Figural harp, Azande; D.R.C. Congo
Wood, leather; H. 21"
This harp, at once an object of utility
and a work of art, illustrates the diverse nature
of African sculpture. Probably created by the Zande
people of northeastern D.R.C. Congo, this would
have been an object that provided musical entertainment
for a chief or other high-ranking nobleman. In fact,
the style of the harp itself and the carving of
the face may indicate that the two most similar
examples, one in the Rietberg Museum, Zurich, and
the other in the American Museum of Natural History
in New York, were also carved by the same workshop,
if not the same carver. The subtle differences in
the features of the face may in fact reflect an
attempt at portraiture, as we find that a previously
unpublished field note (reprinted in Schildkraut,
E. and Keim, C. 1990; p. 238) and dating
to the nineteenth century, refers to a similar harp
as having a stylized head that is a portrait of
the chief who commissioned it. In essence, therefore,
this is a prestige item that would have been made
to augment status. Interestingly, it seems that
the neighboring Mangbetu took great interest in
the Zande styles and commissioned their own harps,
which in turn spawned a workshop whose primary goal
was to produce more elaborate harps than the Gelbard
example for trade to colonials. How are we to view
these objects? Where should one draw the line with
regards to authenticity? Obviously, the harps made
for use by the Zande are real, but are the Mangbetu
examples? How narrowly must we define "real"
for it to have a meaning in this context? When do
objects made by traditional carvers cease to be
traditional? What is the role of the market in this?
It would seem that the entire issue is a Western
conceit, as the carvers among the Zande and ultimately
the Mangbetu who produced objects for their chiefs
and for the market made few such judgments. Perhaps
it is time that we examine why we do not have a
similar attitude.
