That’s a great story, people at the exhibition will love …

Comment on Birth of an art movement: the untold story by Ralph.

That’s a great story, people at the exhibition will love it.
But a “coming together” at Papunya spawned the art movement?
The Pintupi were the outcasts there, referred to as “rubbish Pintupi”.
They were traditional (considered backward) when the other groups were rapidly adopting the skills needed to fit into the Whiteman’s world.
The administration burnt their spears in a public ceremony aimed at humiliating them.
It didn’t help that Papunya was not their country, they were trespassing on Arrente land.
Their leadership had been devastated in the 1960s.
In 1964 half the people who came in from the desert were dead within six months.
West Camp was squalid and infectious diseases ravaged the Pintupi living there.
The administration kept away from it, describing it as a heath hazard (for themselves).
Pintupi resilience was shown by moving away from Papunya, to Waru Wiya and Ya Ya and finally to Kintore in 1981.
While at Ya Ya they were often precluded from the benefits at Papunya such as food, because the administration there wanted them to return rather than assist their autonomy.
It was at Ya Ya that the art movement flourished, the Pintupi had no official support and were desperate for food and vehicles.
Art provided one of the few sources of income.
Ian Dunlop’s film shot at Ya Ya in 1972 provides a first hand description of the art movement facilitated by Bardon.
Whereas at Papunya official support for art was often directed away from the Pintupi, Bardon recognised their genius and focused on them.
The art movement has its roots in Pintupi autonomy and resilience in the face of adversity and discrimination.

Recent Comments by Ralph

At last, public will get a say on Anzac Oval: Town Council
Gunner has made the right call on the location of the proposed gallery and offered substantial funding.
No other sensible and economically viable location has been proposed.
The gallery will probably operate at a loss as does the Desert Park.
To be sustainable the loss must be minimised and it must add value to our tourist businesses.
South of the Gap / at the Desert Part are not suitable locations.
The Greens are engaged in misguided economically damaging democracy.
They are doing the same by using their position on the Water Board to slow down mining development at Mt Pearce.
This action threatens the offer of generous funding.


The millions and the misery
Eugene’s Mate: “Unreasonably negative and incorrigibly antagonistic attitude towards Congress pathological denial of Congress’s achievements? Very unfairly, maligning Congress.”
Any organisation that gets more than $40m a year of taxpayer money, has $20m unspent and has a stake in CentreCorp with assets of more than $50m absolutely needs to be held accountable.
It worries me that you fall back on excuses such as saying that poverty is the main driver of renal disease (and of course Congress can’t change that).
How about, a sedentary lifestyle, living in squalor, poor diet, alcohol and smoking, all of which Congress should be able to do something about.
But they haven’t despite all the millions.
A new approach is needed.
Take diabetes:
Although there are other factors, diabetes is a major cause of end stage renal disease. Many of us have watched the progression from diabetes to end stage over the years.
I’ve personally seen it a dozen times or more.
Uncontrolled diabetes is rampant in our community and the deaths are mounting.
Congress has largely failed to stem the tide so we need to try something else.
That is a medical approach.
Instead of expensively trying to change behaviour and failing we need new drugs and medical devices.
That means more money for research and probably less for Congress.
Of course that is confronting and will get the reaction we see from you.
But Aboriginal health is bigger than Congress and is the priority.
A medical approach has the potential to save many hundreds of millions of dollars and improve Aboriginal lives on a large scale.
That claim cannot be made about Congress.


The millions and the misery
Evelyne, the research to quantify the extent of HTLV-1 was carried out years ago and the results were scary for Aboriginal people.
There will be a large death toll in coming years.
Very little is being done to discover a drug to treat it.
Your question has broader implications.
Should the taxpayer keep funding preventative programs to the extent we do when they are not working?
Wouldn’t Aboriginal health be improved far more by putting the money into the development of medical responses.
For example, there is an urgent need for implanted insulin delivery devices that require diabetics to do nothing.
There are several life threatening diseases, HTLV-1 being just one, that urgently need medical approaches such as drug treatments for prevention and/or cure.
Aboriginal health would be improved far more by redirecting at least some of the tens of millions wasted on Congress to researching new treatments.


The millions and the misery
Eugene’s Mate: Let’s cut to the chase.
The result of a failure of type two diabetes prevention and control programs is often end stage renal disease.
So the incidence of this terminal disease is a good measure of the success or failure of diabetes programs for which Congress has responsibility.
The NT has the highest incidence and prevalence of kidney disease in Australia.
The 2014 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) National Health Survey showed the prevalence of disease markers amongst Indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory was 40% and non-Indigenous of 9%.
According to Menzies School of Health research “demand for dialysis has been sustained and incidence rates have not plateaued”.
In other words the incidence of end stage disease is out of control despite the tens of millions of funding provided to Congress.
Tens of millions now have to be poured into dialysis treatment.
Soon it will be hundreds of millions as the numbers of patients is soaring.
I am unable to agree that Congress has long been a leader and good practitioner in prevention and early intervention strategies and practices.


Three men escape from gaol
Paul Parker: Yes, low level security is appropriate but only for low security prisoners.
The prison is overcrowded and holding far more prisoners than its design capacity.
Medium security prisoners cannot always be housed in the medium security section of the prison.
They are sometimes sent to the low security cottages.
Similarly only low security prisoners are supposed to be in work gangs etc, but we see from escapes that this is not always the case.
This mistake cost CEO Ken Middlebrook his job but it could happen again.
So while low security is appropriate for low security prisoners it is highly inappropriate for medium security ones.


Be Sociable, Share!