By Dr Tony Monda

THE use and articulation of indigenous languages in the creation and production of visual art is one way of developing African thought, scholarship, aesthetics and philosophy while regaining an essential sense of our own authenticity.
Conceptualising art in local language has now become a difficult task because our memory and the possibilities of our cultural enunciation are so thoroughly entangled in Western art discourse that it acts as a stifling impediment to our own understanding of self.
Hence what is felt, seen or perceived as indigenous forms, thoughts and concepts are poorly translated in a compromised English translation of our thoughts, philosophies, dichotomy and creativity.
Due to the fact that from the very beginning in 1959, Zimbabwean contemporary art was marketed and distributed to appeal to Euro-American audiences, our art was dislocated from its language of conception, its creators and potential indigenous audience.
In their endeavour to capture the international audience, early promoters of Zimbabwean art lost sight of its relevance to its own people and creators.
Given our art contains meanings emanating from the indigenous culture, and an African reading of environment and ontology, these multiple readings are often lost in English translation.
Needless to say, because the visual arts are conceived and created in the idiom and language of their creator-artistes, it is important for art theories, criticism, philosophy, aesthetics and journalism to be expressed and correctly translated into indigenous languages by local people.
For Zimbabwe, that has been exporting art since 1959, it is pertinent that we re-visit our art and culture in our local language and thought process while it is still intact.
At Venice Biennale in 2011, Zimbabwe presented itself as an English colony as opposed to an independent sovereign state that it is.
Our artistic aspirations displayed on this world art platform made every reference to the work in English; there were no Ndebele or Shona translations of what the artistes created, assembled or constructed for the exhibition.
A short synopsis in English posted on the internet without in-depth analysis of the purpose, consequences and prognosis of the Venice Biennale in indigenous tongues was not an acceptable substitute for a sovereign state.
Not until this writer made the observation and public criticism did local authorities in the arts begin to see the importance of articulating oneself in the mother tongue-which culminated in the 2015 Zimbabwean entry to the 2013 Venice Biennale Dudziro; an appropriate title for the works of art.
Adopting the language of the oppressor
Until recent times we, as African artistes and curators have perpetuated our own oppression by translating our concepts, idioms and ideas into a foreign language, for foreign consumption, at the expense of our local indigenous audiences.
Visual artworks with titles and concepts as nonsensical and preposterous as ‘Spirit Bull’, ‘Spirit Owl’, ‘Spirit Tree’ have indulged the West’s fascination with the exotic ‘myth and magic’ from Africa, yet the meanings of the artworks were limited by the use of literal Anglophone translations.
Under colonisation, Africans were forced to use Western conceptions of their artistic practices as frames for sustaining their cosmology and beliefs.
Following the end of colonialism, nearly all African countries adopted official languages that originated outside the continent.
Despite the fact that Africa is considered by most paleoanthropologists to be the oldest inhabited territory on earth, with the human species originating on this continent, the legitimisation of language practice in Africa has been configured by its colonial predecessors and carved into Anglo-phone, Franco-phone, Germanic, Spanish and Portuguese.
The inability of many Western and regrettably so, African writers, intellectuals, art critics, curators and gallerists to see beyond the colonial stereotype of the African artistes creating and defining their art and culture in Western English terms is evident in many other fields of intellectual discourse.
In this post-colonial period, the reclamation and re-indigenisation of our artistic concepts, literature, beliefs and philosophies is not a simple matter of extracting a preserved system from the clutches of Western cultural discourse.
Conceptualising art in local language has now become a difficult task because our memory, vision and foresight have become so thoroughly entangled in Western discourse that its annunciation, translation and understanding may act as a stifling impediment to our own understanding and artistic definitions of self.
It is therefore pertinent for our Zimbabwean visual artistes to use indigenous languages and to think, perceive and create in an indigenous mode when producing visual art.
We need to recognise that language and art and to a certain extent film, are the media through which intellectual, spiritual and socio-cultural cohesion can be reassembled in post-colonial Zimbabwe.
Only then will we, as Zimbabweans artistes and thinkers be rescued from the quagmire of Colonial academia, conceptualisation and subjugation.
Let us begin to create and dream in our mother tongue!
Dr Tony Monda holds a PhD. in Art Theory and Philosophy and a DBA (Doctorate of Business Administration) in Post-Colonial Heritage Studies. He studied law and photography at the Corcoran School of Art, Washington DC., USA. He is a writer, art critic, practicing artist, lecturer and Corporate Image Consultant.