PrepTest 49, Section 4, Question 11

Through the last half century, the techniques used by certain historians of African art for judging the precise tribal origins of African sculptures on the basis of style have been greatly refined. However, as one recent critic of the historians' classificatory assumptions has put it, the idea that the distribution of a particular style is necessarily limited to the area populated by one tribe may be "a dreadful oversimplification . . . a decided falsification of the very life of art in Africa."

Objects and styles have often been diffused through trade, most notably by workshops of artists who sell their work over a large geographical area. Styles cannot be narrowly defined as belonging uniquely to a particular area; rather, there are important "centers of style" throughout Africa where families, clans, and workshops produce sculpture and other art that is dispersed over a large, multitribal geographical area. Thus, a family of artists belonging to a single ethnic group may produce sculpture on commission for several neighboring tribes. While this practice contributes to a marked uniformity of styles across a large area, the commissioned works must nevertheless be done to some extent in the style of the tribe commissioning the work. This leads to much confusion on the part of those art historians who attempt to assign particular objects to individual groups on the basis of style.

One such center of style is located in the village of Ouri, in central Burkina Faso, where members of the Konaté family continue a long tradition of sculpture production not only for five major neighboring ethnic groups, but in recent times also for the tourist trade in Ouagadougou. The Konaté sculptors are able to distinguish the characteristics of the five styles in which they carve, and will point to the foliate patterns that radiate from the eyes of a Nuna mask, or the diamond-shaped mouth of many Ko masks, as characteristics of a particular tribal style that must be included to satisfy their clients. Nevertheless, their work is consistent in its proportions, composition, color, and technique. In fact, although the Konaté sculptors can identify the styles they carve, the characteristic patterns are so subtly different that few people outside of the area can distinguish Nuna masks from Ko masks.

Perhaps historians of African art should ask if objects in similar styles were produced in centers of style, where artists belonging to one ethnic group produced art for all of their neighbors. Perhaps it is even more important to cease attempting to break down large regional styles into finer and finer tribal styles and substyles, and to recognize that artists in Africa often do not produce work only in their own narrowly defined ethnic contexts. As the case of the Konaté sculptors makes clear, one cannot readily tell which group produced an object by analyzing fine style characteristics.

Through the last half century, the techniques used by certain historians of African art for judging the precise tribal origins of African sculptures on the basis of style have been greatly refined. However, as one recent critic of the historians' classificatory assumptions has put it, the idea that the distribution of a particular style is necessarily limited to the area populated by one tribe may be "a dreadful oversimplification . . . a decided falsification of the very life of art in Africa."

Objects and styles have often been diffused through trade, most notably by workshops of artists who sell their work over a large geographical area. Styles cannot be narrowly defined as belonging uniquely to a particular area; rather, there are important "centers of style" throughout Africa where families, clans, and workshops produce sculpture and other art that is dispersed over a large, multitribal geographical area. Thus, a family of artists belonging to a single ethnic group may produce sculpture on commission for several neighboring tribes. While this practice contributes to a marked uniformity of styles across a large area, the commissioned works must nevertheless be done to some extent in the style of the tribe commissioning the work. This leads to much confusion on the part of those art historians who attempt to assign particular objects to individual groups on the basis of style.

One such center of style is located in the village of Ouri, in central Burkina Faso, where members of the Konaté family continue a long tradition of sculpture production not only for five major neighboring ethnic groups, but in recent times also for the tourist trade in Ouagadougou. The Konaté sculptors are able to distinguish the characteristics of the five styles in which they carve, and will point to the foliate patterns that radiate from the eyes of a Nuna mask, or the diamond-shaped mouth of many Ko masks, as characteristics of a particular tribal style that must be included to satisfy their clients. Nevertheless, their work is consistent in its proportions, composition, color, and technique. In fact, although the Konaté sculptors can identify the styles they carve, the characteristic patterns are so subtly different that few people outside of the area can distinguish Nuna masks from Ko masks.

Perhaps historians of African art should ask if objects in similar styles were produced in centers of style, where artists belonging to one ethnic group produced art for all of their neighbors. Perhaps it is even more important to cease attempting to break down large regional styles into finer and finer tribal styles and substyles, and to recognize that artists in Africa often do not produce work only in their own narrowly defined ethnic contexts. As the case of the Konaté sculptors makes clear, one cannot readily tell which group produced an object by analyzing fine style characteristics.