the exploration of lines of continuities in
culture by Overcoming Maps 3.
Conclusion
The world is now a global village with echnoIogical
facilities serving as overcoming factors. Virtually all
cities in the world have been networked through fast
means of transportation and communication. Clear
pictures of arid landscapes have been beamed from Mars
to Earth. Unfathomable distance is no longer a barrier
to information. Easy access is made possible by
electronic mails and complex websites. African scholars
and artists no longer have excuses for neglect and
isolation Globalisation as mutually beneficial
phenomenon could be achieved among races and nations.
The timidity of African artists/scholars towards world
travels and issues ought to give way for dynamic
interaction, debates and challenges. Windows should be
opened for dual access, a deep look from within and
without.
Creative activities by African artists and scholars
should be regularly organised and well exposed in and
outside the continent. Intrinsic values of tradition
should be made enduring by systematic projection of
virtues. More dynamic groups such as the Pan-African
Circle of Artists (PACA) should spring up all over
Africa and initiate action within the bounds of art for
the benefit of all. Interactive projects among
sub-regional and continental artists should be
encouraged. Local materials and facilities ought to be
identified and used as tools of collective destiny.
Japanese artists come together yearly and take advantage
of the snowy weather by creatively making monumental ice
sculptures while the artists living in oceanic borders
abroad explore the secret of the sand by making gigantic
sand sculptures. Can’t we explore our forest regions,
oceanic belts and desert scapes and appropriate them
into artistic feats?
The 21st century should launch Africa as a continent
into the centre of the world through a proper
culturalisation of concepts. African leaders should
jettison the tendency to grossly underestimate the
relevance of culture for national development. In an
interview conducted by Kofi Anyidoho with Ali Mazrui in
Glendora Review (1997) the need to recognize indigenous
languages and other cultural offerings in order
forAfrica to develop scientifically and technologically
was highlighted. Mazrui was convinced that no country
ever becomes a first-rate technological power if its
language of science and technology is totally derivative
of foreign languages. He contended that before
meaningful grand leaps of invention and creative social
performances can be attained, there is need to explore
local languages and “scientificate” them.
The limitation on this matter with Africa is that there
are too many distinct languages spoken by people from
various communities. This might hinder growth in shared
values which could be conditioned to shared scientific
attainment. Nevertheless, there are dominant ethnic
languages that can serve the required educational
purposes. In fact, dynamic social interaction that span
over decades could serve as a basis for unifying
elements of ethnic languages into a meaningful and
authentic African dominant language. This projection
about language to some extent can be used as parallels
for other creative cultural values therefore becoming
ingredients of intra-and inter-border integration and
development.
|
