High Art as Tourist Art, Tourist Art as High Art by Eric K. Silverman

This article documented how, many times, the roles of art are reversed. In particular, the article talks about the Sepik River communities. Tourist art from the Sepik River has always been motivated by money. Although tourist art is generally seen as commodities, fakes, and not genuine art, Silverman argues that Eastern Iatmul tourist art from one part of the Sepik River is a genuine expression that reflects concepts of ethnicity and identity. Silverman focused on the Stanford University New Guinea Sculpture Garden, which was created to provide a new “public art space” for artists from the Sepik River communities of Papua New Guinea (PNG). Artistic categorization and contact zones are discussed at length in this article. Contact zones are defined as transnational zones and “the spatial and temporal copresence of subjects previously separated by geographic and historical disjunctures, and whose trajectories now intersect (pg.272).” These zones encourage hybridity between different art categories that might not have coexisted before. The sculpture garden at Stanford was seen by its director, Jim Mason, as “an opportunity to experiment with and reinterpret New Guinea aesthetic perspectives within the new context of a Western public art space (pg.278).” Although the art made in the garden by the Melanesian artists were to be enjoyed by foreigners, (much like tourist art is), the garden emphasized artistic individuality. The art was supposed to be viewed as art, rather than exotic crests and emblems.
It became apparent that even though some individuals aspire to blur artistic categories, and bring a more positive light onto the men and women that carve and paint for the enjoyment of visitors to their country, the majority would refuse to let that happen. In particular, Westerners will hold on tight to concrete distinctions between touristy, seemingly cheap art and high art.