The recent resurfacing of a 'new' Goldie painting has sparked a heated debate in the art world, with questions surrounding its authenticity and the cultural rights of its subject's descendants. This article delves into the complex web of issues surrounding the artwork, offering a critical analysis and commentary on the matter.
The painting in question, 'Lost in Thought, Ngāheke, An Arawa Chieftain', was initially believed to be a previously unrecognized 1917 work by Charles Frederick Goldie. However, doubts have been raised about its authenticity, with some experts claiming it's an imitation. This raises the question: who owns the rights to the image of Patara Te Ngūngūkai, the renowned Te Arawa tohunga depicted in the painting?
The answer lies in the complex interplay between cultural heritage, intellectual property, and legal frameworks. As the law currently stands, people who appear in paintings have no rights relating to those images, and these rights are extinguished 50 years after the artist's death. This means that anyone can use the image for any legal purpose, and it can be difficult to legally prevent people from using it however they wish.
For Tūhourangi, the iwi of Patara Te Ngūngūkai, this presents a challenging dilemma. While they appreciate the artwork and the genius of the artist, they also face the difficult task of navigating the sale of their tūpuna's image for commercial gain. Some Māori have protested the sale of images of their tūpuna, while others have tried to purchase as many of these images as possible to regain control over their cultural heritage.
The situation is further complicated by the lack of legislative frameworks to address cultural concerns. The Copyright Act, introduced in 1994, has not been significantly amended since, and the proposed changes would not impact the rights relating to the painting of Patara Te Ngūngūkai. The Wai 262 claim, a landmark Waitangi Tribunal inquiry addressing Māori intellectual property rights, traditional knowledge, and control over indigenous flora and fauna, has been filed, but the process is slow and long-term.
The Protected Objects Act 1975 provides some protections for culturally significant objects, but historic portraits of tangata whenua do not qualify as taonga tūturu, as they were produced by Pākehā photographers and artists rather than being made or used by Māori. This means that despite their clear cultural significance, they do not receive the act's highest level of protection.
In conclusion, the 'new' Goldie painting highlights the complex and often conflicting interests between artists, collectors, and cultural heritage. While the painting may be an imitation, the issue of cultural rights and the lack of legislative frameworks to address them remain a pressing concern. As Tūhourangi chair Kirikowhai Mikaere states, 'At the end of the day, [the painting] ultimately still belongs to us.' The iwi's ongoing efforts to exercise governance over their cultural heritage and protect their tūpuna's image are a testament to their commitment to preserving their rich cultural heritage.
