Talk:Georgia O'Keeffe/Norby on O'Keeffe

This is a draft or work page for content to go into Georgia O'Keeffe's article based upon the opinion and perspective of an indigenous curator of Native American art, Patricia Marroquin Norby.

Draft

Noted Indigenous people in the field of Native American art, Patricia Marroquin Norby and Michael Martinez, commented on O'Keefe's work from the perspective of Native American and Hispanic people of New Mexico.^[1]^[a] O'Keeffe depicted antlers and bones during her residency in New Mexico. According to Norby and Martinez, indigenous people of northern New Mexico solemnized animals in ceremonies and songs for their important traditional role in their survival.^[1]^[b] O'Keeffe began depicting bones in the 1930s and 1940s, when the Navajo Livestock Reduction was inacted. Many livestock ranched by Navajo and Diné peoples of New Mexico were killed, with a significant impact to their livelihood and lifestyles.^[c] Art historian, Patricia Albers, describes it as, "the simultaneous ravaging and revering of Indigenous communities and culture."^[1]

Understanding the history of names of places and things she depicted would be more honoring to indigenous people. For instance, O'Keeffe depicted the patio door of her home that had been a center for indigenous slave trade many years ago in the Abiquiú Pueblo of territorial Spain. Some viewers can appreciate its aesthetic quality, others may find the work unfinished and missing the full meaning.^[1]^[d] Regarding her sketch of “Eagle Claw and Bean Necklace,” there is a specific Tewa name for the bean necklace.^[e]

Notes

^ The reception of O'Keefe's work has recently been added to by Native American/Indigenous scholars and critics. In an interview, "Revisiting “O’Keeffe Country”, Patricia Marroquin Norby, associate curator of Native American art at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and Michael Martinez, former first lieutenant governor at Ohkay Owingeh and former Deputy Director at the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture, discussed how O'Keeffe's works of art may be received by indigenous people, particularly those near her residence in Abiquiú.^[1]
^ Their bones would not have been collected, but left to be part of the history and landscape of the area. There is something off-putting, too, to depict animals only by their bones.^[1]
^ O'Keeffe was one of many artists who came to New Mexico about 20 years after it achieved statehood for their romantic impressions of the desert. As a result, they changed the character of the land occupied by Native American and Hispanic people. Norby said that O'Keeffe's depiction of animal bones began in the 1930s and 1940s, when Navajo and Diné peoples livelihoods were affected by the Navajo Livestock Reduction (beginning in 1933, officially in 1935). They would have looked at the depiction of animal bones differently than O'Keeffe did.^[1]
^ In the audio commentary provided by the Museum of Modern Art for its 2023 exhibition “Georgia O’Keeffe: To See Takes Time,” Norby provides historical contexts for understanding O’Keefe’s work. “As an Indigenous woman,” says Norby, “it’s complex to respond to how she understands the patio door. Abiquiú, or Abiquiú, was a Tewa or Hopi Pueblo for many years. O’Keeffe buys this home that was a center for the indigenous slave trade. She embraces it for its aesthetic quality, rather than making any attempt to understand the local history.”^[1]
^ Regarding a sketch of a Native art necklace, “Eagle Claw and Bean Necklace,” Norby states: “She doesn’t depict them as one long necklace. Instead, she bunches them together into this round form. She uses a very fuzzy application of her charcoal for the beads, but then for the eagle claws, she uses the paper surface as a highlight to create a shiny surface, and so you get this really nice textural conversation between the beads and the claws.” Noticing that O’Keeffe calls them “Indian beads” rather than using a specific Tewa word, Norby urges scholars to learn more about how local Native or Hispanic peoples understood such artifacts.^[1]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ Norby, Patricia Marroquin; Martinez, Matthew (November 3, 2022). "Revisiting "O'Keeffe Country"". Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Discuss

With these edits I am suggesting we add this material to the Reception section of the main O'Keeffe page. Sometime in the future a separate article could be developed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Profgjay (talk • contribs) 09:30, July 25, 2023 (UTC)
Copied from Talk:Georgia O'Keeffe#Norby on O'Keeffe to keep a full set of comments here: "At this point I think the draft you've done could sensibly go into the "Art Criticism and Scholarship" section under "Reception." The addition could be conceived or justified as covering the contemporary reception of O'Keeffe's work by Native scholars/Indigenous critics. Norby is not the only one, so there may be other citations or quotations to be added here. I'm doing more research. Norby's critique was developed during her writing of her dissertation, which is scheduled to appear as a book. That book could provide more material. But I think what you've done for now is a good start. I may try a sentence or two addition for context. Profgjay (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)"

Yes, that's fine, Profgjay. It would be good to summarize this information and find some other comments so that the content isn't too one-sided. I wanted to see if I could find more articles about Norby's comments about O'Keeffe's works, but it is getting long. If there's something a bit more succint and salient, that would be great!

See Undue weight and Balance. I have been trying to wrestle with how to add this content but without placing undue influence on one person (Norby) and ensure we're getting a good sense over-all of O'Keeffe's reception.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like we're on the same page about balance.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will think about how to improve this. Thanks. As a former academic I don't do well, initially, with being succinct. Profgjay (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely understand, Profgjay. I am retired and am not the thinker and writer that I used to be. That's actually why I am on Wikipedia - to keep my mind as sharp as I can.

One thing I have thought about is to summarize content in a succinct statement in the body of the article, and put some the detail info into a note. I'll try one place and see what you think.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See what you think of the first paragraph.

In the now second paragraph, ...it’s complex to respond to how she understands the patio door. Abiquiú, or Abiquiú, was a Tewa or Hopi Pueblo for many years. O’Keeffe buys this home that was a center for the indigenous slave trade. She embraces it for its aesthetic quality, rather than making any attempt to understand the local history.”[1] I wonder if it could be worded from the perspective of the viewer, like, "O'Keeffe depicts the patio door of her home that had been a center for indigenous slave trade many years ago in the Abiquiú Pueblo of territorial Spain. Some viewers can appreciate its aesthetic quality, others may find the work unfinished and missing the full story".–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and took a stab at making the edit to the second paragraph and summarizing the next paragraph (now one paragraph). Here's the "diff" here of the changes that I made, with the content put into a note starting with "{{efn|" and ending with "}}" It's just a stab, it's lovely being able to try things out in draft mode. Please feel free to make changes, too.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're aiming for here. The draft of the first paragraph, however, is less clear without the sentence now put into the first footnote. In general I think we're ending up with too many footnotes. I've now read the chapter on O'Keeffe from Norby's dissertation, which is the foundation for her comments here. I've also talked with curators at the Georgia O'Keeffe Museum and received some further suggested readings. I'd like to take some time to look at these with the aim of creating a succinct paragraph that doesn't rely solely on Norby's work but rather sketches the general picture of an enhanced reception of O'Keeffe's work from a Native/Indigenous perspective. After that I can come back and suggest an edit. But it's unclear to me whether that should happen here on this page per back on the original Norby discussion page (Wikipedia novice question). Profgjay (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your approach sounds great! I don't understand the last sentence. I am not sure why you could or should not make the suggested edits here. Regarding too many notes, I just put what was originally written into notes. The notes don't have to remain in the article, feel free to trim what you'd like.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[2] The reception of O'Keefe's work has recently been added to by Native American/Indigenous scholars and critics. In an interview, "Revisiting “O’Keeffe Country”, Patricia Marroquin Norby, associate curator of Native American art at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and Michael Martinez, former first lieutenant governor at Ohkay Owingeh and former Deputy Director at the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture, discussed how O'Keeffe's works of art may be received by indigenous people, particularly those near her residence in Abiquiú.^[1]

[3] Their bones would not have been collected, but left to be part of the history and landscape of the area. There is something off-putting, too, to depict animals only by their bones.^[1]

[4] O'Keeffe was one of many artists who came to New Mexico about 20 years after it achieved statehood for their romantic impressions of the desert. As a result, they changed the character of the land occupied by Native American and Hispanic people. Norby said that O'Keeffe's depiction of animal bones began in the 1930s and 1940s, when Navajo and Diné peoples livelihoods were affected by the Navajo Livestock Reduction (beginning in 1933, officially in 1935). They would have looked at the depiction of animal bones differently than O'Keeffe did.^[1]

[5] In the audio commentary provided by the Museum of Modern Art for its 2023 exhibition “Georgia O’Keeffe: To See Takes Time,” Norby provides historical contexts for understanding O’Keefe’s work. “As an Indigenous woman,” says Norby, “it’s complex to respond to how she understands the patio door. Abiquiú, or Abiquiú, was a Tewa or Hopi Pueblo for many years. O’Keeffe buys this home that was a center for the indigenous slave trade. She embraces it for its aesthetic quality, rather than making any attempt to understand the local history.”^[1]

[6] Regarding a sketch of a Native art necklace, “Eagle Claw and Bean Necklace,” Norby states: “She doesn’t depict them as one long necklace. Instead, she bunches them together into this round form. She uses a very fuzzy application of her charcoal for the beads, but then for the eagle claws, she uses the paper surface as a highlight to create a shiny surface, and so you get this really nice textural conversation between the beads and the claws.” Noticing that O’Keeffe calls them “Indian beads” rather than using a specific Tewa word, Norby urges scholars to learn more about how local Native or Hispanic peoples understood such artifacts.^[1]

[Revisiting-1] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ Norby, Patricia Marroquin; Martinez, Matthew (November 3, 2022). "Revisiting "O'Keeffe Country"". Metropolitan Museum of Art.

[1]

[a]

[b]

[c]

[d]

[e]