ART on view 102 FIG. 5: Lute, husapi Simalungun, Sumatra. Late 19th–early 20th century. Wood. H: 73 cm. © Fundación La Fontana, FI.1987.03.10. Photo: Alex Torguet. FIG. 6: Rattle. Tlingit, Alaska, United States. Second half of the 18th century. Wood, leather, pigment, fiber. H: 33 cm. Ex. Coll. George Terasaki. © Fundación La Fontana, FI.2011.04.01. Photo: Ronald Stallard. objects have at least as much to do with the realm of the visual arts as they do with music. This inversion of terms should not be confusing—rather, it highlights the particular attention that so-called “primitive” or “tribal” societies so often give to the formal dimension of their objects. This is especially striking where musical instruments are concerned. They are often decorated with motifs and designs in relief that represent abstract symbols, totemic animals, or ancestor figures (fig.8); worked into anthropomorphic sculptures that may evoke important people or figures (fig. 13); or reduced to abstract miniature shapes, especially when a valuable material such as ivory (fig. 2) is used. In deed, these objects have so many characteristics that do not directly relate to their primary purpose of producing sound that when one simply looks at them, one is inclined to forget one is looking at a slit gong, a membrane drum, or a whistle, to give but a few examples relating to the objects illustrated here. This ornamental profusion is the result of an intimate relationship with the instrument, which plays quite varied roles in different cultures. It can be the privileged progenitor of dances at festivities, a means of communication with the spirits when played in a ceremonial context, or just a faithful friend when it accompanies a solitary song. Viewed this way, it becomes clear why the formal dimension of such instruments is so important and carefully worked out, and that it is appropriate to see them as emblematic of the cultures they come from.
XVII-4 Cover FR final_Cover
To see the actual publication please follow the link above