The “Art History” and “Stone Faces” essays both have extraordinary strong and attractive points explained in two completely different views. Jensen and Butala although using two unlike styles of writing, both articulate their point of view in a productive way. Both essays contribute to the statement of Art being equally essential in our everyday lives as well as a great factor of influence in everything we experience. However, “Art History” achieves this by using well-built words in a persuasive manner, unlike “Stone Faces” which uses more descriptive and poetic language. Together, these to authors ambiguously affirm the fact that Indigenous Art is not only necessary in our world, but should be respected and recognized in our culture.
These writers impressively emphasize the implication Indigenous Art has on our own community. Many aspects in Canadian culture have been influenced with elements from Aboriginal Art. Their Art can be witnessed all around, as Jensen writes, “Art was fully integrated with daily life” dwellings painted with abstract Art…ceremonial robes [and] utilitarian objects, including food vessels, storage containers, and clothing…[were] decorated with eh finest most significant Art” (Imprints, 273). Butala also writes, Indigenous “people must have seen [Art] as important and it follows, then, that’s these must have had to do with their spiritual life” (Imprints, 282). Indigenous Art is still witnessed in our mainstream culture today.
In contrast top writing about Art as a whole, Butala differentiates with Jensen by specifically writing of one Art sculpture. The most vital argument Butala states, is that asking who created the piece of Art and why is scarcely insignificant. She adequately writes, “To ask what a carving in stone of a turtle, paintings, or carving of other animals and human on or in stone….is to be distracted by something that seems to me irreverent and unimportant” (Imprints, 283). Art made by people, no matter the colours of their skin or their origin; simply people have created these magnificent sights.
To narrow down such a beauty with impertinent questions is to take away from the real feature of the masterpiece. Butala also writes, “What matter is that they were done by human like you and me” (Imprints, 285). While, Jensen does not restrict herself to one aspect of Art of the Indigenous people. She writes not only of pottery but also utensils and music. She perceives Art not only in paintings but also dance and theater. Jensen believes that without the addition Indigenous people provided us, our entertainment wouldn?t be the same. She tried to convey the idea that it is an obligation to recognize all the contributions Indigenous people have awarded us.
Despite the fact, that these essays are vastly similar, the manner used to describe the crucial points is relatively diverse. “Art History” uses robust words, which is centered on admiring the Artwork. “Stone Face’s approach is using poetic language and sensory appeal to grip its audience. Butala utilizes such words as “Foliage” and “dazzling”, while Jensen brings into play words like, “primitive” and “vulgar”. In contrast to “Art History”, “Stone Faces” concentrates on one side of Art instead of the generalized picture. Both essays succeed in informing the reader to acknowledge the fine accomplishments and contributions the Indigenous people have given this country.
Indigenous Art should be accredited and respected in order to draw closer as a unified community. Jensen and Butala?s remarkable ability to describe and analyze the Indigenous situation has put into sight, the need for a change in appreciation. These authors bring to attention, where the real credit should lie in the help to create our communities. The next step would be to respect all Art and the world around us, in the method in which the Indigenous do. There is plenty to gain from acquiring knowledge from these fascinating cultures.
