Queen Idia was a prominent figure in the Edo State of Nigeria who played an important role in Oba Esigie’s rise to power. Esigie had brass sculptures of her head made in order to recognize her military influence and achievements, and placed these heads in her alter after her death. In 1897, during the period in which Africa was under colonial rule by the British, British men “ransacked the Benin Empire” and forcefully took the heads away to display them as a representation of their imperial grandeur. The brass head of Queen Idia, donated to the British Museum by Sir William Ingram, relates to colonialism and is a painful reminder to the African peoples of their loss of “artworks… of national significance… and of extraordinary aesthetic value” because it was taken and dispersed without their consent.
The sculpture of Queen Idia’s head was of high significance because the “technique of casting in brass or bronze by the cire perdue process was of limited distribution in West Africa… [and was one of the] finest local examples of bronze work.” The objects taken by the British during their colonial expansion, including the brass sculpture of Idia’s head, were rare and therefore of national significance and great value. …show more content…
Although these objects are still considered irreplaceable and as sources of national pride for the African, the “commodity status of aesthetic objects has been part of the mantra of postmodernism and at the same time has complicated postcolonial African art (Appiah 1991; Kasfir 1999)” After colonialism, the significance of the objects such as the brass sculpture of Queen Idia’s head, did not change. However, the significance engendered issues in postcolonial African art. These issues include “the commercially replicated and a corresponding depletion in aura for the one-of-a-kind ‘original’ (Benjamin 1968).” Kasfir writes “the greatest of these complications is the contrast between the small cadre of African artists and intellectuals who participate in a transnational artworld discourse and the overwhelming majority of African practitioners whose artworld is decidedly local or regional.” In other words, the most important issue is that there is a large difference in the numbers of African artists who participate in artworlds across other nations and the numbers of African artists who do not engage in discussions outside of their artworlds. This issue relates to the significance of the aesthetic objects such as the brass sculpture of Queen Idia’s head because the value of these objects is what caused the issue to arise after colonialism. The figure of Idia’s head relates to colonialism and is a harsh reminder to the Africans of the loss of their priceless creations because it was taken away from them against their will. Obayiuwana asserts “What is even more painful, to the African, is that at the moment, over 600 pieces of African art are on display at the British Museum. But there are 200,000 other African artefacts in the Museum’s warehouse in Hackney, North London, which have never been displayed before due to the lack of space at the Museum!” The artifacts, including the figure of Queen Idia, are the evidence for colonialism because they are on display at the British Museum. These objects are also evidence for the arrogance of the British colonialists because the museum
The sculpture of Queen Idia’s head was of high significance because the “technique of casting in brass or bronze by the cire perdue process was of limited distribution in West Africa… [and was one of the] finest local examples of bronze work.” The objects taken by the British during their colonial expansion, including the brass sculpture of Idia’s head, were rare and therefore of national significance and great value. …show more content…
Although these objects are still considered irreplaceable and as sources of national pride for the African, the “commodity status of aesthetic objects has been part of the mantra of postmodernism and at the same time has complicated postcolonial African art (Appiah 1991; Kasfir 1999)” After colonialism, the significance of the objects such as the brass sculpture of Queen Idia’s head, did not change. However, the significance engendered issues in postcolonial African art. These issues include “the commercially replicated and a corresponding depletion in aura for the one-of-a-kind ‘original’ (Benjamin 1968).” Kasfir writes “the greatest of these complications is the contrast between the small cadre of African artists and intellectuals who participate in a transnational artworld discourse and the overwhelming majority of African practitioners whose artworld is decidedly local or regional.” In other words, the most important issue is that there is a large difference in the numbers of African artists who participate in artworlds across other nations and the numbers of African artists who do not engage in discussions outside of their artworlds. This issue relates to the significance of the aesthetic objects such as the brass sculpture of Queen Idia’s head because the value of these objects is what caused the issue to arise after colonialism. The figure of Idia’s head relates to colonialism and is a harsh reminder to the Africans of the loss of their priceless creations because it was taken away from them against their will. Obayiuwana asserts “What is even more painful, to the African, is that at the moment, over 600 pieces of African art are on display at the British Museum. But there are 200,000 other African artefacts in the Museum’s warehouse in Hackney, North London, which have never been displayed before due to the lack of space at the Museum!” The artifacts, including the figure of Queen Idia, are the evidence for colonialism because they are on display at the British Museum. These objects are also evidence for the arrogance of the British colonialists because the museum