AMBIVALENT IDENTITIES:
INTERPRETING CULTURE THROUGH ARTISTIC INTERVENTION
Bachelor Thesis
Cultural Anthropology & Development Sociology Tessel Pool (10542736)
Supervisor: P. T van Rooden Second Reader: Irene Stengs
ABSTRACT
Cultural Anthropology is engaged with discrepancies, and thereby studies one context in relation to another. This context is multi-scalar and entails society, politics and history. From an anthropological perspective, we could suggest that these aspects are context specific and are thus dependent on one’s ‘culture’. What is meant by this term
remains ambiguous; it is thrown around impetuously. It is used both in the arts, by defining music, fine arts, theater and so forth. But it is also politically charged. What
does it mean when we speak of someone’s culture? By ascribing an individual to a particular ‘culture’, we are essentializing them and thus disregarding their individuality. How can someone be defined by a reified whole – a culture – merely
considering their behavior, their social organization and sometimes only their appearance? In this thesis, I consider the meaning of ‘culture’ through everyday
politics, by looking at the degree to which it affects the social structure of a community. More specifically, I take a specific case to illustrate this discussion in more detail: Wandschappen, a successful product design and art company located in Rotterdam Charlois runs multiple projects of which one is DNA Charlois. This project
in particular brings my argument to light in the context of a greater debate concerning the reification of culture. My case takes the deprived area of Charlois in Rotterdam as
a starting point. I have used quotation marks throughout the paper when wording ‘culture’ as has Baumann, to emphasize its ambiguity and to avoid misinterpretations.
CONTENT PAGE
ABSTRACT ... 2
INTRODUCTION ... 4
CASE STUDY: SWIET WATRA ... 4
CHARLOIS ... 7
PROJECT: DNA CHARLOIS ... 10
WANDSCHAPPEN ... 13
CULTURAL FLUENCY ... 14
THE AMBIGUITY OF ‘CULTURE’ ... 18
EVERYDAY POLITICS ... 20
ANTHROPOLOGISTS AS MEDIATORS ... 21
CONCLUSION ... 23
BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 24
APPENDIX ... 26
INTRODUCTION
CASE STUDY: SWIET WATRA
A small community center or rather a neighborhood ‘living room’ called Werkplaats Carnisse, located in the heart of Rotterdam Charlois suddenly became my weekly meeting point. This week, the room had been transformed into a studio with professional lighting, a white paper background and a table covered with specific props for the photoshoot. This community living room is made up of two small rooms. Upon entrance you find yourself in a dark, moist space, almost comparable to being inside of a greenhouse or an aquarium; they call it the “The Jungle Corner”1. The walls have been completely covered by glass tanks and there is little space left for much else. Each tank contains a different reptile or insect species, but they are barely visible in the darkness of the environment. In the center of the first area, there is a decrepit sofa and various used chairs. The visitors sit around, conversing with one another, exchanging stories and getting together for their weekly and often daily catch-up. This community center was initiated by a group of local volunteers from Rotterdam South as a collective initiative to improve the ‘livability’2 in the area. They present themselves and the physical space at Carnisse, as a place open to the public, especially for locals; they offer multiple services for afflicted individuals3. This is a place for the owners and visitors to re establish themselves within the community, through integration initiatives such as workshops, exhibitions and other cultural or artistic interventions. Individuals may thus come into contact with other’s like themselves. When visiting the community center you are almost always warmly welcomed by Mike, one of the main volunteers whose presence is seemingly
consistent. He is a local, and a small, frail man with a grey ponytail. He has endured much in his own life, and therefore wants to give something back to other’s
experiencing situations much worse than himself, as he says ‘my own sorrow is
1 http://cultuurwerkplaatscarnisse.nl/cultuurwerkplaats-carnisse/ 9th April 2016
2 http://cultuurwerkplaatscarnisse.nl/cultuurwerkplaats-carnisse/ 28th April 2016
incomparable to other’s, and that’s why I am still standing4’.The second room at Werkplaats Carnisse is likewise a small area. This area is, in contrast to the Jungle Corner, a plain, white room reserved for exhibitions, workshops or other community projects. It contains a very small kitchen area, two tables and another old sofa. The door is literally and figuratively always open at Carnisse. The almost temporary presence of visitors makes this place particularly attractive for other locals.
This is therefore where I found myself one afternoon, with my colleague also a professional photographer Theo, and together with our participant, Brigitte. Brigitte stood behind one of the small tables in the second room, in front of a large plastic bowl, mixing perfumed rose water. She mixed the concoction of water, perfume, red dye and rose petals with both hands, while Theo very prominently snapped
photographs of her actions. The photographs were mostly of her hands, as she
preferred not to be caught on camera. Brigitte had brought special Surinamese textiles with her, which she had tied around her waist and head. The textiles were colourful and added aesthetic value to the photograph; they were brought to the shoot on her own initiative, so it seemed as though she was rather enthusiastic to represent her country of birth, Surinam in this way. This scenery was part of a project called DNA Charlois. Theo and I were set out to visually document Brigitte’s ‘culture’, her as individual as well as her as part of the neighborhood Charlois. This visual
documentation and the underlying theme were based on the interview I had done with Brigitte two weeks prior. Our objective was to capture the way in which she
composed the traditional Surinamese rose water or ‘Swiet Watra’ in Papiamento. It seemed to be the first time she had made rose water on an occasion other than New Years Eve. Rose water is a typical Surinamese tradition created and practiced in a few easy steps, later used to cleanse and detox oneself before the New Year. Brigitte told me about this tradition in our interview. She said, ‘we just have specific traditions for example on New Year’s Eve we make Swiet Watra. It’s like water with flowers, which you bath with for good new beginnings. To close of the old year and begin a new one’5. Ensuing that interview and from the day of the photoshoot, it was ascribed as a symbol for the Surinamese culture. Mainly for its unique attributes, not
4http://www.rotterdam.nl/Clusters/RSO/Document%202014/Stadskrant/Charlois_wk%2046_
akkoord.pdf 9th April 2016
commonly practiced in the Netherlands. As put forward by Wandschappen, the ‘exotic’ value of this tradition’s individuality gave it a certain artistic value, worthy of documentation. 6
This process may leave one with many questions concerning the documentation procedure, especially the link, which is made between one’s ethnicity, their culture and an object or a craft-product. In this paper, I will pay attention to Wandschappen’s project called DNA Charlois. By doing so, I will address a much broader debate, namely the common misconception of culture. Through a critical analysis I will look at how artists are increasingly using anthropological methods, yet lack reflexivity and thereby fail to place themselves in the context of their own work. I will use Gerd Baumann’s ethnographic work, Contesting Culture to acquire a more thorough understanding of the notion culture. His work will also help look at how underlying power relations are constructed through visual influences practiced in the discipline of art. I will also place DNA Charlois within a certain contemporary Dutch political discourse using Paul Mepschen’s work called Everyday Autochthony.
CHARLOIS
Charlois is located in Rotterdam South7, a neighborhood constituent in the municipality of Rotterdam. It is a small neighborhood made up of nine districts: Carnisse, Charlois Zuidrand, de Wielewaal, Heijplaat, Oud-Charlois, Pendrecht, Tarwewijk, Zuidplein and Zuidwijk8. Charlois is located underneath the Nieuwe Maas River and between the neighborhood Feijenoord and Pernis. When visiting Charlois, it takes approximately ten minutes by metro to arrive at the main station Zuidplein. The experience through the metro tunnels from Rotterdam Central to Charlois is rather disorienting at first. Central station is an extremely large, modern design. All fifteen platforms bring you down to a main arrival hall, which resonates a shopping center. At the front you find yourself in a very large, lofty space. At the end of this area, there are some stairs leading you to the main entrance of the metro.
Besides the architecture and the ambience it comes paired with, it is also important to note the type of people at Rotterdam Central station; they are mostly commuters, most likely middle class, dressed in neat clothing or business-like suits, backpacks and other likely school, university or work attire. Once you follow the stairs down to the metro and follow the route from central station towards De Akkers, you are taken through a long dark tube, which takes you to a diverging world.
Zuidplein, you could say, is the heart of the neighborhood Charlois and, also the metro stop where the majority of people from within the metro, now exit. The crowd does not seem to be in a hurry as they did at Central Station. We would for example not be able to call them commuters. The people on the streets are both young and old. Moreover, they convey the impression of much diversity. What I mean by this is that they differ a great deal in appearance. The locals, whom walk around on the streets, wear very different clothing ranging from headscarves and long skirts to bright yellow and green head wraps and large golden hoop earrings.
Charlois accounts for ‘160 different cultures’9 and has been described by
Kaboul Vermijs, Charlois’s culture scout, as an area with much variation in both people as well as districts. Although this description gives a good impression of the neighborhood, Charlois also has its negative attributes. An area can be labeled as a
7 https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlois 12th April 2016
8 http://www.rotterdam.nl/oudcharlois 12th April 2016
‘problematic neighborhood’ when it achieves low scores in relation to the level of education, social bonding and the extent of local contribution to the neighborhood. Despite its diversity, it is in fact a deprived area when taking those three aspects into consideration10. A culture scout, a concept I was previously unfamiliar with, is someone who ‘encourages inhabitants and artists to realize large and small ideas in the field of culture and art from a social perspective and thus help to increase the cohesion in the Rotterdam districts11’. The culture scouts are in other words a part of the foundation Cultuurconcreet, a state initiative to increase and improve Rotterdam’s reputation as well as the ‘livability’ through social integration. The culture scout’s slogan reads as follows: ‘discover, connect and stimulate the development of art that is grounded in the neighborhood; that is what we do’. Based on the descriptions on their website, their motive is rather vague; it is not clear what their goals are. I would also like to note the incoherence of their definition of culture. On the one hand, they imply that culture is equal to the arts, such as concerts or theater plays. On the other hand, they refer to culture as being the same as ethnicity. Their two-fold definition adds onto the incoherence of their objectives. Their role and their objectives thus become questionable: what exactly is it that they are trying to achieve?
After various lengthy visits to the neighborhood of Charlois and multiple meetings with the Culture Scout Kaboul, the many ways to change and improve the area through cultural and artistic interventions become discernible. Much is being done to advance the area and it has been described as having ‘the potential of
developing and becoming one of the most inspiring cultural hotspots in Rotterdam’12.
Kaboul Vermijs, the culture scout of Charlois, is in charge of social integration and cultural as well as artistic intervention amongst artists and inhabitants of Charlois. The presence of a culture scout alone indicates the neighborhood’s fragility. There are more initiatives in Charlois than anywhere else in Rotterdam, they are urging the district’s development13. During my meeting with Kaboul, he listed various different 10 http://www.rijnmond.nl/nieuws/87940/Aantal-Rotterdamse-probleemwijken-verdubbeld 12th April 2016 11 http://cultuurscouts.com/ 26th April 2016 12 http://cultuurscouts.com/scouts/charlois/ 28th April 2016 13 http://www.culturelekaartrotterdam.nl/kaart/providers.search:Area=charlois#tab1 24th April 2016
ongoing interventions in the district Charlois, which range greatly from one another. There is for example an organization called Werkplaats Tarwewewijk, which
organizes different events and workshops, for example a neighborhood buffet, aimed at bringing together Moroccan and Turkish women in the area. Another event is the African poetry evening run by a foundation called African Woman United, bringing African migrants to one space through leisure and other activities. DOCK, a
somewhat larger organization, also organizes different workshops but focus on helping unprivileged or troubled individuals in general. These organizations and foundations primarily function as an incentive for assimilation within Charlois. Kaboul is in touch with them all, they attempt to make a unity in the area. The culture scout is in charge of bringing disintegrated or disadvantaged local groups or
individuals into contact through cultural and artistic intervention. For Kaboul and the other Culture Scouts, this intervention entails bringing culture as art as well as culture as one’s identity together.
PROJECT: DNA CHARLOIS
DNA Charlois, much like these other social and local initiatives, is a project with similar objectives, and it is also one of the many projects set up by Design Company called Wandschappen Rotterdam. DNA Charlois is a ‘social enterprise […] aimed at stimulating collectivity amongst the cultural diversity of Rotterdam’ and furthermore aims at creating a ‘new community consisting of 160 citizens, cultures, producers, clients and workers, whom are all in contact with one another due to this project and its tactile expression: the 160 product designs’14. This project aims at representing the diversity of the neighborhood Charlois through art and product design. They would like to transform the neighborhood into a ‘community’. According to Wandschapen, Charlois is made up of 160 ethnicities, cultures and backgrounds. Each person from one of these cultures bears a story, and they also thus claim the presence of a ‘craft-product’ (ambacht product) from their country of origin.
Various roles were assigned to this project; I was assigned to this project as research intern. My role was to collect as many interviews as possible with a range of residents from Charlois, thereby collecting stories, background information but most importantly discovering their unique craft-product. These interviews and craft-product descriptions are analyzed by Wandschappen and later assigned to 160 different local designers in Rotterdam, in order to create a new product inspired by the prior
research. ‘Each of the 160 cultures in Rotterdam Charlois is “translated” into a unique custom made object that is scalable and multipliable by one of the hundred designers and artists in Rotterdam.’15 The description of the Surinamese woman and her rose water was one of the first profiles to be completed from this project. The quantitative data such as interview recording and transcription, together with the visual materials produced from the photoshoot, were the researcher’s responsibility. I was, according to Wandschappen, in charge of constructing a focal point for each participant and thus assigning each individual to a their product. During my interview with Brigitte for example, she talked about her home in general: about the food, the atmosphere and the people. As instructed by Wandschappen, I probed her about any unique customs or traditions from her homeland, which she may have taken with her to Rotterdam. She then told me about the New Years tradition, about how they make rose water.
14 http://www.dnacharlois.nl/over-ons 12th April 2016
Brigitte’s identity was thus defined by a national tradition Swiet Watra, functioning as a type of metonym in which the Surinamese ‘culture’ becomes one homogenized whole. In traditional anthropological terms, we would refer to this as a totem: an object or a symbol that serves as an emblem for a particular group of people16.
After analyzing the data and subsequently pairing our informants with their potential symbol or ‘totem’, Wandschappen analyzes the qualitative data collected as well as the summary of the results. Henceforth, a local Rotterdam artist or designer is assigned to create a ‘product’ based on the participant’s profile and her cultural as well as ethnic background. Wandschappen informed me that the Brigitte’s product would most likely become an authentic glass bottle to hypothetically store this rose water in. This is a mere example of what the process looked like and what would be repeated for each of the future 160 participants. Similar to other neighborhood initiatives managed by the culture scouts, DNA Charlois seeks to document and reproduce the background stories of the local inhabitants, thus seeking to stimulate social recognition, integration, acceptance and cultural awareness17. At this point, it is worth noting the similarities between DNA Charlois and other local organizations and interventions. We can also start to question their definition of ‘culture’; it remains equivocal. We will pay more attention to this issue later in the discussion.
Firstly, why is the area of Charlois relevant for discussion and more importantly, why is it relevant to analyze from an anthropological point of view? Charlois is an area in Rotterdam known for its diversity. During the interviews, when asked why the participants or local inhabitants chose to live in Charlois, they referred to financial or personal reasons such as, cheaper housing or because of family. The main reason however, was due to its diversity. Lloyd, a Canadian participant, called it a ‘melting pot’. Charlois attracts mostly migrants, which according to Wandschappen are, people who were born outside of the Netherlands. I, on the other hand, would refer to migrants as being those individuals who move from one place to another. There is thus no difference whether it is from Ghana to Rotterdam or from Maastricht to Rotterdam.
16 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totem 28th April 2016
Some participants expressed that they felt welcome in Charlois by saying that they never felt discriminated18. All participants and target participants for the project
DNA Wandschappen are first generation migrants; Wandschappen stressed the necessity to only collect data and work with those individuals who were not born in the Netherlands and who could say something relevant about their ‘exotic’ cultures. This was ultimately the purpose of the research: to retrieve information from this diverse population in order to document it as well as to create something new. The concept of creating or rather constructing the ‘new’ consist of the stories and experiences of the participant’s homeland. The interview encouraged me to ask questions such as: do they have a unique product, custom, tradition or object in their house, which represents their culture? How is it made and what do they do with it? For example, Brigitte spoke about her local custom, making rose water on New Years Eve. She did not recognize it as something unique and interesting, but willingly participated in the project. She told us about this custom, how they make it and what it signifies in Surinam. Her story was brought to life through visuals. Wandschappen consequently collected the interview, together with the visuals and we would then send it to a local designer. The designer would then create an entirely new product inspired by the participant’s experiences and stories. Social change and individual change are not a primary motivating factor for Wandschappen. As we saw in the example regarding their procedure, it is rather about displaying each inhabitant’s unique story through their ‘culture’ and thereby representing ‘the other’ - meaning the migrants - in relation to ‘ourselves’ – referring to Wandschappen, who represent the Dutch population, the ones born and raised in the Netherlands.
WANDSCHAPPEN
So who are Wandschappen exactly? Let me start by explaining my first journey to the company office and studio. The directions dictated via email read as follows: ‘Take the train to Rotterdam Central and then the metro to Zuidplein station in Charlois’. Once at the Zuidplein I was told that it would be straightforward. On the contrary, I walked around in circles for 30 minutes anxiously looking for the correct address. Neither did anybody seem to recognize the name of the street. Luckily, I was very early and would perhaps still make it on time. I needed to make a good impression in my interview. Google maps led me to a dull, dark brown building right outside the metro-station, which is where I began half an hour earlier. Could this really be it? I entered through a main hall, which is the old Municipal Health Service
(Gemeentelijke Gezondheidsdienst) office building situated next to the local Charlois swimming pool. The studio is a mere space occupying this building; a refreshing, clean space compared to its surroundings. The studio is a very large, rectangular space. Its white luminosity in contrast to the atmosphere outside immediately strikes you when you walk through the doors. The small section with two desks, a few computers and some documents, along with the kitchen seem to be the only formal, set-up areas in this space. The rest of the space is occupied by worktables, textiles in all shapes and colours, books and sewing machines scattered throughout. It is a chaotic mess, but this chaos is ordered in its own manner.
Wandschappen is a business owned by Ivo and Nicole van den Baar, both visual artists. They make designs and fine art in their own studio, which
simultaneously serves as a production company for other Dutch designers. Their strategy is multi-facetted as they combine art and social intervention. At
Wandschappen, I was mainly in contact with Ivo van den Baar, the owner of the company and his secrerary, Hillegon. His wife was there full time just like himself, but remained in the background working on other projects. Beside these key figures, Wandschappen is also made up of a couple of design interns and only one
anthropologist. The studio is always occupied by workers, each in their own corner; seated, standing or crouched behind a piece of fabric or a sewing machine. I mostly stayed in contact with Hillegon throughout my internship, unless it concerned more important decisions, then Ivo would then get involved. In general, Wandschappen acted as a type of guider, but they did give me much flexibility and freedom in my
research. I regularly reported back with new data and interesting or strange encounters. I was only sometimes given advice or suggestions for the future.
CULTURAL FLUENCY
Wandschappen is increasingly involved with the neighbourhood Charlois in
Rotterdam; their studio is located in the center of this community, they know many people and are extremely involved with events in the area. Wandschappen is actively running multiple projects, all of which intervene with Charlois as well as its residents. Another one of their extremely successful projects is based on the feeling of home and comfort. They design and craft large, realistic felt plants in both small and extremely large sizes. This project ‘At Home’19 is based on the relationship between comfort and safety and the presence of plants in one’s home. At Home has been described as being ‘inspired by the Charlois area in Rotterdam, where thousands of people arrive every year in the hope of starting a new life’20. Currently,
Wandschappen is working on a new project, which gives bulky waste (grofvuil) much importance. The heaps of waste that often accumulate alongside the streets in messy piles have become a normal site for an everyday pedestrian. For Wandschappen, it is an inspiration for art; they photograph it and recreate through different materials. Their recreation disregards individual objects, which then transforms it into something abstract. They seek to place emphasis on everyday objects as ones of meaning and aesthetics. In a conversation with Ivo and Hillegon, they said, ‘we use the neighborhood as a basis for the inspiration of our art’. Although Wandschappen have many ongoing projects, they explained that DNA Charlois is their most complicated one as ‘it all depends on others in the neighborhood’21.
Their art is both aesthetically pleasing as well as socially intervening (Sansi 2015: 2). Traditionally, artists create art for self-expression. What I mean by this is that they most often work independently and with the purpose of creating visuals. Artist’s are now generally moving away from this, and are recognizing their
19 http://www.rhinecapital.com/marker-august-wandschappen/ 23rd April 2016
20 http://www.rhinecapital.com/marker-august-wandschappen/ 23rd April 2016
environment as their canvas with endless possibilities. This has also been called ‘social pratice’ (Ibid: 2) as artists are becoming more interested in ‘public spaces and on specific sites, developing research with social groups, and addressing questions of immediate political relevance’ (Ibid.: 2). There is endless truth in this statement in relation to Wandschappen’s work. They execute research in order to attain a good understanding of the neighborhood; the outcomes and its purpose include political relevance. We can compare this to what Roger Sansi wrote about in Art,
Anthropology and the Gift. He begins by comparing the work of artists and anthropologists by explaining how new forms of visual studies have become grounded within anthropology in the form of a paradigm shift (Ibid: 2).
This growing affinity between art and anthropology has been referred to as the ethnographic turn, sometimes the ‘practice of making’ or even ‘ethnographic
conceptualism’. This shift refers to particular convergences between art and anthropology (Grimshaw & Ravetz 2015: 418), in which both disciplines are
increasingly using one another’s methods, thus creating an overlap. It has ‘become a focus of renewed interest and debate’ (Ibid: 418). The ethnographic turn is the growing ‘ethnographic perspective’ shared by art and anthropology, and how artists are becoming progressively involved with anthropological matters such as the
‘politics of representation’ (Rutten, Diederen & Soetart 2013: 460). The ethnographic turn is an important debate to consider, to fully understand the way in which
Wandschappen’s practices can in some ways be understood as anthropology. Wandschappen’s research methods could be compared to those of
anthropology, as they are based on social issues: what people do and why they do it. ‘Change’, is not necessarily their objective but rather ‘to create unexpected situations, building unforeseen relations, unconventional and unprecedented associations and communities in a particular location – local, specific changes’ (Ibid.: 2).
Anthropology likewise considers local specific changes. In other words,
Wandschappen is not looking to change society, but also to document it and thus project it through visuals. This projection triggers awareness, which may lead to change. Let us take the example by considering DNA Charlois: during an interview with Ivo and Hillegon, after probing about the purpose of their art, they explained a recent encounter they had experienced at a conference, which sheds light on their position and purpose as design company. During the meeting, Wandschappen presented themselves as well as their projects. The meeting delegate asked with
particular cynical directness, ‘so, how will the neighborhood benefit from this?’ It was slightly eye opening to hear the founder of Wandschappen addressing this topic in my presence. Ivo’s responded by saying that Wandschappen is fully aware of their inability to actively change or transform Charlois and added, ‘it’s all about seeing’. This refers to ‘ocularcentrism’ (Grimshaw 2001: 6) where seeing becomes an important tool for interpretation; vision is more than our senses, it shapes our ideas and thus our behavior. In other words, to see and to look through another lens is to create awareness or reflexivity (Sansi 2015). This would indicate that the purpose of their art is not to change circumstances in the first instance, but rather to create a particular awareness for themselves and hopefully also for others. Art makes you look and encourages you think, this adds a particular political value.
Artists, especially in Wandschappen’s case, are increasingly using anthropological methods and other practices to acquire legitimacy in their work. Through long term fieldwork consisting of participant observation and interviews, anthropology often involves its participants, or at least attempts to do so. DNA Charlois’s objectives as well as its means of production share resemblances with ethnography: it is about the creation of something based on research, or ethnography. Besides stimulating their audience’s awareness, Wandschappen also claims to be interested in contributing to the community’s ‘livability’ rather than out of self-interest or merely for profit. Their long-term goal is to involve their participants, the inhabitants of Charlois, in the production process of their projects. They are in search of participant’s who obtains a unique skill. For example, there is a Turkish woman, who works at the studio once a week by providing her traditional hand-weave skills. Moreover, Sansi claims that:
‘the artist then is also an ethnographer, working in fact on a very popular topic in anthropology these days: human/ non-human relations. His intention is not just to build ethnography or archive, but also to contribute to the construction or “mending” of social relations in the neighborhood’ (Ibid: 3).
With the project DNA Charlois these ‘human/ non-human relationships’ exist
between the migrants and their craft-products and the artists themselves. Their unique craft product, which they have never previously considered as unique, is cast as part of their identity. Through such interventions between artists and their neighborhood,
integration and the incentive of ‘mending’ social relations in the disadvantaged district of Charlois might come about. However, is this really what anthropologist’s do?
Roger Sansi discusses the affinity between art and anthropology by analyzing what he believes is a common misconception within this debate. Sansi explains Joseph Kosuth’s conceptual expression ‘Artists as Anthropologists’ (Ibid: 20), which describes the way in which both disciplines work in practice. For him, both consist of ‘cultural fluency’. Meaning that ‘anthropologists need to gain fluency in other
cultures, while the artist does the same work in his own culture’ (Ibid: 20). Some truth can be found in this definition as anthropologists traditionally focused on the exotic other in distant, unfamiliar societies, whereas artists mostly reflected on their own environment, closer to home. Kosuth continued: ‘for the artists, this cultural fluency is a dialectical process, because he is trying to affect the culture that affects him; the artist tries to change his own society, he is an anthropologist engaged’ (Ibid: 20). This is where Kosuth’s description becomes unclear and where Sansi does much to
contend this definition. In agreement with Sansi, we can begin by saying that anthropologists no longer solely study the ‘exotic other’; we are involved with our own society as much as art claims to be. Anthropologists are also just as much ‘engaged’ (Ibid: 20) with the society they are studying to the same degree as art is. In response to this discussion, Sansi compares the two disciplines by saying: ‘Both artists and anthropologists would ask questions about everyday life, questions about things one normally takes for granted: the value of commodities, the relation of people and things, work and play, people and they city’ (ibid: 21). Although the two disciplines share some similarities as we have seen, we must remain critical and recognize how art, Wandschappen’s case in particular, lacks reflexivity. Their
position in relation to the ones they are putting on display reinforces segregation as it were, between ‘us’ and them’. Wandschappen’s projects are mostly based in Charlois; they take the theme of everyday life as their principle inspiration for their projects, ensuring that the regular becomes the irregular. They try to ground their work in the participant’s ‘culture’, which they claim is rooted in objects or in the craft-products. Ideally, Wandschappen conspires to document the diversity of the Charlois population and thus reiterates that what is enticing, unfamiliar or ‘exotic’. Anthropology
discordantly seeks to recognize differences in others in order to reflect upon themselves.
THE AMBIGUITY OF ‘CULTURE’
‘No idea is as fundamental to an anthropological understanding of social life as the concept of culture. At the same time, no anthropological term has spread into public parlance and political discourse as this word has done over the past twenty years’ (Baumann 1996: 9).
We have looked at how Wandschappen uses anthropological methods to legitimize their work. There is a growing overlap between art and anthropology, which does not signify that their results, or even their methods are the same. Although their practices and ways of working show conformities, they do not remain separate disciplines for no reason; the comparison is related to a discussion of their differences. If we look at what anthropology is and what it does, we could say that anthropologists study individuals and groups within a certain context or society. Sansi similarly notes that ‘the ultimate aim of anthropology […] was not just to describe other cultures, but to put them in comparison with our own culture; to develop a critical attitude toward what our own culture takes for granted, make us aware that things we take as
“natural”, like the family or the market economy, may not be so “natural” for people elsewhere’ (Sansi 2015: 21). Art and in particular Wandschappen however, are not reflexive about themselves or their social context. Rather, they present their
informants as worthy of study. We could say that Wandschappen work deductively, basing their research and later their art on general theories. Whereas anthropology, generally speaking, works inductively by reaffirming certain theories based on their ethnographic findings. Anthropology, unlike art, encompasses a high degree of reflexivity. Anthropologists are able to place their participants in a particular discussion and simultaneously know what their position is amidst all of this. Artists and in particular the one’s I worked with at Wandschappen, show less reflexivity; their idea of the other in relation to themselves is transparent and relatively linear. Furthermore, Wandschappen did not administer a concrete or coherent understanding of ‘culture’.
Gerd Baumann discusses the existing debate and misconception of the term culture in his ethnographic fieldwork Contesting Culture. In his book he analyses the construction of the term culture thoroughly. Baumann bases his theories on his research and also his ‘personal motives’ (Baumann 1996: 1). He questioned the way
in which ‘immigrants were portrayed in the British media, in political rhetoric, and, not least, in the academic literature’ (Ibid: 1). More specifically, he was interested in Southallians – the very diverse population living in Southhall, a ‘multi-ethnic town on the outskirts of London’ - and how people’s cultures are reduced to their ‘ethnic identity’ (Ibid: 1). Wandschappen does just this, as they do not distinguish between one’s culture and their ethnicity. Brigitte was born and grew up in Surinam, but lived in Charlois for most of her later life. She feels just as Dutch as she does Surinamese and that also includes the customs and traditions she practices. The craft-product design of he glass bottle created in relation to the rose water tradition, appoints Brigitte and thus Surinam and the Surinamese ‘culture’ to one object; it becomes statuary. Contrarily, Baumann realized that we should not assign our participant’s to just one ‘culture’ or one ‘ethnicity’. He writes,‘[…] attributions of culture and community can clearly not be reduced to one factor alone. Rather, all but the most single-minded of adult Southallians, it turned out, regarded themselves as members of several communities at once, each with its own culture’ (Ibid: 5).
By assigning each participant from a different country and background to one object, also means Wandschappen is forcing their audience to do so; they have the power to steer us in a certain direction through what we have called ocularcentrism and what I like to refer to as a discourse through the visual senses. The process behind the product is however not shown, for example that a researcher is responsible for choosing an object, which is interesting enough for particular artistic purposes. Brigitte, whether she feels Surinamese or not, represents Surinam and thus the Surinamese culture. Furthermore, ‘the dominant discourse relies on equating community, culture, and ethnic identity, and its protagonists can easily reduce
anybody’s behavior to a symptom of this equation’ (Ibid: 6). Wandschappen practices their structural influences on their participants; they have the power to initiate and lead this project and also the power to steer their audience’s gaze.
In my opinion, this approach and methodology is wrong for various reasons. Firstly, Wandschappen essentializes the ‘other’, thus placing each country or ethnic group into a certain category and labeling it as a ‘culture’. This ‘label’ is represented by an object, a craft-product and then it is classified as art. We are ‘reifying culture’, which Bauman quoted very accurately by saying:
‘For many, … the term [culture] seems to connote a certain coherence, uniformity and timelessness in the meaning systems of a given group, and to operate rather like the earlier concept of ‘race’ in identifying fundamentally different, essentialized, and homogenous social units (as when we speak about a ‘culture’). Because of these associations, … [it] falsely fixes the boundaries between groups in an absolute and artificial way’ (Baumann 1996: 11).
EVERYDAY POLITICS
Based on the way the term culture has been deployed to define Rotterdam Charlois’s make-up, we are able to disclose certain matters about Wandschappen’s own position. We have established that they are unreflexive as they do not consider their own position within the project. This thesis has been an analysis regarding two parties: firstly, the ‘migrants’ who acted as participants for the project DNA Charlois. Each migrant is placed in the context of his or her own ‘culture’. Secondly, Wandschappen, the middle-class, white, Rotterdammers. What remains the question at this point is, what about Wandschappen’s ‘culture’? Based on Paul Mepschen’s work Everyday Autochthony, I have been able to consider their work from a critical perspective. As a matter of fact, we must all do so. Through such a critical analysis, we place
Wandschappen in a broader political context, namely Dutch politics.
Two observations could be subtracted from my experiences at Wandschappen. Inherently, the lack of reflexivity emphasizes the lack of their own involvement. While assigning other’s to a particular ‘culture’, they fail to define themselves as part of a ‘culture’. This left me dumbfounded. Furthermore, Wandschappen never sought to include any sort of reified Dutch culture in their project DNA Charlois. Is it because this Dutch culture does not really exist for them? Or is it rather because a Dutch culture is inadequately interesting or exotic? In my opinion, it is a combination of both. Mepschen contends that ‘a dominant Dutch culture is to assimilate minorities into the fictive body we call society, which is conceived of as an integral totality with a discrete, monolithic cultural substance’ (Mepschen 2016: 13). Whether
Wandschappen is doing so consciously or not remains the question, but their practices do more or less respond to what Mepschen suggests; we could refer to this as
relations. By excluding themselves from their project, Wandschappen consequently places themselves in an authoritative position. It is problematic because it reproduces a reified cultural framework thus ignoring the ‘relational, processual, and conflictual character of human world-making. It simplifies reality by creating an illusion of cultural unity, reducing the opponent to a knowable and perceivable essence’ (Mepschen 2016: 14). Lastly, by condemning their own positions and more
importantly a ‘culture’, indicates that they, just like the Culture Scouts are not well informed about what the term culture really means; it remains incoherent.
ANTHROPOLOGISTS AS MEDIATORS
Taking this analysis as a starting point, it is relevant to consider the position of each actor involved. Wandschappen is a product design company and thus the guiding structure. It is crucial to consider Wandschappen’s position in society, Wandschappen have not only presented themselves as artists, but also as social intermediaries who strive to influence their environment. Through such intervention, they attempt to avoid an authoritarian position by showing interest in their participants, the migrants. They do this through participatory intervention and ethnographic research. The second actor is myself, the training anthropologist recruited to assist with research, to collect information about the participants and to provide the relevant information for the progression of the project. Lastly and most importantly are the migrants, the “160 cultures” in the district Charlois. They are unaware of their position as participant; they are simply living and working to survive and to maintain themselves and their families. They are subconsciously the key actors of DNA Charlois. A triangular model takes form between the artists, a research intern and the migrants: we are all related to one another and all bear a different identity in relation to the other. This concerns the social order or what Goffman called the ‘interaction order’ (Goffman 1988: 1), which refers to the ways we organize ourselves within society.
So now the question remains, what factors link the actors involved? The posed triangular structure, bridges all actors, the common denominator thus being the visual intermediary. In other words, the groundwork for communication and information is retrieved through visual processes and thus act as a fourth agent. Artists have always practiced visual methods in their discipline, but have now started using them
differently. Artists, and specifically those at Wandschappen are using visual methods for the means of social intervention. Anthropologists, on the other hand have
traditionally not used visual methods; they are often considered illegitimate methods. In contemporary ethnographic fieldwork, anthropologists are recognizing the benefits of using visuals. Using visuals to elicit ideas from participants has its benefits, for example during some of the DNA Charlois interviews, participants became more open to talk about and share their thoughts when we introduced our ideas in relation to the cultural craft-product. This additionally shows how it could function as an intermediary between different actors in society.
On another note, anthropologists play a crucial role in many research and social contexts as mediating actor. We are trained to work critically and reflexively. Based on this research, we have seen that other actor’s, such as artists, lack such reflexivity. Anthropologists are a complementary element for sociopolitical
community or neighborhood interventions. Although artists such as Wandschappen are becoming more involved with ethnographic practices as a basis for their work, they do not recognize the consequences of certain actions. To improve their way of working in practice, especially their project DNA Charlois, Wandschappen should consider including the Dutch ‘culture’. By including local Rotterdamers would give a more realistic portrayal of Charlois. Wandschappen could include those individuals who have been referred to as the key informants, for example Mike from Carnisse. This advice could be taken as a starting point to improve their project.
CONCLUSION
To conclude this dissertation and critical analysis, I would like to begin by saying that my experience as research intern at Wandschappen was extremely interesting and advantageous. I also learnt an extensive amount. Although I have been extremely critical of Wandschappen, I would like to reiterate their intentions. Despite their lack of reflexivity and incoherent definition of ‘culture’, they had good intentions for the participant’s involved and beneficial objectives for the neighborhood of Charlois.
My experiences as training anthropologist, allowed me to put my newly learnt expertise into practice: I used critical theory and a reflexive point of view to
understand Charlois’s socio-cultural and political context. Firstly, the similarities between Art and Anthropology or rather the extent to which artists use
anthropological methodology and practice to legitimize their work was evident. By moving away from individual production for the sole purpose of self-expression, by working in collective focus groups on various social issues, artists acquire recognition in their local context. Recognition signifies legitimization and thus additional benefits such as subsidies. This is particularly true for the artists at Wandschappen.
The key distinguishing factor between artists and anthropologists, is their understanding of ‘culture’. The ways Wandschappen have framed their participants has had implications for their participants; they have constructed a type of discourse, in which occularcentrism plays an important role. The power of visual documentation gives Wandschappen the opportunity to frame Charlois’s population in a particular manner. I showed how Wandschappen have assigned each person to an exotic craft product and thereby a reified definition of culture. They have also excluded the Dutch culture in the projection of Charlois’s diversity. In my opinion, Dutch culture should also be included in their project; exclusion also has its implications. With regards to Mepschen’s ‘everyday politics’, we can conclude that this constructs a divide between Wandschappen, the white Rotterdamers and the participants, the “other” cultures.
Lastly I would like to recognize anthropologist’s position as mediators in various situations and thereby we provide our expertise through critical analysis and reflexivity; we work inductively. Ascertaining to Baumann’s findings, we can also conclude that ‘culture’ is an extremely ambiguous term, which is in constant flux: the participants involved are not bound to one culture, they can embody multiple and should moreover not be defined by a culture.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arnd, S & Wright, C
2014 Between Art and Anthropology: Contemporary Ethnographic Practice. London: Bloomsbury.
Clifford, J., Marcus, G.E., & Fortun, K.
2010 Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley, CA: U of California.
Goffman, E.
1959 Representation of the self. Broadway, New York: Doubleday Dell Publishing group, Inc.
Goffman, E. et al.
1988 Exploring the Interaction Order. Boston: Northeastern UP.
Grimshaw, A.
2001 The Ethnographer's Eye: Ways of Seeing in Anthropology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP.
Grimshaw, A. & Ravetz, A.
2005 Visualizing Anthropology. Bristol, UK: Intellect. Grimshaw, A & Ravetz, A.
2015 The Ethnographic Turn – and After: A Critical Approach Towards the Realignment of Art and Anthropology. Social Antropology 23(4): 418 – 434.
Mepschen, P
2016 Everyday Autochthony: Difference, discontent, and the politics of home in Amsterdam. Academic dissertation: University of Amsterdam.
Rutten, K., Dienderen, A.V., & Soetaert, R.
2013 "Revisiting the Ethnographic Turn in Contemporary Art." Critical Arts 459-73
Sansi, R.
APPENDIX
Naam: Brigit Marisha Jordan (Vrouw) Geboortejaar: 1970 (45 jaar) Geboorteplaats: Suriname/ Paramaribo
Jaren in Nederland: 39 Jaar Opleiding/ Beroep: Werkloos
Burgerlijke staat: Ongehuwd
Object/ Product: Rozenwater (Swiet Watra)
De Carnisse werkplaats in Rotterdam Charlois is waar ik Brigit voor het eerst leerde kennen. Deze werkplaats is een ontmoetingsplek waar er kunst en cultuur wordt aangeboden; een soort “huiskamer” van de wijk. De deuren staan altijd open, letterlijk en figuurlijk, het is binnen koud en de kamer is gevuld met glazen tanks met verschillende soorten reptielen: slangen, hagendissen, schilpadden en ook nog vogels. De bezoekers van de werkplaats zitten in het midden van de kamer op de oude bank met hun jassen aan en een kopje the of koffie. Dit is eigenlijk het enige wat er huiselijk aan is, voor de rest geeft het dim licht van de glazen tanks, de geluiden van de beesten en de kou een vreemd gevoel. Brigit voelt zich hier echter op haar gemak, haar verhalen passen mooi in het kader van deze omgeving.
Na een gesprek met Brigit, afkomstig uit Suriname, heb ik ontdekt dat mijn beeld van een paradijselijk Suriname slechts een Westers idee is. Curaçao heeft deze kwaliteiten wel, maar Suriname blijkbaar niet. De meerderheid van de mensen weet vrij weinig over de Surinaamse cultuur en tradities. Ik had zelf, als onderzoeker, weinig kennis over Suriname en de intense cultuur daar. Als men een tijdje in Nederland woont, kan men niet anders dan daar veel meer over te weten komen. Naast andere redenen was het een Nederlandse kolonie dus wonen er veel Surinamers in Nederland. Wat ik van Brigit heb geleerd is dat Suriname weinig strandcultuur heeft. Het is een tropisch paradijs met weinig zand, voornamelijk modderbanken en troebel water, niet echt
mooi blauw zoals dat oorspronkelijk in mijn verbeelding was. De lucht is warm en vochtig en het land is erg vruchtbaar, ‘je hoeft maar een zaadje te gooien en twee weken later heb je een plant’ vertelde Brigit.
Misschien is Brigit ook wel een zaadje wat groeit wanneer je haar ergens plant; ze is op een jonge leeftijd verhuisd samen met haar broers en zussen omdat haar moeder in Nederland ging werken. Ze is ongehuwd maar heeft drie kinderen van 13, 22 en 28 die allemaal in Rotterdam zijn geboren; ze heeft het vaak over haar kinderen. Ze woont inmiddels al 39 jaar in Nederland. Hier voelt ze zich nu thuis maar ze vertelde dat ze soms nog terug naar Suriname gaat en daarom voelt ze zich alleen maar ‘deels Nederlands’. Brigit is in Suriname opgegroeid maar heeft voor het grootste deel van haar leven in Nederland gewoond. Ze heeft de cultuur en de tradities van Suriname ‘van huis uit’ meegekregen. In Suriname zeggen ze dat haar accent echt Rotterdams is maar wat haar zeker nog Surinaams maakt is haar uiterlijk en daar is ze ook trots op. Wat mij tijdens ons gesprek opviel was dat Brigit het vaak had over de verschillen tussen Nederland en Suriname. Dit deed ze door middel van dichotome
omschrijvingen van de twee landen. Brigit deed me door haar verhalen voelen alsof ik een half uurtje in Suriname was. Ik was niet meer in de kleine koude “huiskamer” van de Carnisse werkplaats, maar in een tropisch limbo tussen Brigits herinneringen en de verbeelding die dat bij mij opriep. Kleuren, geuren en gevoelens kwamen vaak aan bod. De planten en bomen en het vochtige klimaat maken daar ook deel van uit. Toen ze het over Nederland had, ging het vaak over het weer en de kou.
Natuurlijk zijn er verschillen tussen Nederland en Suriname, het zijn uiteindelijk twee verschillende landen in hele andere delen van de wereld; andere klimaten,
levensstijlen en tradities. Brigit beschreef Suriname als “primitief”, dit waarschijnlijk door de verschillen die ze ervaart in relatie tot Nederland. Ze hebben daar andere normen en waarden, ze leven en werken dichter bij de natuur dan in Nederland maar wat ze echt “primitief” maakt volgens haar is hun onafhankelijkheid. Brigit vertelde over bijzondere ervaringen in Suriname zoals het openbaar vervoer, zoals de busjes die niet op gezette tijden en met luide muziek langs komen rijden, of de mannen op straat met wagens vol meloenen. Door over deze speciale herinneringen en ervaringen te praten kon Brigit niet anders doen dan lachen.
Wat mij het meeste opviel over Brigit was dat ze het veel over geur had. Geur was voor Brigit een belangrijke aspect in haar beschrijvingen van haar gevoelens in relatie tot haar thuis en haar afkomst.
Ik vroeg Brigit over bepaalde gewoontes of tradities uit Suriname waar ze niet zonder kan. Een specifieke gewoonte die mij intrigeerde was wat zij Swiet Watra noemde (rozenwater). Dit is representatief voor de Surinaamse cultuur en is een speciale water met een lekkere geur, voornamelijk gemaakt van rozen en floride water. Het wordt bereid met de hele familie op Oudjaarsavond en op Nieuwjaarsdag gaat iedereen zich daarmee wassen. Het maken van Swiet Watra brengt de hele familie samen. Familie is zeer belangrijk in Suriname. Baden met Swiet Watra is symbolisch voor een nieuw begin. De traditie van het maken en gebruiken van dit product heeft Brigit
meegenomen uit Suriname en zal dit doorgeven aan haar kinderen. Vroeger was haar moeder de gene die het voorbereidde en iedereen er mee ging wassen, maar nu doet zij het voor de hele familie. Bijna elk jaar wordt deze traditie uitgeoefend. Brigit vertelde over een jaar toen ze het had overgeslagen omdat ze een ‘dip’ had gehad. Haar kinderen waren heel teleurgesteld en sinds dien doet ze het gewoon elk jaar weer. Deze gebeurtenis wordt door de hele familie uitgevoerd. Iedereen die aan deze gebeurtenis deelneemt, draagt een van de traditionele felgekleurde klederdrachten uit Suriname en krijgt vervolgens een of twee schepjes van het rozenwater over zich heen. Als een bloemenblaadje blijft plakken, mogen ze het niet weg vegen, ze moeten het daar laten drogen. Dit omdat ze anders de gelukwensen weg vegen.
Rozenwater wordt door enkele simpele stappen gemaakt. Je vult als eerste een bak vol kokend water en voegt de helft van een flesje fluoride water bij. Hierna doe je er een paar druppels geestenwater bij, dit geeft het water een rode kleur. Dan een paar druppeltjes van het “good luck” parfumolie om iedereen geluk toe te wensen. Als laatste strooi je de rozen blaadjes in het water en roer je het met je handen en de schep. De schep is normaal een gedroogde kalebas, deze gebruik je ook om het water over iedereen te doen. Brigit vertelde dat je tijdens het hele proces praat over het afgelopen jaar; wat goed ging en wat minder goed ging. Door het baden met
rozenwater krijg je een nieuw begin. Dit ritueel wordt een keer per jaar uitgeoefend. De ingrediënten kan je in bijna alle toko’s vinden in Nederland en zo kan Brigit dit ritueel ook hier uitoefenen.
