|
Abdel Rahman M Sherif
Director of Addis Ababa School of Fine Arts and Secretary General of Ethiopian Artists’ Association
As he was already part of the artistic circle of Addis and belonged both to the early modernists (1) and the modernists, a very small but effective artist-intellectual community welcomed him. Solomon Deressa wrote an article in Addis Reporter, the then famous magazine, on his impression about the artist titled “A New Artist Comes Home”, welcoming the native artist. He was soon assigned as an instructor at the Haile Sellassie I Teachers Training Institute in Addis. From there through his regular exhibition he was able to widen his professional persona and his modernist art. But as he did not feel at ease in his position as secretary and administrator at the commercial school, he was not comfortable as instructor at the Teachers Training Institute. In 1971, he transferred to the A A School of Fine Arts as art instructor, where he felt more at ease with his artist friends and worked within the ambience of a modernist stronghold and became a part of that tradition. Abdel Rahman’s early works exhibited at the French club in 1959 and in his group show at the HS I Theater in 1960 included landscapes and figurative watercolor paintings. Like several other aspiring artists of his age, they manifest his commitment and love for drawing and painting. The themes of his work after his return from Germany were not visibly different from those of his earlier years. But since then his technique and visual style newspaper collage, silkscreen, and woodcut remain his major media. His fascination with the techniques of frottage, automatism and collage, which closely tied him with his fellow artists, is considered to have been a hallmark of modern aesthetic expressions. To capture the meaning of his subject matter and awaken the eyes of the beholder, he uses these loosely defined technical means and structures. The same goes to the automatic nature of his sketches and illustrations that appeared in Addis Reporter in the early 1970s. The works are like juxtapositions of the city and its vicinity seen by a sightseer. By depicting the social reality of the urban area he found the inner soul and liveliness of his surrounding. The urban scenes, as in Merkato, The bus stop, The automobiles, Women with umbrellas, The Shoppers, The Vendors with their illogical setting where a sort of curious state of restructure creates a deliberate ambiguity and symbioses are distinctive in his tableau. The human figure, the main subject of his work, revolves with all its vital force in the activities for survival and its pandemonium. S Chojnacki, writing for the solo exhibition of Abdel Rahman in 1972 states, "The 'Ethiopianisation' of modern art here may be achieved from one of two points of view: returning to the origins of Ethiopian art by reviving former methods and the emotional emphasis of past masters, or receiving life in Ethiopia as subject-matter while taking advantage of new artistic techniques from other countries. In accordance with his temperament, Sherif has opted for the second alternative, and chooses as subject-matter for his most recent studies the Ethiopian market.” In 1976, Seyoum Wolde wrote, “The subject matters also were expressed under the influence of the strong discipline of Islam’s best teachings. … Sherif is entirely changed at present from abstract to concrete, from non-figurative to multi-figurative. No more to admire the beauty of life in colors without images of people. Unlike some European artists, at present the artist uses warm colors to express himself through concrete forms, that can serve him to depict the life of our contemporary Ethiopia.” Girma Kidane wrote in 1977, “Abdul Rahman M. Sherif’…whose style is more lyrical, has achieved his greatest success in his drawings and water color by representing the simplification of artistic expression. He cultivates the sphere of sense, harmonizes man’s personality.” And in 1991 he wrote, “Most of his paintings are bright and light. The use of colors in his realistic and semi-abstract compositions indicates that Sherif has found his own way of expression.” Chojnacki’s statement is apparently written pertaining to and in contrast to other modernist artists’ work inspired by the Ethiopian religious painting. Going to historical references and reviving former methods, which have become legitimized in modernist art - so that the work appears Ethiopian - is a matter of practicality and involvement. And as Girma Kidane noted, “ There is little danger that acceptance of the past or of foreign styles here implies a lack of initiative or constitutes imitation. The concept of revival is certainly implicit in an eclectic attitude, but even more important is the fact that a new synthesis is produced by the artist’s selection and integration of the characteristics he chooses.” What Messay Kebede indicated about the ancient Christian Ethiopian Artists is perhaps more true of the modernist artist, “ In what they borrow, they wanted to visualize themselves, to find conformation of their own identity, to read their own rebirth and celebration….To Ethiopianize is to impart the quality of durability, of inviolability, it is to preserve from mobility and transiency.” Like those of the ancients’ works the modernist works too best describe the uniqueness of Ethiopian Art in the modern world. We see them now as bearer of a vision of modern Ethiopia where elements of time-honored character live together in symbioses with the element of the elusive and intrusive modernity. Whether “the influence of the strong discipline of Islam’s best teachings… to depict the life of our contemporary Ethiopia.” as Seyoum indicated has any relevance in Abdel Rahman’s work is yet to be exposed. On the other hand, Abdul Rahman’s participation and interest in the continuous development of modern Ethiopian art, from the social realism of the 1950s through abstraction, expression of the 1960s and even to the 1970s’ concern of figurative painting is markedly significant in helping him “depict the life of our contemporary Ethiopia”. He “has achieved his greatest success in his drawings and water color by representing the simplification of artistic expression” and getting closer to the source, the age-old tradition of his country’s aesthetic principle and sentiment.
In spite of the fact that steady advance of Social and Critical Realism, and a flourishing artistic plurality, the modernist art was still considered a significant cultural achievement and the mainstream artistic movement in Addis Ababa even during the early years of the revolution. Following the revolution, the Addis Ababa School of Fine Arts - the bastion of Ethiopian modernists- which enjoyed the pride and privilege of being the only art school and one of the first modernist institutions was required to revise its course according to Marxist-Leninist theory. Alle Felege Selam, the schools’ founder and director intimidated by radical students and the new government was forced to resign his position as the director of the school. Gebre Kristos Desta left his position as instructor at the School and became the director of Addis Ababa City Hall Gallery. When Abdel Rahman joined the school as a staff member in 1971, Gebre Kristos had been instructor at the School for nearly 10 years. Alex Skunder Boghossian had left the school and the country “with the obvious intention of finding a larger audience for his activities.” Taddesse Gizaw and Bisrate Bekele were already staff members. Tadesse Mamecha and Tadesse Belaynhe were also instructors at the School. Later on, Goshu Worku was transferred from Berhanena Selam Printing press to the School as instructor. The sculptor Bekele Abebe, the painters Worku Mamo and Hailu Tsigie joined the School as instructors during the revolution. There were also several other distinguished modernists who studied abroad but were not part of the Addis Ababa School of Fine Arts staff. These modern artists who shaped modern Ethiopian art in the second half of the 20th century are Abdel Rahman’s contemporaries who belonged within his circle and are responsible for the pluralistic artistic movement we witnessed in the late 1960s and early 1970s. By the late 1970s, when organized left wing theoreticians raised their voice against a century-old Ethiopian modernization, and favored Marxist modernization, time was running out for the modernists. The modernists inquisitive visions seemed irrelevant to the society unable to feed itself and acquire even the basic means of modernization. The modernists were literally forced out to practice their artistic passion and activities underground or abroad in exile in an alien cultural ambience. What was left for the few resolute modernists who stayed at home was to display their works at “The Salons”, the cultural centers of Western countries where foreign diplomats and residents gathered. Or to hope for an invitation to come from the West to go and show their works. On the other hand, the communist countries were ready to give scholarship to young graduates of the school. During the early years of the revolution, Gebre Kristos and several significant artists, young and influential art instructors and those who were able to secure teaching or other position elsewhere, and fortunate enough, however short lived, to establish a career as an artist, graduates of the school, fled the country. Abdel Rahman decided to stay and see the fate of his country, even though his wife and children had already left for Germany. Like all the ironies and contradictions of the revolution, Alle Felege who preferred an art form in a heroic pose, a clear and unambiguous tableaux which was valued by socialist and communist states fell out of official favor. Abdel Rahman who favored Western modernism of allusion and ambiguity, which was disdained and feared by the communists was now, appointed as the director of the School. Abdel Rahman, who rubbed shoulder with prominent Ethiopian artists and who happened to be among the few potential candidates for the prestigious Haile Sellassie I Prize for Fine Arts in the early 1970s - stayed in throughout the revolution as the director of the School. As he was among the first students of the School and since he took his position as an instructor prior to the revolution, his appointment also got the tacit blessing of Alle Felege himself. And as he was the most experienced and capable to handle the clerical and administrative situation, the staff members also favored him. Paradoxically, during the time of his administration, the School failed greatly to produce any worthy modernist or avant-garde art, seen in the initial years of the model nations of Ethiopian revolution. Instead an art which went against all artistic concepts the modernists stood for was fostered and encouraged. Academy figures triumphed; the School became the propaganda machine for the Derg and breeding ground for the new generation of socially, culturally, politically conscious artists. After the Red and White Terror bloodbath, when artists were expected to participate passionately to build a new society, the forgotten tradition of craftsmanship was badly needed for the narcissism of power and ideology. Neither Abdel Rahman nor any of the modernists attempted to reclaim their role as modernist artists in the transformation and building of the nation for fear of persecution. They had already been intimidated and bombarded by the theory of the radicals. In 1977 Expo, when several artists including the schools instructors and students created, assembled and executed the exposition, and during the first show of the artists association, nearly all art works of any value by the modernists were seen with distrust by the militants and members of the Derg. Art was no more expected to express any inner struggles of ambiguity and choice of fantasy of the artists, or absurdity and tragedy, etc. It was during this shaky period that Nadew Zekariyas, member of the Derg, one of the former students of the School from the armed force, cursed and intimidated his former instructor Gebre Kristos Desta. Despite the intimidation and the confusion, it was more their mindset that prevented the modernists from practicing their art fully and used it like they did in 1960s at the time of Atse Haile Sellasie or in the first years of the revolution. Abdel Rahman himself painted nothing significant; neither did he want to show his works as he frequently did before the revolution. With the exception of the occasional group show he participated every now and then, as he was busy with political meetings, there was no attempt on his part to open a solo show. In fact, he had not produced any work of significance after 1980. It is not an exaggeration to say that he has not been a practicing artist for the fifteen years of the Derg rule. The last of his significant works after the revolution is the Cheka Shume, 1977, Waiting for the Bus, 1977 which he sent to Lagos for the FESTAC 77 and Saturday Market, he did in 1980. After his major show with his wife in 1976, and after he becomes the director of the school, and the secretary general of the artists’ association, the role of this inquisitive modernist artist was to become unthinkable and unexpected. He practically abandoned his artistic and creative responsibility and became an associate with the Derg and later with the Workers Party of Ethiopia (WPE) propaganda machine. In the first few years of the revolution, the artists who played a loosely radical role in preparing flyers and propaganda posters and monumental paintings were employees of the National Theater, Hager Fiker Theater, Ministry of Culture and different political offices and ministries. The experience and the talent of these young artists sufficed for the propaganda work. These young artists who played a radical role in exposing the ills and evils of the Atse Haile Selassie regime in their arts in the early 1970s left the country for further studies in the Eastern block countries. As the major artists and the instructors, were assigned/asked to do mural and sculptural works for the hero center in Debre Zeit and elsewhere, the students of the School carry out any kind of order that came to Abdel Rahman from the Derg Bureau or other political offices. Through Abdel Rahman and the Ministry of Culture, Derg became dependent on the Addis Ababa School of Fine Arts as its propaganda machinery. Abdul Rahman was to mobilize the students to do posters and propaganda paintings and graphics to illustrate the slogans and words of the demagogue. Easel painting, sculptor, mural art, graphics all ended up depicting the dream of the revolution. Repressed and tortured and frightened students, victims of the Kebele red terror, who were more concerned with the learning and mastering the technique, indiscriminately depicted whatever order came from their instructors or from above. Abdel Rahman was not in any way interested in supervising the formal quality of the work as long as the content reflected what was required. To draw a line between creativity, an art form and propaganda work was not to be contemplated. Only daring and frustrated few young artists who understood the sway detached themselves from anything political or propagandist. Later on, when these same artists who were paid minimal fees for their services obtained scholarship and left the country, their juniors took over the jobs. This was the time when the Art school students called the revolution a “Poster revolution.” Only the participation of the North Koreans artists after the formation of the WPE eased the burden and involvement of the students. Abdel Rahman never showed outright his reservations and complied with most official policies and order and was quick to organize the talented students for any kind of work. He carried out his administrative functions and generally played according to the rules as the Ministry of Culture presented them to him. On his side, he had Aschenek Temesgen, the School administrator, a former Amharic teacher in Asmera, an effective and resolute technocrat who helped him deal with the Ministry of Culture bureaucracy. Despite the fact that his power was limited and scrutinized by the Ministry of Culture bureaucrats, in the professional sphere, he was not all the time in line with the regulations and complained every now and then as to what the authority wanted him to do.
Given the situation at the time of the Derg, it is very hard to say why with the exception of a few of the modernists nobody cared to carry on the tradition, especially why one of its prominent member Abdel Rhaman failed to do so. It is true, as every citizen was terrorized and intimidated by Derg, so were the modernists. However, there was no official condemnation of the modernist work. Even the outspoken persons and the critics who sided with Derg were not outright attacking the modernists, although they seem to have favored the social realism or socialist realist kind of art. The general populace, which did not care, would not have raised arm against the modernists and for lack of interest for creativity and artistic concern or in the absence of clearly defined policy, Derg would not have forced the artists to do otherwise. Derg would not have been intimidated and would not have been threatened by the modernists’ work any way. The fact of the matter is Derg would have been much more contented in bringing artists from overseas to do its “official” propaganda art and import art works, like it did with the large statue of Lenin, that it took down in its final days. The easy coexistence between the modernists and the party sympathizer artists came to an end only after the inauguration of the Workers Party of Ethiopia (WPE). When former students of the School returned from their studies in the Soviet Union and joined the School and the Ministry of Culture and other organizations, art was to function on party lines. In 1986, when Derg was reorganizing professional associations on party lines, about 200 artists from all over the country were invited to establish their association. Contrary to the party cadres’ desire, the majority voted for the well-known artists - Afewerk Tekele, Alle Felege Selam and Daniel Touafe respectively for the leadership. Even though Abdel Rahman did not get the support of the majority of the artists, the committee from WPE appointed him as Secretary General of the Ethiopian Artists’ Association. Yet, Abdel Rahman remains the same even after his appointment, and was watched distrustfully by the party sympathizers as well as the others. Had it not been for his social background and card-carrying party membership and probably of his virtue, he would not have survived the party sympathizer theoreticians in the last years of the revolution. In fact, there was a failed plot by some of the instructors who were Kebele officials to replace his position as the School director. But it was put under control by the quick intervention of Aschenek Temesgen, the school administrator. After the ouster of the Derg, Tadesse Belayneh one of the plotters replaced Abdel Rahman as the director of the school. Was it Abdel Rahman’s choice to be part of the cultural and artistic ‘policy’ of the Derg, and believed whole-heartedly in his involvement or was he playing double standards? Now, we are at least able to know that Abdel Rahman was acting like several other intellectuals to be part of the Derg propaganda out of fear of persecution rather than by conviction. In a short paper he presented at a seminar in 2001, he raised several disturbing but revealing questions: Is a second revival of modern art happening in our country? What are the main characteristics of this movement? How can the art of the 1990s be seen and compared to the art of the 1960s? He gave the answers to his own questions in a 6-page speech where he gave the artistic activities during the revolution a scanty description of barely 10 lines. As if like a cultural amnesia or trying to avoid a shameful confession, he was contended to recount and compare the modernist art of the 1960s he passionately participated in and the art of 1990s that is yet to be defined. He sadly failed to indicate any positive or negative outcome of art during the revolution and disregarded it by saying: “In the 18 years of socialist rule, it is hard to say if any specific artistic movement has happened.” When the fact tells a totally different story, he tends to diminish or totally ignore the artistic movement during the revolution. The “official” art, the propaganda and political posters - works that he orchestrated and the Derg theoreticians wanted to establish for the masses to spread Marxism-Leninism, was what Abdel Rahman had in mind when he wrote his short paper. The breadth of artistic activities - from easel painting, prints, sculptures, mural to the decorative arts – the hundreds of apolitical remarkable works of the graduates of the school, and works of those younger artists who finished their studies abroad during the 18 years period were not given any consideration. Even the effort and struggle of the modernist artists including himself during the first years of the revolution and later on were not mentioned. Abdel Rahman who participated passionately in Ethiopian art, one would think, would be the right kind of person to tell all the ventures of 20th century Ethiopian art in its glory and infamy. What he has gone through during this period, as director of the school and secretary general of the Ethiopian Artists’ Association, was a huge responsibility. Given the fact that he was the art coordinator, he should have shown his insight, at least in matter of art and politics for the new generation. It is intriguing to notice that at the time of the Ethiopian revolution, the Soviet Union, East Germany and Cuba, the major supporters of Derg, had already begun to relax their censorship of art. The declaration in the USSR of the policy of perestroika or restructuring in 1985 was favorable to art and several distinguished artists of these nations began applying western and eastern modernist styles and approaches and even the dissidents were experimenting with their art freely. Why did Abdel Rahman, the modernist, not follow the trend? He was in a key position to empower the arts scene and bring about substantial results during the revolution, and the art that several dreaded and Abdel Rahman himself tried to ignore now would not have been a phenomenon. In his capacity as the School director and as the secretary general of the artists association, had Abdel Rahman allowed the teaching and practice of the modernist trend in the school, foster modernists art, Derg would not have cared less. Didn’t the modernists cry out loud and clear during the time of Atse Haile Selassie that their art was lofty and that they were revolutionaries? Wasn’t the modernist art considered synonymous with the radicals’, leftists’ or progressive strategy? The answer to these questions can come from any source, but it is only the answer from Abdel Rahman that can solve the mystery once and for all. The irony of it all is that, following the ouster of Derg, not only Abdel Rahman, even the party sympathizer artists were enthusiastic and in a frenzy to pick up what was left behind from the 1960s. The repressive system of the Derg has failed extremely, but the artistic culture, which feeds on a long tradition, is evolving and is still sprouting. It is naïve to think otherwise. It is also to be understood that the players of contemporary Ethiopian art are the generation and the product of the revolution. The achievements of some of the prominent artists during the revolution were significant and markedly vivid in the art of the 1990s. The outcome we have seen in the last 10 years is the product of this struggle and the unprecedented result is what we have not seen in the last 100 years of our history. Contemporary Ethiopian art is product and heir of centuries of tradition and the best art of the 1930s, the best art of the 1960s, and the 1970s but also of the best of the 1980s. By its range of styles, by its light and shadow, it will invigorate the next generation of Ethiopia artists. It can not be a second revival of modern art as Abdel Rahman propounds. It is another phase of Ethiopian art that is not aiming to surpass but revitalize the tradition for the better, smashing the pathetic contemporary situation and concept of art in the country. Hard to predict what is in future, but it is tempting to believe that the energies of the new information age are going to be powerful stimuli to the next wave of Ethiopian art. To understand the various motivations that induced talented and respected artists to get involved in implementing Derg policies is not the project of this article. The answer to the question might as well be left for other disciplines to speculate. But were the artists accountable to the society as the political leaders for anything that has been mismanaged and corrupted during the revolution? For sure, the artists are accountable for themselves. At least now they should admit to wrongdoing or search the reason underlying their own behavior rather than trying to turn a blind eye to what was done during the revolution. It is not enough to say that they are only artists. When there are other important things that the nation is faced with, it is a cry in the wilderness to wait for a public concern and reaction for their activities. Any important and factual support or the condemnation of the artists should first come from the artist community itself. In a society like ours, the artists’ moral commitment, artistic integrity, aesthetic etiquette, and safeguarding his freedom of expression are his major tools that best describe him even more than his work.. That said, the extensive contributions of Abdel Rahman for over four decades, as a painter, printmaker, educator and supporter of artists have an important impact on Ethiopian art. His place as a founding member of the first Ethiopian Artists Club in the 1960s, his unwavering artistic activities in the early 1970s, his position as the Secretary General of Ethiopian Artists’ Association in the 1980s clearly indicate his importance to Ethiopian art and will put him in the forefront of the modernists. Even if he were not able to create much during the revolution, he helped a couple of modernists find a safe haven in the School and several young artists gain scholarship and secure work. In his works and personality, he will remain a typical example and represent the majority of his generation of Ethiopian modernists. 1. Since the problem at the heart of their art and the primary concern and debate of the artists as well as the public have been modernization, modernism and modernity in art, I can not avoid the fundamental wishes and aspiration of the artists. But as there is nothing remotely similar which suggest that the machine, industry or even modern cities and modern life in the industrial world inspire or attract this generation of artists, there is no attempt to draw any parallelism with modern western artists. However, I see their works in the light of the application and intent of the international nature of the 20th century modernism. I have referred to the artists responsible for introducing and practicing the new art form and the new culture, the culture of art exhibition the early modernists & the modernists - Zemenawi & Zemenay. Almost all of these artists were educated abroad and were able to educate a whole generation of modern Ethiopian artists. What we witness in their art is the formal continuities and discontinuity within the tradition, advancing and regressing, forward and backward, arriving at an alternative and innovative variant of Ethiopian modernism. And what emerges is a concerted artistic manifestation of modernity, modernism in the country and the birth of a modern myth in the art of the nation but not a celebration of modernization along the line of industrialization. Zemenawi artists differ in their technical mastery and their adoption of the principles of three- dimensional illusionist representation, from the church style of pre-20th century, but are comparable to the court style of the early 20th century that was influenced by photography. The art of the Zemenawi stayed in the mainstream until the early 1960s. Zemenay artists are the next generation of modern artists who showed a coherent movement, inspired or influenced by the art and technique, if not the values, of the western and eastern avant-garde artists. They differ from the Zemenawi in their style. The secret of their art lies in its stylistic sophistication and the use of ambiguity, which captivate and puzzle the viewer. Zemenay art movement was active and stayed the mainstream way into the early 1970s. Their teaching and enthusiastic participation individually or in-group show contributed much to familiarize the Addis Ababan public not only with the modern cultural activity of art exhibition, but also with the trend of the 20th century international art. Both Zemenawi and Zemenay artists did take interest in social questions; however, their chief concern was for social rather than political reform and they differ from the young artists, the keen supporters of activist ideology both aesthetically and politically. Zemenawi artists apply Zemenay style and technique for personal convenience and practicality. But their works are related directly to the dominant cultural politics and are heavily influenced by the prevalent social theory. Zemenay artists, even if they do not have the conception of art as the domain of cultivated elite alone, manifest their love of mystification and abstraction in their individualism. In both Zemenawi and Zemenay art, however different their approaches, we notice a tendency to favor the ever-present traditional formal concept, national or native artistic sentiment and a distance away from formal concept that doesn’t exist in their cultural setting and background - the ideal academic classicism they studied and observed abroad. This tendency is even more pronounced in the Zemenay tableau. 2. The modernist (Zemenay) belief was expressed not so much in any radical political views as in their new artistic approaches and methods. And despite our conventional perception to the contrary, no modernizing effort in their art or any progressive idea they got from their studies abroad, was rebellious. If it seems that they swept away any previous artistic tradition, it was only on the surface. What we see in their works is a scholarly myth associated to painting and a psychological and emotional force and preference to stress and to come closer to the mathematical and ideologically uncontaminated origin. Like the western avant-garde who raged against their classical tradition and the modes of representation, Ethiopian modernists too were against the tradition of the countries they received training from. As they were exposed to a plurality of cultural influences and ideology, the variety of visual styles and formal solutions they studied abroad created an acute awareness of a distinctly national, cultural and racial identity that made them intensely conscious of their own art, tradition and history. Just like the ancients, the modernists exploited techniques selectively to suit their artistic sentiment. But unlike the ancient artists, who worked in accord with the dominant religious and cultural ideology, the modernists had an agenda of their own. As Messay Kebed noted on these modern artists, “According to the sensibilities of the artist, the blast can be seen as either a positive or a negative event.” And, in this blast their primary concern has been, as Chojnacki indicated, “the tenacious stand to preserve the Ethiopian character in its new setting.” Those, at times subtle and symbolic, nostalgic and melancholic, at other times puzzling and delirious, metaphorical and allegorical, spiritual, mythological and narrative images reflect, satisfied and represented the feeling, aspiration and emotional quest of the generation and the yearning of the nation. Their innovations and the cultural significance of their works became a passion and a preoccupation of their own, and a hope and a therapeutic consciousness for their contemporaries. And if modernization means what “Ethiopia’s unquestioned modernist”, Atse Haile Sellassie launched as early as 1930s, the early modernist painters, achieved it eloquently and the modernists pushed it even further and thrust Ethiopia into the 20th century. 3. The politically conscious artists, engaged in the Social Realist and Critical Realist art evolved in the period between the early modernists and the modernists ( Zemenawi and Zemenay) and flourished all the way to the revolution. The artists committed to this kind of art were fromer students of Kine Tibebe School, and the Addis Ababa School of Fine Arts and their pupils, but there were self-taught artists as well. These were art teachers, artists in different ministries and organizations working in the provincial capitals and in Addis Ababa. They did not adhere to the conventional art of Addis Ababa and the galleries and did not rely on exhibitions, they were not homogeneous either. As they were involved in the wave of radicalism that affected the younger generation, they ignored the mythological, traditional, and historical mystification and abstraction in favor of exposing the harsh realism - the shabby sections of the towns, the life of the people, the hungry and the famine stricken. Their subject matters become a delight to an urban public that adored sentimentalized scenes, though the works in style are far from sentimental. Even though the Social Realist and Critical Realist art continued all through the revolution and beyond, by the middle of 1980, an “official” art with sentimentalized smiling faces and optimistic looks of workers and peasants, depicted in accordance with the Socialist Realist ideology took center stage. The partisan for Socialist Realist art had initially favored idealized and sentimental images and the historical and heroic achievement of the Ethiopian hero. Later, these themes intermittently appeared with other international revolutionary themes. Idealized and optimistic images that suggested the future, according to party lines, depicted workers in the factory, farmers in the collective farms and the army in the battlefield. Graduating students of the A A School of Fine Arts were encouraged and expected to show in their diploma works these kind of thematic arrangements in monumental size and with warmth rather than with indifference. By: Esseye Medhin, 2002 |
