Art Work of Michael Hamson

¶ … art work of Michael hamson Art analysis: Mandang Province wood bowl from Michael Hamson's collection Michael Hamson is the owner of a private gallery of indigenous oceanic art that is primarily derived from New Guinea. Hamson's collection spans in its range from utilitarian objects "such as bowls, plates and drums to the more ceremonial and ritually-used items as figures and masks" ("Mission," Michael Hamson, 2009).

Hamson writes that "it is when the local and Western aesthetic notions of quality, utility, clarity, power and elegance meet that one separates the art from the artifact" ("Mission," Michael Hamson, 2009). In other words, this collection does not merely strive to create an impression of traditional life, as expressed through artifacts. Hamson wants the collection to be visually stunning as well, and to some extent satisfy Western notions of beauty, even while paying homage to the cultures that generated the art.

He deliberately selects the works of art based upon their visual appeal to a potential buyer, not because of their significance to the people that produced the works of art.

Hamson's success, financially, is manifest in the number of 'sold' items on his website, but the question arises if his aim is valid: should indigenous works satisfy notions of Western beauty? Is it fair to impose Western aesthetic standards on objects from outside of Western culture, cultures that do not have a clear split between the useful and the beautiful? After all, even ritual items have a purpose, despite Hamson's split between utilitarian and religious works in his website classification scheme.

One of the 'sold' items is a round, carved wood bowl from the coast south of Madang. In his website description, Hamson praises the "two elliptical-shaped fields of design opposite each other on the body of the bowl," and the black, partially glossy patina. The bowl has a carved deign across the rim. Interestingly, in the written description of the bowl, the irregular trimming at the mouth, which is half in one abstract design, half in another, is not commented upon.

The left side (from the viewer's perspective) has a trimming in the shape of a series diamonds, while the right side is trimmed in a series of squares. Instead of running directly under the lip of the bowl, both series of images wander and wobbles. The central image on the bowl, interconnected crisscross carvings in the middle of an egg-shaped focal point is similarly irregular. It is unclear if these pigment in-fillings are purely decorative, or if they have a specific significance.

The culture that produced the work does not seem to value harmony and balance of design as out culture does, but no historical or cultural context is given to the bowl beyond its coloring in Hamson's description. Hamson classifies the bowl as utilitarian, along with all other bowls in the collection, but whether the bowl was used for eating, for holding objects, for decorative, or ritual purposes is not specified and not immediately obvious to someone from outside the culture.

Hamson's collection illustrates the problem of viewing works of art as an outsider. One invariably imposes one's own standards of beauty upon the art. Even a sincere appreciator.