Transnational Influences, Authenticity Censure and Postcolonial Exclusion

Abstract

In the context of this book, it is necessary from the onset for me to define the words influence, authenticity and marginalisation because they are intertwining concepts that limit the extent of the integration of African cultural products into the global arena. By influence, I mean the borrowing or appropriation of a style or technique from another artist or art product, while authenticity refers to self-origination, which produces originality. Dutton (2004) identifies two notions of authenticity: nominal and expressive. Nominal authenticity determines the correct identification of the origin, authorship or provenance of an object, ensuring that an object of aesthetic experience is properly attributed. In contrast, expressive authenticity has to do with the character of an object as a true expression of the values and beliefs of an individual or a society. The former finds relevance in the auction market, but in my discussion on the limited internationalisation of contemporary art from Nigeria (Africa), I find the latter as more relevant. Fillitz (2000) notes that debates about authenticity, which appeared in the twentieth century, are closely connected to some romantic image of cultural purity to dominate an exotic other. The Occidental idea of authenticity is that African artists must return to the traditional art and innovate it without any stylistic appropriation from Western art. This prompted Fillitz to insist that the new art forms of Africans must be considered within the intensive historical process of interaction with the West (Europe and America). Marginalisation is the complex process of privileging certain people and ideas over others at any given time. It is a process by which a group can be ignored, trivialised and rendered invisible while valorising others (Tucker 1999).