The recent resurfacing of a 'new' Goldie painting has sparked a heated debate in the art world, with questions surrounding its authenticity and the cultural rights of its subject's descendants. This article delves into the complex web of issues that have emerged, offering a critical analysis and commentary on the situation.
The Goldie Enigma
The discovery of a 'previously unrecognised' 1917 painting by Charles Frederick Goldie, titled 'Lost in Thought, Ngāheke, An Arawa Chieftain', has captivated the art community. However, the true intrigue lies not in the painting's existence but in the identity of its subject, Patara Te Ngūngūkai, a renowned Te Arawa tohunga. The question of authenticity has been cast into doubt, with some experts claiming it's an imitation, raising concerns about the rights of the subject's descendants.
Cultural Rights and Intellectual Property
The crux of the matter lies in the legal framework surrounding cultural rights and intellectual property. In New Zealand, the law currently grants artists or photographers exclusive rights over their work, including depictions of individuals. However, these rights are limited to 50 years after the artist's death, after which the work enters the public domain. This means that anyone can use the image for any legal purpose, a situation that Tūhourangi finds challenging.
Mikaere highlights the dilemma: 'It’s a double-edged sword. It’s a beautiful portrait and [there’s] an appreciation for the artwork, the genius of the artist and the depiction of our koroua. But on the other hand, that image being taken and sold for other people’s gain is always a challenging dilemma.'
The Wai 262 Claim and the Taonga Works Framework
The Wai 262 claim, a landmark Waitangi Tribunal inquiry, addresses Māori intellectual property rights and traditional knowledge. It advocates for greater recognition of cultural rights, a concept supported by the Taonga Works Framework and the Tiaki Taonga movement. This framework would establish a commission to oversee the development of frameworks, ensuring that cultural concerns are addressed.
Lynell Tuffery Huria, a leading expert on Māori intellectual property rights, emphasizes the need for legislative change: 'I think we’re getting better at addressing cultural concerns in this space, but we still lack the legislative frameworks.'
The Protected Objects Act and Cultural Significance
The Protected Objects Act 1975 regulates the sale and transfer of culturally significant objects, but it does not provide the highest level of protection for historic portraits of tangata whenua. These portraits, produced by Pākehā photographers and artists, do not qualify as taonga tūturu, despite their cultural significance.
A Complex Web of Governance
Mikaere asserts, 'At the end of the day, [the painting] ultimately still belongs to us. As much as we can, we will try to exercise governance or kaitiakitanga over it.' However, the current government's stance on intellectual property reform is uncertain, with Huria expressing doubt about meaningful changes.
In conclusion, the Goldie painting controversy highlights the intricate relationship between art, culture, and legal frameworks. As the debate continues, it underscores the need for a comprehensive approach to recognizing and protecting cultural rights, ensuring that the narratives and images of indigenous peoples are respected and governed appropriately.
