Different interpretations of history

Constructed concepts in a colonial view

"Australian art" is a concept that describes both the art of colonisers trying to understand the continent through their northern lens as well as art that predates colonisation

Indigenous Art and Colonial Art

historical artworks

stories interpreted differently by European side and Indigenous nations

paintings made by Indigenous people get ignored while artworks that appropriate and/or misrepresent are recognized

Indigenous arts was used to expand the tourism industry but in reality was not being prioritized

Indigenous art from ancient times is still relevant and present in today's art

"Australian" is inherently European name - does that limit Australian art to the land as seen through that lens?

is art based on Australia enough to be labelled as Australian? (even if the person themselves does not live here)

how different artists experience Australia - are imaginary things less valid than experiences?

There are two sides: the indigenous and the western: two points of view

This ties into the antipodean analyses that we discussed in yesterday's lecture

The Hoorn reading was illuminating for us; all four of us are from the United States and so any existing knowledge we have on the topic is not just through a colonial filter but through a an American colonial filter on top of an Australian one

what looks like australian national art?

Regardless of the author, a lot of Australian art seems to deal with identity (cultural or personal) in relation to the land, whether that's their presence (or "enjoyment of the land")

Can we reconcile an Australia through the existence of Australian art? Is Australian art therefore defined solely by the topic/desire of defining Australia as a nation? Considering a nation is defined by culture, can it escape the woes of nationalism?