Koe Sio Fakatonga 'Ae 'Aati Fakatonga
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Koe Sio FakaTonga ‘ae ‘Aati FakaTonga John Webber (After), William Byrne (Engraver). Source: Auckland Art Gallery Toi o Tāmaki Tongan Views of Tongan Arts: The Arts of John Webber Hūfanga-He-Ako-Moe-Lotu, Professor ‘Ōkusitino Māhina Unity in Diversity and Diversity in Unity Lagi-Maama Academy & Consultancy (June 2021) Visible(/Invisible) Voices Research Project Auckland Art Gallery Toi O Tāmaki (September 2019) Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND Koe Sio Fakatonga ‘ae Aati FakaTonga Tongan Views of Tongan Arts: The Arts of John Webber Hūfanga-He-Ako-Moe-Lotu, Dr ‘Ōkusitino Māhina, PhD Professor of Tongan Philosophy, Anthropology & Aesthetics Vava‘u Academy for Critical Inquiry & Applied Research (VACIAR) Vava‘u, KINGDOM OF TONGA & Professorial Associate Investigator Marsden Project Vā Moana: Space & Realtionality in Pacific Thought & Identity Research Cluster Auckland University of Technology (AUT) - City Campus Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland, AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND & Hikule‘o Fe‘ao-moe-Ako Melaia Māhina Fakakaukau/Fakamaau Koloa, Thinking/Collating Tongan Treasures Lagi-Maama Academy & Consultancy Tāmaki Makaurau, AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND & Vava‘u Academy for Critical Inquiry & Applied Research (VACIAR) Vava‘u, KINGDOM OF TONGA with Kolokesa Uafā Māhina-Tuai & Toluma‘anave, Barbara Makuati-Afitu Lagi-Maama Academy & Consultancy Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland, AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND 2 | Page Koe Sio FakaTonga ‘ae ‘Aati FakaTonga, Tongan Views of Tonga Arts: The Arts of John Webber The dispute between epistemology (ways of knowing) and ontology (ways of being) is over reality as we know it and reality as it is; the dispute is therefore not how we know what we know, nor where we know what we know, nor when we know what we know, nor why we know what we know, but rather what we really know. In Moana Oceania generally, and in Tonga specifically, it is thought that, paradoxically, people walk forward into the kuongamu‘a (age-in-the-front; past) and, at the same timespace, they walk backward into the kuongamui (age-in-the-back; future), both contemporaneously in the kuongaloto (age-in-the-middle/centre; present), where both the already-taken-place past and the yet-to-take-place future are constantly mediated in the ever-conflicting present – and that, historically, the fact that the kuohili (that-which-has-passed; past) has stood the test of timespace, it is put in front of people, as guidance and, given the fact that the kaha‘u (that-which-is- yet-to-come; future) is yet-to-take-place, it is brought behind people, guided by past experiences, both concurrently in the lotolotonga (that-which-is-now; present), where the illusive ‘known’ past and elusive ‘unknown’ future are permanently fakatatau (mediated) in the ‘knowing’ conflicting present. Like fuo (form) and uho (content), on the concrete level, tā (time) and vā (space), on the abstract level, are inseparable in reality, as they are in nature, mind and society, thereby realistically-tāvāistically pointing to their being four-dimensional as opposed to their being problematically treated as three-dimensional. As tā-vā (temporal-spatial), fuo-uho (formal-substantial) entities, ‘ilo(/poto) (knowledge[/skill]), fonua/kalatua (culture) and tala/lea (language) are inseparable entities in reality, as in nature, mind and society, where knowledge(/skill) are dialectically composed in culture as a human receptacle and historically communicated in language as a social vehicle, with both culture and language merely as vaka (mediums). The Tonga tāvāist philosophy of ako (education) is defined as the historical yet dialectical tā-vā (temporal-spatial), fuo-uho (formal-substantial), and ‘aonga-ngāue (functional-practical) transformation of the human ‘atamai (mind) and fakakaukau (thinking) in the ‘uto brain, on the one hand, and ongo (feeling) and loto (desiring) in the fatu/mafu (heart), on the other, from vale (ignorance) to ‘ilo (knowledge) to poto (skill), in that logical order of precedence. Tā-Vā Time-Space Philosophy of Reality 3 | Page Talakamata Introduction This investigative exercise titled “Koe Sio FakaTonga ‘ae ‘Aati FakaTonga, Koe ‘Aati ‘a John Webber: Tongan Views of Tonga Arts, The Arts of John Webber” was written as part of the Visible(/Invisible) Voices Project of Auckland Art Gallery Toi o Tāmaki in September 2019 and has been refined, updated and added to in June 2021 as part of the “Unity in Diversity and Diversity in Unity” UDDU project led by Lagi-Maama Academy & Consultancy.1 As a critical exercise, it does inquire into the arts of John Webber, who was the expedition artist in Captain James Cook‘s third voyage, 1776-1780. This investigation will look at these Tongan artforms from Tongan perspectives, viewed from the Tā-Vā Time-Space Philosophy of Art, a derivative of the Tā-Vā Time-Space Philosophy of Reality, as opposed to Tongan arts seen from Western perceptions. The former involves a kind of mediation and liberation, in stark contrast to the latter as a type of imposition and domination, requiring a constant yet consistent shift in this problematic axis from the former to the latter.2 It does so by way of critiquing both “text” and “context,” thereby reflectively focusing on a range of key aesthetic and pragmatic features linked to the questions of “what they are,” that is, artwork, “what they are for,” that is, art use, and “what they are by means of,” that is, art history. That is, the artwork is primarily concerned with “what art is” or the beauty/quality of art, i.e., the ontological questions, and both the art use and art history are secondarily associated with “what art does” or the utility/functionality of art, i.e., the epistemological questions. From a tāvāist (and realist) philosophical perspective, the epistemological questions are considered secondary to the ontological questions, in view of the philosophical (anf logical) fact that ‘what is of art’ or its beauty/quality predecedes ‘what does of art’ or its utility/functionality. Not withstanding the said problematic axis, viz., the condition of imposition and domination versus the state of mediation and liberation, i.e., of seeing Tongan arts from Tongan views versus seeing Tongan arts from European / Western views, that we hereby adopt an innocence of eye and ear and of mind and heart on the matter under reflective thinking and emotive feeling. While we are so grateful for both the respective verbal/written3 and artistic glimpses and images by Cook and his artist Webber, we are primarily here concerned with both the complexity and plurality of things, occurrences, or states of affairs as specific texts. Furthermore, as intersecting or connecting and separating entities, identities, or tendencies in the broader context of the clash of cultures and languages over knowledge of the single level of reality. The onus is on our shoulders to fill in the gaps in knowledge as knowledge of time and space acquired in education and constituted or composed in 1 . The title of this exercise is taken from the subtitle of a soon-to-be-published book entitled “Tongan Performance, Material & Fine Arts/Faiva, Tufunga & Nimamea‘a FakaTonga: Tongan Views of Tongan Arts/Sio FakaTonga ‘ae ‘Aati FakaTonga” by Kolokesa Uafā Māhina-Tuai & Hūfanga, ‘Ōkusitino Māhina. 2 . This is what can be meant by a shift from ‘colonised knowledge’ to ‘decolonised knowledge.’ 3 . The verbal and the written, as in oral and written history, are of the same logical status, differentiated only by their mediums of constitution or composition and transmission or communication of knowledge. 4 | Page culture and transmitted or communicated in language merely as social vaka vessels. Generally, Tongan arts are divided into three main genres, namely, faiva (performance), tufunga (material), and nimamea‘a (fine) arts. Whereas the faiva arts are tefito-he-sino (body-centred), both the tufunga and nimamea‘a arts are tefito-he-tu‘a-sino (non-body-centred). By way of gender division of functions, both the faiva and tufunga arts are largely tefito-he-tangata (male-based), while the nimamea‘a arts are tefito-he-fefine (female-led). Both ‘aati (art) and ako (education) were organised alongside each other; the organisation of the latter was done along the three main divisions of arts, namely, faiva, tufunga, and nimamea‘a, respectively organised into the ha‘a faiva (professional classes of performance artists), ha‘a tufunga (professional classes of material artists), and ha‘a nimamea‘a (professional classes of fine artists). Given the coexistence of beauty / quality and utility / functionality as both process and outcome of art in the productive and consumptive processes, not only were arts produced to be faka‘ofo‘ofa/mālie (beautiful), they were also created to be ‘aonga/ngāue (useful), that is, the more beautiful the more useful and, conversely, the more useful the more beautiful. As a derivative of tāvāism, the Tā-Vā Time-Space Philosophy of Art deploys a number of relevant general and specific tenets which include, inter alia, the following: • that tā (time) and (vā) space as ontological entities are the common medium in which all things in a single level of reality, as in nature, mind and society; • that tā (time) and vā (space) as epistemological entities are socially arranged in different ways in a single level of reality, as in nature, mind and society; • that tā (time) is a verb and marker of vā (space) which is, in turn, a noun and composer of tā – as is fuo (form) as a noun and marker of uho (content) which, in turn, a noun and composer of fuo; • that tā (time)