The criteria Yoruba critics actually use to judge a carving, why the language and its praise poetry are the entry point rather than the ornament, and what goes wrong when European art-historical categories are applied to this material.
The Yorùbá wey dem quote, the proverbs, oríkì, ẹsẹ Ifá, word list headwords, Odù names and citations dey exactly as the corpus record dem, for every language.
Yoruba people get well-arranged system for art criticism with their own terms, and e no dey judge sculpture the way European art history dey do am. When Robert Farris Thompson put some carvings for front of Yoruba critics for the 1960s come ask dem make dem explain why one better pass another, dem no talk about originality, or self-expression, or the inner life of the artist. Wetin dem talk about na whether the figure resemble the subject reach the correct level and no pass am, whether the body of the work sharp and clear well-well, whether e smooth reach to catch light, whether e stand straight, and whether the age where the person dey for life balance well. Rowland Abiodun later argument go further: say all these criteria dey inside Yoruba language itself, say any scholar wey no fit understand oríkì no fit understand the art, and say the normal Western style of looking at the object well and describing how e shape no be neutral thing, na method wey dey throway most of wetin dem make the object do.
This file explain those criteria, the two main scholarly positions on how to use dem, and the clear ways wey the imported categories take dey spoil meaning. Everything for the rest of this section dey depend on am.
Between 1962 and 1964, Robert Farris Thompson do fieldwork for western Nigeria where e show Yoruba informants different sculpture and record how dem judge dem. The result wey e publish, "Yorùbá Artistic Criticism," come out for Warren d'Azevedo collection The Traditional Artist in African Societies for 1973 . Thompson method rely strictly on practical evidence: instead of guessing the aesthetic from myth or from the objects demsef, e ask people wey dey do the work, like carvers, priests, and ordinary buyers, make dem rank and explain dem. E report say the criticism na spoken one, e flow well and dey consistent, and say na particular set of words dem dey repeatedly use.
The terms wey dem dey mention pass for the literature wey follow na these ones. The English meanings na the ones wey dey common for English-language scholarship; but the Yoruba words deep pass the English meaning, and na that one be Abiodun main point.
Jíjọra (from jọ, to resemble): moderate resemblance. The figure suppose resemble human being, and e suppose resemble the kind person wey e dey show, but e no suppose be exact portrait. Thompson informants put good work for middle of two mistakes: make e too abstract for one side, and make e resemble person too much for the other side; na this criterion dem mention pass for e sample . This one dey important because e settle one question wey European commentary dey always ask, wey be say why most Yoruba sculpture no dey naturalistic when Ifẹ̀ don prove say Yoruba artists fit do am. The answer na say naturalism no ever be the goal for wood carving tradition. Na shift from the standard, no be say dem fail to reach am.
Ìfarahàn (fara hàn, to show oneself, to become manifest): visibility, clarity. The parts of the sculpture suppose show clear and distinct, both from the rough shape to the final details. If the shape mix up, if hand or leg join body without demarcation, or if eye no separate from cheek, na fault . The word belong to family of Yoruba terms wey dey talk about manifestation and wetin dey show clear, and e connect this aesthetic to the general way the culture take prefer things wey dey declare deyrsef.
Dídón (dán, to shine, to be smooth): luminosity. The surface suppose smooth reach to catch light and make light and shade show well . For real life, na the final stage of scraping and carving work, plus how dem dey rub oil and touch the carving as time dey go.
Gígùn (gùn, straight, tall, upright): straightness, uprightness, symmetry. The figures suppose stand straight and the parts suppose balance well . Yoruba sculpture dey mostly face front and balance equally for both sides, and this na rule wey dem must follow, no be say dem lack technical skill.
Ọ̀dọ́ (youth, the prime of life): the person wey dem carve suppose show as someone wey dey the strongest and most active stage of life, no be like small pikin and no be like elder, no matter the real age of the person wey dem dey remember . Na why ẹrẹ̀ ìbejì wey dey represent pikin wey die dey always carved as adult with adult body and breast, and this thing dey confuse people wey dey see am for first time.
Tútù (cool, cold, calm, moist): coolness. Calmness, when person no show any sign of worry, and the face just dey still. Thompson expand this idea well-well for "An Aesthetic of the Cool" (1973), as e trace ìtutù from Yoruba usage cross West Africa go reach the Black Atlantic, where e see am as major value for music, dance, behaviour, and sculpture . For inside the sculpture itself, e dey show as calm face wey the eye half-close and no dey smile, wey almost all Yoruba figures dey carry, even when the body dey inside violent action.
Thompson report nineteen criteria in total; na these six the books wey come later use pass, mostly because Frank Willett summarize dem for e textbook wey plenty people dey use, African Art . Reader suppose know say this short list of six terms na summarized version, and say Thompson full work still get other criteria about proportion, placement, and finish.
Thompson fieldwork establish say Yoruba art criticism dey exist as spoken practice wey get solid technical vocabulary. Na big finding be that, and nobody don overturn am.
Wetin person suppose take easy na how dem dey reduce di practice turn checklist. Thompson sef gather statements about particular set of objects from particular set of people for one specific time, and dat neat list wey person fit count wey dey appear for survey textbooks dey wipe comot di differences between regions, between genres, and between di standards wey dem dey use for shrine figure and di one for mask. Di criteria sef no get di same weight or stand on dia own: dídón and ìfarahàn, both of dem partly dey talk about di quality of di cutting, and ọ̀dọ́ and jíjọra both dey control how dem dey carve body. To treat dem like six separate boxes wey person suppose tick na Western habit wey dem force put on top di material, and na dis exact kind mistake dis section dey talk about.
Rowland Abiodun, for inside Yoruba Art and Language: Seeking the African in African Art (Cambridge University Press, 2014), make one claim wey strong pass di one wey Thompson make . Him position na say scholar wey no sabi Yoruba language well-well no fit interpret Yoruba art at all, because di concepts wey dey bring out di art come from words, and di works connect directly to verbal genres, especially to oríkì.
Oríkì, wey dem dey usually translate as praise poetry or citation poetry, na di main center. Di way Abiodun explain am, him no see oríkì as ordinary literary genre wey just dey beside sculpture, but as di main form wey dey organize how Yoruba culture dey produce everything generally, wey cover architectural space, dress, music, dance, mime, ritual, and food join body with spoken word . For dis kind understanding, object dey do wetin oríkì dey do: e dey cite, e dey call name, e dey invoke, e dey gather di attributes of subject together without telling story. Na why Yoruba sculpture dey additive and paratactic, e dey pack attributes and figures on top each other instead of to form one single scene, and na why di superstructure of epa mask fit carry person wey dey ride horse, mother, musicians, and hunters at di same time without any of dem dey under any story.
Dem arrange Abiodun book around Yoruba concepts instead of around media or chronology, and dat arrangement on its own na di argument inside di structure. Di chapters discuss orí (head and personal destiny), àṣẹ (word wey get power), Ọ̀ṣun, Ọ̀rúnmìlà, aṣọ (cloth), àkó (di effigy for second-burial), Ilé-Ifẹ̀, and ìwà . Dem release di book with companion website wey get Yoruba audio, so dat reader fit hear how di tones for di terms wey dem dey analyze dey sound, wey no be just for decoration since Yoruba na tone language and Abiodun analysis often depend on tonal wordplay .
For earlier work wey relate to dis, Abiodun bring out some categories wey stand on top àṣà (custom, tradition, established practice), where him separate èpè-graphic mode, wey dey punish and carry curse, wey dey show criminals, people wey get sickness, and victims of sacrifice with features wey dem purposely no make fine; àkó-graphic mode, wey dey make things fine pass normal, di visual equivalent of oríkì, wey dem dey use for dead people wey dem dey honour; and àṣẹ-graphic mode, wey dey invoke, wey dey give power to di living by showing di important points for body . Di value of dis categories na say dem arrange Yoruba objects by wetin di object dey do instead of how e look or which material dem use make am, wey be di way di people wey make and use di objects take arrange dem.
Di ninth chapter of Abiodun book take title from di phrase ìwà, ìwà l'à ń wá, "na ìwà, ìwà we dey look for" Ìwà na word wey dem dey usually translate as character, and for ethics e mean moral character of person, di thing wey ìwà l'ẹwà, "character na beauty," dey talk about. When dem apply am to objects, e mean something wey close pass to essential nature: di quality wey dey make thing completely and properly be wetin e be.
Na dis term hard pass to translate, and e make sense to dey accurate about di difficulty. For English, to talk say carving get good character na metaphor wey dem borrow from human beings. For Yoruba, di relationship dey work di other way round and e no even be clear metaphor at all: dem dey use di same word ìwà describe person, orisha, animal, tree, and carved object, and as Abiodun explain am, na practically di same meaning. Object wey dem make well get ìwà because e properly be wetin e suppose be. Na why aesthetic and ethics no be different departments for inside Yoruba criticism, and why European framework wey dey treat beauty as thing wey separate from goodness dey immediately bring wrong translation.
Ìwà also carry time-dimension wey sculpture literature no dey use well. Because ìwà na wetin a thing be throughout him whole life, an object him ìwà include wetin happen to am: ìbejì figure wey dem don feed, rub oil, touch-touch, and dress for forty years wey di details for him face don smooth comot because of how dem dey carry am, no be say e spoil for Yoruba understanding, e don gather him ìwà. Di way museum dey conserve things, wey dey keep object as e dey for di exact time wey dem acquire am and stop people from touching am again, dey stop dat exact process wey make di object wetin e be.
Thompson and Abiodun no dey argue against each other on top di facts, and Abiodun work build on top wetin Thompson do. Di difference dey on top whether dat one reach and who qualify.
Thompson own project na to show, against wetin many scholars believe before say dem dey make African art without any clear criteria, say Yoruba criticism get system, e dey inside spoken word, dem fit teach am, and fieldworker fit gather am through interpreters come report am. Abiodun own project na to show say dat one no reach: say di criteria wey dem gather through translation dey lose dia conceptual foundation, and say interpretive authority for di field don remain with scholars wey no fit read di main verbal material .
Di critique of Abiodun position, wey dem do for reviews of di 2014 book, follow two line . First, say wetin e target don partly old: di formalist art history wey dey call things "primitive" wey e dey attack, Africanist specialist-dem don substantially abandon am before 2014, so di argument land harder on general survey textbook pass di current field. Second, and wey matter pass, be say to be insider alone no dey give person authority to explain material wey don reach hundreds of years old. Yoruba person today wey dey look fourteenth-century Ifẹ̀ casting no dey di same position as person today wey dey look carving of today; di language don change, di institution-dem don change, and every scholar partly dey outside. Dis na fair objection, and Abiodun strong formulation-dem no fully absorb am.
Di reasonable position for reader na say make person sabi di language na necessary condition to explain recent and living material, where dem fit still recover di verbal genre-dem, and e be strong advantage but no be sufficient method for archaeological material, where nobody get access to di original speech context.
Several distortion-dem dey specific and make sense to mention, because dem still routine for exhibition label-dem and for general book-dem.
Di naturalism ranking. European art history inherit one developmental story wey art dey grow go, and later grow comot from, di accurate depiction of how things look. When dem apply am to Yoruba material, e dey produce di persistent framing of Ifẹ̀ as naturalistic peak and everything wey come after am as decline or stylisation. Jíjọra remove di premise: moderate resemblance na di standard, so di wood tradition no dey fall short of Ifẹ̀, na something wey Ifẹ̀ no do e dey do .
Anonymity. Di category of anonymous African carver na artefact of collecting rather than fact about production, and dem treat dis well for di file on wood sculpture. Yoruba carver-dem get names, dem rank dem, dem compete with one another, get recognizable hands, and dem praise dem by name for oríkì. Collector-dem and dealer-dem no record di names.
Di art object. To separate di carving from im use, im feeding, im cloth, im song, im dance and im site na wetin museum require and na total loss of information. Margaret Thompson Drewal work on Yoruba ritual as improvised performance make di point say di object na one element inside event, and to study di element alone dey like to study instrument without di music .
Genre boundary-dem. Di division into sculpture, textile, architecture, music and dance na European departmental scheme. Abiodun oríkì frame, wey put cloth, building, food, song and carving inside one field, close pass to how dem arrange di material inside use .
Di single-moment object. Western display dey fix object for one instant. Yoruba object-dem dey accumulate: dem dey re-carve dem, re-paint dem, re-dress dem, sacrifice dey patina dem, and their surface dey record their biography. Di blood, palm oil, camwood and indigo crust wey conservator-dem clean comot before na data.
None of dis mean say European method-dem no produce anything. Technical analysis, thermoluminescence dating, metallurgical composition study-dem and archaeological stratigraphy don all contribute things wey indigenous frame no fit supply on im own, and di Ifẹ̀ chronology depend on dem entirely. Di argument na about wetin dey govern interpretation, no be whether laboratory method-dem dey work.
No single Yoruba word dey wey map directly to English "art" as category of object-dem wey dem make for contemplation. Di relevant term-dem dey about making and about skill: ọnà cover craft, design, pattern and di made thing, and di compound aláàṣà or di phrase ọlọ́nà refer to di practitioner. Ìṣẹ́ ọnà na di usual modern rendering of "art" and e literally mean di work of ọnà. Say di language must combine words to build di term na evidence on im own say di bounded Western category no dey there, and na di reason dis section cover weaving, pottery, building, drumming and hairdressing inside di same frame as sculpture instead of to treat di first four as craft and di last one as art.
The genres of Yoruba wood carving, from Ifá trays to palace doors to epa masks, the master carvers and family workshops who made them, and the reason so much of this work sits in museums without an artist's name attached.
The copper-alloy and terracotta sculpture of medieval Ilé-Ifẹ̀, how it was made, what it was probably for, the century of European refusal to credit Africans with making it, and where the objects are now.
What oríkì are, the different kinds, who performs them and why, and how they carry history that written records do not.
Character as the whole content of Yoruba ethics, iwa pele and iwa rere, the identity of character with beauty, patience as the source of character, and an ethical system grounded in consequence and community rather than divine command.
Ori as physical head, inner head, personal destiny and personal divinity, why the sources rank ori above the orisa, and the practice of ibori.
The concept that runs from "so be it" at the end of a prayer to the force by which anything happens at all, why both "power" and "life force" are inadequate translations, and how ase works in speech, ritual and art.