Paper short abstract:

This paper attempts to debunk the notion that so-called folk and tribal arts in India lack creativity and originality, by exploring the differences between terms used erroneously as synonyms of 'imitation'.

Paper long abstract:

Although the meanings connoted by the terms 'imitation', 'appropriation', 'derivation', 'repetition' and 'continuum' share some synergies, that they are often used synonymously is problematic. Indian 'folk' and 'tribal' arts are frequently derogatively referred to as crafts because they are perceived as derivative. During and after Colonisation, nationalist writers accused metropolitan Indian artists of blindly following Western art traditions, yet European artists from the same period who borrowed 'indigenous' art idioms were regarded as appropriating, not imitating. The implied hierarchy in metropolitan artists calling folk and tribal artists craftspeople, results partially from a lack of transparency in the contextual politics of these practices.

By clarifying the distinct meanings that the above-mentioned terms connote in the context of Indian art, this paper attempts to debunk the notion that Indian tribal and folk arts lack innovation, creativity and originality - a myth that is created from a want of understanding that the pedagogy, production, display and discourse of myriad cultural practices exist in different paradigms. While these paradigms are not polar, one favours a culture of individualism. Yet, practices in traditional arts don't necessarily reflect divergent individualistic and traditional doctrines. Imitative learning can, for example, belie the logic that providing learners with the basic tools of any language - visual or verbal - gives them a base, a reservoir that they can and do draw upon to develop their expression - something metropolitan artists also do - albeit differently. Ultimately, by questioning what imitation means, I explore what we conceive of as 'original'.