ProppaNOW George Petelin The term Movement must be one of the most ambiguous words in art writing.

It has been used to describe massive trends that developed over more than a century such as Modernism, it has been used to refer to styles such as Expressionism, to choices of media such as Performance rt and Earth rt, and to discrete groups such as the !urrealists. "ately, the term ustralian boriginal Movement has been used to describe the output of a whole culture. To do that culture no disservice, it is important to now distinguish among the distinct schools of thought within boriginal visual culture according to the more precise discrete meaning of the term movement. It is not sufficient to distinguish #rban boriginal rt from $emote rea boriginal rt nor, in view of the debates and politics associated with %authenticity&, is it productive to differentiate between %traditional& and %non'traditional& art. (owever, there is arguably a whole range of art practice by boriginal people living in cities. !ome of this practice arises out of na)ve un'taught talent. nd some of this practice adopts features of remote art, with different degrees of understanding of its protocols. *ther branches of this practice draw on European methods and techni+ues, with an e+ually broad range of success. To constitute a %movement&, in the stricter and more enlightening art'historical sense, one of these tendencies would need to mobilise a distinct group of members with a common philosophy and stylistic similarities. !ocial movements in general are characterised by the sharing, in response to some form of deprivation or alienation, of an interest in promoting social change. These circumstances patently obtain for most boriginal people. The rise of a movement, however, occurs when some support becomes available from a sector of the very society the movement wishes to change and resources emerge for its members to networ, and enact their point of view. They become a movement when they have the infrastructure to ideologically frame their discontents and advance a coherent attac, on the status +uo. In the industrial era, movements increasingly characterised by urban alienation became ,nown as avant-garde. #rbanisation appears to be a ,ey re+uirement for this phenomenon in more ways than one. The Metropolis facilitates social interaction whether by means of a cafe society or an underground networ,, the resources for production, and, through its sheer population, the possibility of finding an audience for unconventional artistic products. s $enato Poggioli points out, %the experience of the avant'gardes was primarily a metropolitan one&. Moreover, he argues, an avant' garde %can exist only in the type of society that is liberal'democratic from the political point of view -and. bourgeois'capitalistic from the socioeconomic point of view&. /o sooner had $ussian 0uturist movement&s %utopia& arrived than that movement faced its demise. 1apitalist cities thus provide both the alienation and the resources to criti+ue this alienation. vant'gardes are at once the symptom of urban social ills and their proposed cure. 2espite fashionable claims that the notion of an avant'garde is irrelevant in the post' modern era I would li,e to examine in what sense ProppaNOW can be thought of as

an avant'garde movement 3 the cutting edge of a particular type of boriginal art that negates other -particularly boriginal. art practice and promises to redefine or reshape its artistic form, alter its social reference, and influence its distribution and reception in a manner comparable to that of previous avant'gardes. Peter 45rger&s view that an institutionalised avant'garde is automatically no longer %authentic& needs to be criti+ued from a trans'institutional viewpoint. $ather than consider art to be a single, monolithic, institution we should see within its malleable and permeable borders the play and contest of multiple sub'institutions. (owever, the condition that "yotard called %the post'modern sublime&, the attraction of %playing with fire&, that is, threatening to extinguish the institution that feeds you, I will argue still pertains and continues to characterise even an boriginal avant'garde. s I have already suggested, an avant'garde is most li,ely to arise in an urban context. 4ut what distinguishes Proppa/*6 from other urban boriginal artists as a potential avant'garde7 Town'based boriginal art has precedents that go bac, as far as Tommy Mc$ae, Mic,ey #lladulla, and 6illiam 4ara, in the mid'89::s. In the ;:th century, it features outstanding individuals such as Trevor /icholls, "in *nus, Gordon 4ennett, Tracey Moffatt, 0iona 0oley, and <udy 6atson. 4ut neither they nor their predecessors constitute a movement in the terms I have outlined. The first city'based indigenous artist'run space, Boomalli, founded in 8=9> by a group of ten artists based in !ydney, brought together art'school trained and self'taught urban artists to exhibit regularly, and was driven by a general boriginal urban disaffection, but fulfilled neither the condition of forming a coherent philosophy and style nor of a stable limited membership. !imilarly, the Campfire Group, an organisation established in 4risbane after the ground'brea,ing Balance 199 exhibition at the ?ueensland rt Gallery that brought together urban and remote area boriginal art and selected non' aboriginal artists, did not achieve an aesthetic coherence throughout its membership nor formulate a firm aesthetic direction. 0ormed largely of veterans of the Balance 199 show, including $ichard 4ell, 4ianca 4eetson, and "aurie /ilsen who are now members of ProppaNOW, the Campfire Group was extremely influential. 4ut its self'designed brief, to generally promote the development of ?ueensland boriginal art, was too eclectic and all'inclusive to sustain a coherent aesthetic framewor,. Its role was primarily to develop a mar,et for contemporary indigenous art and indeed for effecting a ,ind of cultural reconciliation 3not @ust between European settler culture and Indigenous culture but also within Indigenous culture itself. 0rom the beginning, it was conceived as a broadly collaborative affair and not suited to the focused antagonism that characterises avant' gardes. The Campfire Group spawned numerous other art enterprisesA conferences for boriginal artists too, place at Barrabah and at 6oorabinda, !"C#$, the ?ueensland Indigenous 1ommittee for Cisual rts was formed and then became !"$$C, the ?ueensland Indigenous rtists& boriginal 1orporation, and ustraliaDs first university art degree based entirely on indigenous principles, the Bac%elor of #isual $rt in Contemporar& $ustralian "ndigenous $rt, was established at the ?ueensland 1ollege of rt, Griffith #niversity. This degree was organised and taught by <ennifer (erd. Cernon hEee, after graduating from this degree, subse+uently also taught in

it. 4oth are now crucial members of ProppaNOW, which acted as a filter of boriginal talent from earlier organisations. 6hile these organisations shared an boriginal ethic and certain common issues, and even generated sometimes similar indigenous imagery criti+uing the status +uo, it was never their mission to develop a focused common aesthetic. 6hat ProppaNOW contributes to art practice is a uni+ue negotiation of aesthetic and ideological stumbling bloc,s and pitfalls, a refinement of aesthetic philosophy, through a thoughtful collective process within its own ran,s that none of the other organisations was able to pursue. Ironically, it owes this aesthetic and ideological coherence neither to avant'garde tradition nor to boriginal traditions of iconography but to a rigorous adherence to indigenous social principles. ProppaNOW might legitimately be called the start of a movement because, unli,e individual artists drawn together only to exhibit, ProppaNOW consciously develops a philosophy and does this by means of a group consensus, rather than a by democratic ma@ority as in white institutions. (ere is the ironyA ProppaNOW members behave and produce according to more philosophically authentic boriginal principles than do now many central desert artists, and hence wield an iconography limited only by their collective decisions rather than by mar,et perceptions of authenticity. Bet they are firmly entrenched in a mar,eting system that currently, to their annoyance, marginalises them in relation to the traditions of their own culture. (owever, does using the characteristic methods of a discipline to criticise the discipline itself, as 1lement Greenberg so famously noted, rather than subvert it, simply entrench it more firmly in its area of competence7 *r can this be seen more subtly in terms of 6alter 4en@amin&s %logic of destruction&, which renews tradition by destroying or re@ecting only parts of it7 The name, ProppaNOW, derived from a collo+uial expression often used by boriginal people, encapsulates the group&s philosophy of %approaching everything in a proper and considered manner&. 6hat Fdoin& things proppaG in boriginal parlance means is not to superficially imitate tradition, but to adhere to a protocol of respect and consultation in developing that tradition. ProppaNOW does not subscribe to the superficial rituals and symbols that now mista,enly signify authenticityH instead, it adheres to central social processes that are profoundly boriginal. This is what allows ProppaNOW to pursue, as their mission statement cum manifesto expresses it, a %constantly innovative approach& and to %+uestion established notions of boriginal rt and Identity& without at the same time @eopardising that identity. s <enny 0raser, initially a member of Proppa/*6 expressed it, their wor, still relates to land and dreaming stories, but %no' and in the future(. 4ut of course there is every ris, of @eopardising boriginal art3or at least % boriginal art as 'e no' )no' it&. This then is the ProppaNOW post-modern su*lime+ the art mar,et for boriginal art within which Proppa/*6 is categorised is sustained by a mixture of white guilt and spiritual longing that ProppaNOW inexorably dismantles.

2riven by a need to oppose claims to superior %authenticity& by remote area art, and by its many tourist driven city loo,'ali,es, as well as by the desire to stand against the colonialist traditions of 6estern culture, ProppaNOW develops a visual language that seems to criti+ue both cultures. Thus ProppaNOW can be defined as an avant'garde movement, not in negation of the whole institution of 6estern art, which is one of the few European institutions to which they have gained some access, but of the limited definition of % boriginal& art that the 6estern art system has valorised. This is not a revolt against the bourgeoisie per se as a 6estern avant'garde might have led, but a criti+ue of institutionalised cultural misrepresentation. Mass mar,eting has a corrosive influence on all products. nd not only on the products themselves but also on their mediationH the rationale for the product becomes publicity hype. s Theodor dorno observed3the only ones who can still criti+ue through this mass deception are the avant'gardes. s central desert art becomes ever more tourist'corrupted and shallow, ProppaNOW represents the ustralian art wave of the future. These boriginal artists don&t pretend to be na)ve primitivesH they lash out at all hypocrisy with grim yet seductive humour. Tony lbert, for example, ma,es ironically sweet colouring boo, images of first contactA happy blac, people who wave to a benign 1aptain 1oo,. $ichard 4ell and Cernon hEee find humour in the many paradoxes to which official ustralian culture has a blind spot. 4inding these artists is a fascination with language. *ften their wor, recycles slogans and clichIs that are either self'contradictory or ambiguous and allude wittily to the sinister implications of these. These artists have developed a sophisticated, city'bred boriginal aesthetic in contrast to what they call the %*oga'4ooga& mentality that see,s to cast indigenous culture as inherently static and primitive. It is in this sense that ProppaNOW is avant' garde. It negates the autonomy of a remote area, %authentic& boriginal culture. It may be a neo'avant'garde in terms of 6estern culture, as 45rger would argue, but it is a true avant'garde in relation to commercialised reified boriginality removed from its everyday concerns. Even the materials used by these artists carry a wry satirical edgeA for example, "aurie /ilsen, hailing originally from $oma in central ?ueensland, sculpts indigenous fauna out of the barbwire that threatens their existence and ndrea 0isher paints ominous birds of prey, referring to massacres of indigenous people, on suburban windows. nd %women&s business& gains a whole new loo, in the wor, of ProppaNOW artists 4ianca 4eetson, <ennifer (erd, and ndrea 0isher. Their art maintains a loo, of traditional feminine gentleness but pac,s a powerful contemporary punch. ProppaNOW began with a meeting intended to start a !ueensland ,r*an $*original $rtists and -esigners Cooperative in 4risbane in 8==9, but was not formally established until ;::J. $ecognising the importance of professional resources, they set out to establish a space for urban boriginal artists to wor, together towards exhibitions, to enhance wor,ing partnerships, and to provide mentoring to young and emerging artists in the necessary professional s,ills that will enable them to become successful. 0rom the beginning, they loo,ed for lin,s within the art industry both

nationally and internationally. They found such opportunities at the 4anff 1enter in 1anada and at the !an 0rancisco 4iennale -The %4ayennale&.. 4ut what is important is that they established a space for collaborative interaction and philosophical debate while ma,ing art. The space they established, an ex'warehouse in 4risbane&s 6est End, for three years became a ferment of creativity. 6or,ing at the same space gave full reign to a uni+uely productive social dynamic. $ichard 4ell, well ,nown throughout ustralia as an outspo,en and provocative artist who relishes a debate, was now thrown together with some challenging understudies. Cernon hEee, no less a debater with a turn of phrase often even more subtle than $ichard&s, @oins in avidly, while the group&s youngest member, Tony lbert, remains +uiet until he finds an opportunity for an incisive remar, that stops the conversation. "aurie /ilsen contributes a solid bush practicality, and, along with Gordon (oo,ey always manages to turn the discussion towards something funny. Meanwhile, 4ianca 4eetson mixes the Kany with the sensible -her favourite colour for serious paintings is pin,. while <ennifer (erd tends to dispense a final feminine wisdom that brings the men bac, down to earth. This interaction is reflected in their artwor,. ll of these artists deal with serious issues but do that in the spirit of a conversation, with good humour and flashes of brilliance. Bou can see the give'and'ta,e as $ichard, Cernon and Tony all play with words as well as with visual imagery, learning from each other and sharing suggestions but asserting their own point of view in how an idea is realised. ll the while, <ennifer (erd and 4ianca 4eetson also assert a modern woman&s interpretation of both so'called %blac, armband& history and of their own %expected& role in indigenous society. nd @ust as their discussions usually end in a @o,e, so do many of their pictures. Their criticism of society is often chee,y and tongue in chee,. Cernon hEee&s text wor, for example, as,s %what do you thin, of white civilisation7& and then answers %it&s a good idea& -implying, when the penny drops, that the actuality of civilisation falls somewhat short of the mar,.. *ne of the goals of the avant'garde, the connection of art with social life, was, again ironically, intrinsic to traditional indigenous society. The export of %*oga 4ooga& art of course circumvented this. ProppaNOW @umps boots and all into the social sphere through its provocative stance but, rather than blur the boundary between art and life, draws attention to its difference attac,ing the specific barrier that occludes indigenous reality from mainstream awareness3precisely that aesthetic curtain they term %*oga 4ooga&. 6hat they have clarified for all of us is that art is not life, but ma)ing art is life itselfA identity building is an active process of social transformation. 8> <anuary ;::9