FEATURE 112 FIG. 9: A resin Pwo mask during a performance, Zambia, 1991. Photo by Manuel Jordán. as wide openings through which one could potentially see and identify the performer. This is not favored later on. Although illustrations are often unreliable as factual documents, some other early illustrations identifying akishi show even more of the performers’ faces.5 The two currents of style in carving, stylized naturalism for chief figures, etc., and a more geometric definition of hamba forms, seem to be two trends that play into the development of Pwo carving styles. Indeed, Pwo masks show these ranges of stylization, partly due to taste (personal or regional) but in part also relating to who carved them. In pursuing field research, I have worked with at least two diviners who carved figurines for their divination kits, as well as miniature figurative amulets for their clients and larger ancestral figures, all generally following the hamba geometric/stylized approach. Both diviners also carved Pwo masks for mukanda initiations. One showed me two relatively similar masks he had carved at different times. The two masks had more in common with the hamba figures carved by him, particularly in the facial features, than with other masks I saw in the field by other carvers in the area. This brings up an important point: In understanding a carver’s “hand,” or his choice of elements within a canon for masks, it is important to consider other art forms possibly by the carver in question, rather than relying on the more typical approach of comparing only masks to masks side by side. Often, the aesthetic choices used to define a mask in carving may find closer parallels within other object types (figs. 10–11).6 In considering trends within a stylistic canon, comparing various masks made by one carver for different clients provides a different kind of insight into a carver’s choices. As just one example, three remarkable Pwo masks housed in the University of Iowa Museum of Art, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and a private collection (figs. 1, 14, and 15) definitely show one master carver’s hand at work within the defined Chokwe stylistic canons. These are three of a handful of masks attributed to this artist, all of which are carved with a degree of “model” precision that late nineteenth century, when the court arts achieved their peak, and into the early twentieth century. This is the period for most of the masks that are featured today in private and museum collections. An early illustration published in 1890 by Portuguese explorer Henrique Carvalho (1890: 245) shows a full Pwo mask character (fig. 13). At least in his illustration, the Chokwe stylistic facial features on the mask do not seem yet fully developed: The slit-eyes and other canonical elements of Chokwe style are not fully defined. On the illustrated mask, the eyes, mouth, and probably the nose seem to be carved FIG. 8: Resin Pwo mask made by Charles Chitofu, Chokwe-Lunda, Zambia. Resin, cloth, paper. Private collection.
CoverT71_FR.qxd_CoverF Vuvi
To see the actual publication please follow the link above