Art and the ‘Other’

Section One:
Since the Renaissance, western culture has continuously defined itself in relation to other cultures. Westerns have constructed their identities by differentiating themselves from what they are not - or don't wish to be. Huge varieties of non-western cultures have been clustered together as the Other to sustain this process of self-definition

Section Two:
One problem with western definitions of art based on the assertion of the ‘Self’ against the non-western ‘Other’ is that they tend to group all non-western works into one single category. In fact, non-western artifacts are amazingly diverse. They don't share one identity, either historically or geographically. It is western culture that has imposed a sense of coherence upon them.

Section Three:
In fact, non-western artifacts are amazingly diverse. They don't share one identity, either historically or geographically. It is western culture that has imposed a sense of coherence upon them.

Section Four:
However, non-western cultures have supplied western artist with new themes, styles and techniques, and with the means of challenging tradition. Artists are not always familiar with the cultures from which they borrow and this lack of adequate knowledge can give rise to misconceptions and stereotypes. But their artistic experments are greatly enriched by contact with the “Other”.

Assignment:
What is the main point of each section.

Big question:

How should we look at art work from other cultures?

How do we deal with the sterotypes that have been created?

Who should get to speak about art that is inspired by other cultures?