This evening, a small 6th floor lecture room in Schermerhorn was filled with Columbia University students, professors and members of the art world eager to hear Tim Barringer, a member of the Yale Art History department, speak.
Barringer’s lecture ‘Colonial Gothic: Artisanal Culture and Social Critique’ examined ideological structures within the labors of the skilled crafts and how it was understood within the context of the British Empire. Although he mentioned in an interview previous to his lecture, Barringer stressed the importance of the ‘Delight in Design: Indian silver for the Raj’ collection. As he stated in his lecture, “the exhibition is one of the most eye opening exhibitions with an exuberant and wonderful collection.” Although he did not draw on pieces from the collection, he stressed the importance of the labors behind them in relation to the loss of craftsmanship due to industrialization.
Three of the co-curators from the collection were members of the audience and thoroughly enjoyed Barringer’s lecture. Dipti Khera commented on the lecture how Barringer ”perfectly bridged the catalogue of objects and the idea of the Indian silversmith with the subject of the colonial gothic.” Khera refers to the idea of the ‘colonial gothic’ in relation to the 19th century British mechanization that spread to Indian colonies and rendered labor unnecessary.
Barringer, a specialist in Victorian 19th century art, joked in his lecture he would start off in 1851 just as in all of his other papers. This was a specific reference to hi book ‘Men at Work: Art and Labour in Victorian Britain” and the Crystal Palace exhibition of 1851. Barringer spoke of “the mercantile desirability of Indian workmanship and the exhibition drew attention to the process of Indian labor.” He further discussed the juxtaposition of the cross-legged seated position of the labored Indian worker and “the exquisite end product.” Just as their seated position was comparable to the lowest form of labor in 19th century Britain Barringer pointed out, their crafts were magnificent.
Barringer’s impressive scope of knowledge truly shone in his lecture as he departed from the British industrialization to it’s newly industrialized counterpart, colonized India. He brought up the surprising relation between anti-industrialization and anti-colonialism by linking John Ruskin’s artistic methodologies against industrialization and Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi ’s rejection of industrial invention onset by colonialism. Gandhi himself took the seating of the Indian laborer as Barringer noted it was ”a statement of faith in the virtues and value of the artisan and his products.”
The link between Ruskian thought and Gandhi was surprising and seen as innovative to the audience. Eszter Polonyi, a TA for Jonathan Crary’s 19th Century Art course said, “it was absolutely fascinating. I had not actually made the connection between Gandhi and this tendency to associate de-colonizing with the anti-industrializing and this is perfect because Gandhi believed in a utopia and the whole idea behind Ruskin was utopian.” Their “similar cluster of ideas”, Barringer explained in the Q&A portion, was an “explicit correlation between the handmade and a return to a better society. Ruskin claimed the imperfections are what make it great and industrial objects are virtually seamless.”
Barringer’s lecture was impressive and noteworthy. In the words of Professor Anne Higgonet of Barnard’s Art History department, the lecture was “thinking about what is historically legitimate about how art and culture mix with each other. “