Visualities: Perspectives on Contemporary American Indian Film and Art ed. by Denise K. Cummings

This illustrated edited volume aims to embrace “a visual field perspective in order to examine aspects of the social importance of indigenous visual culture.” Divided into two parts—“Indigenous Film Practices” and “Contemporary American Indian Art”—the essays draw primarily from a literary theory and cultural studies perspective; their authors teach in English departments or undertake their scholarly analyses from a critical literary perspective. Given that the title and emphasis of the text is on “visualities,” this dynamic presents some compelling challenges. It is telling that the most successful chapters concern the moving image. Perhaps the narrative structure of the screenplay speaks most directly to the skills of the literary theorist. Some difficulties lie in the scope of inquiry selected (the “crowd syndrome” of discussing too many artists within one piece); others arise from a lack of theoretical focus (the “floating thesis”). Of interest to Great Plains scholars are chapters that discuss the work of Hulleah Tsinhnahjinnie, Jaune Quick-to-See Smith, and Hock E Aye Vi Edgar Heap of Birds.

It is instructive and a bit disappointing to note how the same constructs of two decades ago—Stephen Leuthold’s “Indigenous aesthetics” (1998,) Gerald Vizenor’s “survivance” (1993), Hulleah Tsinhnahjinnie’s “visual sovereignty” (1998), and Jolene Rickard’s “sovereignty” (1996)—are still being relied upon somewhat uncritically as theoretical destinations rather than signposts for further inquiry. This is odd given the introduction’s assertion that the essays will “parallel the contemporary moment from a critical perspective.” Legal scholars have long questioned the imposition of political sovereignty “granted” to Native nations rather than the recognition of inherent sovereignty that predates the formation of the United States. Two chapters escape this didactic theorizing—Joanna Hearne’s “Indians Watching Indians on tv” and Theodore Van Alst’s “Sherman Shoots Alexie,” both dealing with Native spectatorship. These authors demonstrate how sharp, creative approaches to the arts that employ a well-articulated theoretical frame can accomplish more than reliance on verbiage alone. I would likely excerpt these two contributions and assign the reading to a 300-level or higher college course; however, the compilation itself would not serve well as a textbook, given the unevenness of the essays and the overall dense arguments staged.

The best Native arts scholarship today looks beyond the eternal dualisms of individual/collective, traditional/modern, linear/holistic, and corrective/reactive formulas to engage in the specific details of singular artists, their audiences, and their aims, rather than the eternal “challenge the mainstream” agenda employed here.