Nigeria is a cultural bazaar. The same can be said about her rich art tradition in terms of stylistics. In the aftermath of postmodernism, when it remains fashionable for artists to return to their roots and history in search of an identity, Nigerian art, like much of other African art, has become very eclectic indeed. This diversity also derives from the fact that Nigeria has many universities, polytechnics and colleges of education which offer art as a course of study, a factor that is non-existent in most other countries of Africa, especially among Nigeria’s francophone neighbours. These schools of higher learning impact positively and negatively on art in Nigeria through their curricula and ideologies. And this is very important in discussing any major issue on art in relation to Nigeria. Unlike most of her neighbours, Nigerian artists are largely products of academic systems which retain art as a branch of scholarship. About 90% of artists in Nigeria have received academic training in their specialties, whereas in some countries, the reverse seems to prevail.1

No doubt, European perverted purists, who believe that art in Africa is an all-comers affair would frown at university-trained artists, but the feeble logic of tainted and untainted art is perforated by the fact that it is not only art that is “tainted” by the colonial intercourse in Africa. If indeed we concede any art of Africa to be tainted simply because its producer was ground in the mill of Western education, then it logically follows that all Africa is “tainted”, as there are no aspects of living not affected by Europeanization. The erroneous model of African art still held among some scholarly circles in the Occident is a product of the Occident’s hegemonic, supremacist perception of itself in relation to the others, a situation that was reinforced for many years -- until recently -- by the West-led colonialist anthropological discourse.

Nigeria’s art ecology is replete with subsistence artists whose principal perception of art is that of a “meal ticket”. But it is not an isolated case. All over the world, art has been used to address extra-artistic issues and problems, including those bordering on economics and mundane subsistence. Every art tradition has its heroes and its charlatans. In Nigeria, as elsewhere, the charlatans are many. But a vanguard of highly committed artists has equally ensured very high standards. Without denying the preponderance of mercantilism which is the bane of every profession in Africa in the face of the economic downturn and social disasters, art in Nigeria can be said to be fairly professionalized. However, the issue of professionalization is one that cannot be discussed outside the prevailing realities of the Nigerian geography. The social condition in Nigeria, as in much of Africa, does not encourage any sustainable pursuit of professionalism or excellence. The survival-of-the-fittest syndrome which dictates the dynamics of living in these parts is not strange in the art circles. Hence, some of Nigeria’s most successful artists and critics are those domiciled in the West.

Nigerian Art and the Politics of Development
What is generally regarded as modern Nigerian art is a by-product of the colonial encounter. It began in Lagos through the creative exertions of Aina Onabolu, the first easel painter in West Africa. Onabolu’s art was only modern in the sense that it broke away from the traditional, nay, classical paradigm. Otherwise, Onabolu’s was a representational project, consisting mainly in portraiture. Rather, it was Ben Enwonwu, the first African artist to achieve international renown, who brought some modest radicalism to Nigerian art with the encouragement of his expatriate teacher, Kenneth Murray.2

But further modernist radicalisation of Nigerian art was to occur in 1958 in the hands of some young students at the Nigerian College of Arts, Science and Technology (NCAST), Zaria. These visionary art students included Uche Okeke, Simon Okeke, Bruce Onobrakpeya, Demas Nwoko, Yusuf Grillo, William Olaosaebokan, F.N. Ekeada, Okechukwu Odita, E.N. Nwagbara, among others. Through their works (mainly painting) and their informal group which they named the Zaria Art Society, they engineered the first critical departure from normative art in Nigeria. Although it could be argued that the ideology of the Zaria Art Society lacked novelty since it was merely an exploitation of a pattern already initiated by Enwonwu, it remains significant for the fact that it was fully home-grown, having arisen from the euphoria of nationalism which pervaded Nigeria in those dying years of colonisation. To this extent, it has also been argued that Zarianism was political at heart and that it only explored the culture-artistic angle of the nationalist/independence struggle in Nigeria.3

Politics apart, the Zaria artists continued to make significant impact on the Nigerian landscape beyond their Zaira experience and activities at various levels in addition to engaging in highly professional practice. Thus, they have been able to influence a large number of artists as pioneers in the field of modern Nigerian art.

The interesting thing about the pioneers of Nigerian modernism, including Onabolu and Enwonwu,4 is their composite creative sensibility, which enabled them to excel in every ramification of art. Most of them were writers, poets, critics, teachers, theorists and gallerists in addition to being painters or sculptors. Thus, it is to them that we owe much of the initial writing on Nigerian. In fact, it is to them that we owe the dynamism of Nigeria’s modernism.

Up until the present, the artist-critic-historian tendency initiated by the pioneers has survived. Although professionally-trained critics and historians have appeared on the scene since the 1980s, some of Nigeria’s most active critics and theorists today are people who received their art training in the studio areas of art. Generally, however, the reality of the African environment, with the lacklustre art-culture infrastructure, makes extra demands on the artists. Not only that. The preponderance of highly mercantile galleries, the absence of stable, focused, and professionalised museums have not helped matters. In most cases, therefore, the typical African artist is a jack of all trade saddled with the misfortune of multiple professional lives which he/she often has to live at the risk of non-excellence. In this regard, Nigerian art is not an exception. Although the country may boast of the largest number of artists, historians, and critics, given the relatively large number of universities, polytechnics, and colleges of education (most of which offer art courses), it shares in the peripheral attention which is the bane of modern art in Africa. Only few of the artists live a committed professional life. Even much fewer art historians and critics do practice; for the majority of art historians, their training and qualification, are merely cosmetic and only serve the basic mundane purpose of subsistence.5 Although many of Nigeria’s most successful art critics have tended to operate outside the country -- mainly in Europe and America -- Nigerian art has enjoyed a professionalised critical tradition in the course of its development. However, whether this has made enough impact on the art production remains another matter. After all, criticism does not run parallel to art. If anything, it is the palm oil with which art is to be eaten.

What is Art Criticism?
The notion of art criticism is not alien to Africa. Criticism was central to the classical African art traditions, albeit, at a very informal level. Like art itself, it was not a formal practice, but an experience that was shared by everyone. The art audience in pre-contact Africa was not usually a passive one. Its reactions and observations were germane to the shaping of the vision and imagination of the artist. Excellence in art was easily applauded; the finest artists were the most sought after. In traditional Igbo society, for instance, the most creative carvers were well celebrated in the community; the best uli6 women painters were honoured in songs and their services were in high demand. As Eziafo Okaro, an uli painter, told me recently:

Nke mụnwa bụ Eziafọ Agbaelo, bụ n’ọnye m delụ uli pụta raa n’ọfala igwe, mgbe igwe n’agba ọfala, a sị ya, Eweee! Ọkwọ Eziafọ Agbaelo delụ ọnyea uli. A gbakọnyọ n’ebefu…A n’ẹnẹnẹ ụdị uli edel’ye n’arụ…7

Thus, appreciation and criticism belonged to the public domain the way art also belonged there. There was no hard and fast rules regarding aesthetics, art appreciation and interpretation. The ability to create and appreciate art was not the monopoly of a select few. Art in the traditional setting was a virile means to cultural democracy.

But the notion of art and art criticism changed diametrically from this pattern with the advent of colonisation. The colonial system of education transformed art into a branch of scholarship, and criticism became one of the ancillary courses of study. No doubt, the phenomenon of colonisation engendered the nihilist process of normalization and Westernization which have thrived on their own tendentious capacity to impose a Euro-American visage on non-Western cultures and traditions within the bounds of the negativizing tendencies of otherisation and the neo-colonising concept of globalisation.

The emergence of formally-trained artists in Nigeria, for instance, coupled with the rise of the new Western style art consecrating institutions, such as galleries, exhibition centres, and museums, brought a sense of esotericism to art and other complementary enterprises. Today, art in Nigeria, as in most African countries, is not readily a means to cultural democracy, but an elitist experience in its training, production, and enjoyment. Africa’s poor sense of social development has also helped to glorify raw politics over and above every other human endeavour. This scenario has flagrantly dislodged art from the centre where it originally belonged and placed it on the fringe. As art has become a luxury in post-colonial Africa, so also has its audience shrunk significantly. This has not augured very well for criticism as an art-related engagement. If art and artists have become elitist in Nigeria, for example, the situation is much worst for art criticism and critics. There are much fewer critics than there should be for a thriving art tradition like Nigeria's. In most cases, art criticism is often misconstrued and ill-appreciated. So in the modern sense, who is a critic and what are the expectations of the art community from such a person?

Fundamentally, art criticism may be defined as that branch of art scholarship which deals with the hermeneutics of art. Although art criticism is often misconstrued as an exercise in fault-finding, it is rather engaged with the creative and insightful appreciation of a work of art for the purposes of analysis and interpretation. Criticism could be broadly divided into four parts: constructive criticism, destructive criticism, detective criticism, sympathetic criticism, and totalitarian criticism. These are not water-tight compartments, nor do they encode hard and fast principles which the critic must aspire to. In practical terms, criticism is merely an open market to which everyone can bring his/her wares, but the wares and their prices ought to have a human face, for as Prothagoras insists, "Man is the measure of all things."

Criticism’s human face is to be seen in its relation to the artist and his/her work. While it is logical that destructive criticism, as the name implies, can be inimical to the growth of the artist and, by implication, the tradition to which he/she belongs, sympathetic criticism is often deceptive and harbours very adverse tendencies also. Detective criticism sets itself the task of unfolding every experience that has gone into the work of art. But is it ever possible to unearth every psychological ingredient that underlies the work of art? This can be very difficult and at times useless, except when it aims at providing unhindered access to the inner essences of the work in question and the personality of the artist, with a view to facilitating verstehen. Thus for criticism to become a meaningful gauge for art, it has to be constructive without being palliative; it should also serve as a bridge between art and the history of art.

In Nigeria, much of the art criticism is hardly constructive and this is due to many factors. There is no training in art criticism in Nigeria. The few professional critics are either artists or art historians. Another group of art critics comprises mainly art-culture journalists who mostly have very minimal understanding of the meaning and dynamics of art. The most curious of these factors, perhaps, is the fact that most Nigerian artists, as in some other parts of Africa, do not appreciate criticism, especially when it is not overtly sympathetic. Many artists are totalitarian in thinking and outlook and do not appreciate the position of the critic as a creative watch dog. They believe in the beginning and end of their own experience and judgment and cannot afford to have their creative works critically interrogated.

In modern times, criticism has become as sophisticated and complicated as art itself. Although its continuance depends on the existence of art, it also relies on the availability of some extra-artistic determinants in its role as art’s purveyor. In this regard, newspapers, magazines and journals are very useful. But in this era when the Internet has changed the face and heart of the modern world, the critic faces more challenges if he/she is to be heard and seen in the fleeting and often cacophonic world of art. And the challenges are daunting, given the socio-economic reality in these parts which has not allowed any real development to take place in most spheres of human endeavour, excepting, perhaps, the economics of politics and soldiery. In other words, criticism of Nigerian art is as under-developed as the country itself. It lags far behind the art and is partly responsible for the inability of art and artists in the Nigerian to realize their full potentials in spite of the huge promise and expectation in the last two decades.

For art criticism to succeed it should not be an end in itself. It is part of the creative process and is as creative as the actual production of the work of art. It is criticism that enables art to attain its dialogic goals. In that sense, it is one of the consecrative processes of art and a function and a relation, that is, in the sense that it is not carried on for its own sake. The measure of its usefulness depends on its impact on the individual talent and the general tradition.

Factors/Issues in Art Criticism in Nigeria
Criticism as the driving force of art depends on the prevailing realities - both artistic and otherwise - in the pursuit of its goals. Of course, it cannot thrive on nothing. The presence of artists is highly important. The kind of work they produce will also affect the quality and thrust of criticism. Consecrating agencies and institutions, such as museums, galleries, and cultural centres must be in place and should be alive to their roles and responsibilities. Then there should be such purveyors of discourse as the print and electronic media, publishing houses with interest in art, and organised discursive forums (e.g. conferences and symposia) where art could be critically discussed. Above all these, trained and untrained critics in a given art landscape should be active enough to animate the fields of both practice and critical theory and lead the crucial debates from which art history draws. In Nigeria, all these factors abound in varying degrees, but they seem to be lacking in effectiveness. Although it could be said that relative to some other African countries the Nigerian art scene is more vibrant, the recurrent question here is whether the vibrancy has been sustained. Beyond crass studio practice, art criticism and other aspects of theorisation are yet to be fully developed.

This situation can be traced to the art training curricula which tend to glorify studio art over theory. Most universities and polytechnics have what they call “Department of Fine and Applied Arts” whose curricula are highly functional in nature. Most of these schools offer specialization option in art history in addition to the core studio areas in Fine and Applied Arts, but never art criticism. In most cases, criticism is taken as a lean course at the undergraduate level as one of the theory courses. At the University of Nigeria, Nsukka for instance, art criticism is a 300-level course. Only very few students ultimately make use of knowledge gained in the course in the course of their development as artists. For others, art criticism as a course of study or a factor in the propagation of art has little or no meaning.

But in some very strange way, Nigeria has been fortunate in its critical tradition, at least relatively. There are a good number of artists in the history of Nigerian art who have been able to combine practice with theorisation. The tradition goes back to the times of Aina Onabolu, Enwonwu and the radicals of the Zaria Art Society. The phenomenon later crystallised at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, where Prof Uche Okeke, one of the Zaria radicals took up a teaching appointment and was head of the department of art for several years in the 1970s and 80s. Thus, the artist-writer phenomenon is a common feature in the Nigerian art scene but one which has distinguished the university at Nsukka for many years.8 Although the artist-critic (or -writer) pattern is one the artists continue to exploit, only few artists actually make a success of such combination.

The first graduate in art history (major) was produced at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, in 1982, supervised by one of Nigeria’s leading art historians, Prof. Ola Oloidi.9 Although few other artists have taken their first degrees in art history ever since, the majority of university-trained art historians have been in the higher degree category. Nigeria can boast of a large number of certificate-carrying art historians. But only very few of this number are actually engaged in full practice. For majority the academic qualification is merely cosmetic and is only used for routine promotion in their places of work. For instance, today in Nigeria, one can count less than 10 critics who are active in the field, that is, those who have consistently operated along professional lines inside Nigeria over the years. There are still others also recognized internationally who are domiciled in Europe and America, but their works have mainly influenced the African/Nigerian Diaspora much more than they may have the contemporary art trend in Nigeria.10 Some foreign critics have also done some work on Nigerian art, contributing to its growth and development.

But criticism of Nigerian art, at best, remains a drop in the ocean when compared with the rate of work produced and the activities organized by Nigerian artists and art institutions over several periods in history. Beyond essays in exhibition catalogues, on pages of newspapers, and a few published books, Nigerian art critics have yet to engage the artists more critically in order to imbue the art with the kind of perspicacity that it needs to be able to contain the challenges and demands of new internationalism. Though the critics may be few, it is pertinent at this juncture also to find out what kind of condition they operate in and whether other complimentary factors have been very favourably disposed.

One of such factors is the availability of scholarly and semi-scholarly journals which can become the vanguard of criticism. In this regard we can name but a few: Nigeria Magazine, published by the Department of Culture , New Culture (published by one of the Zaria radicals in 1978), The Eye Journal (published between 1992 and 1994 at Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria), Glendora Review (published in Lagos since 1995), Uso: Nigerian Journal of Art (published by the National Gallery of Art), Letter from Africa (published by the Pan-African Circle of Artists) and Position which have appeared mainly in the new millennium, published also in Lagos. Nigeria Magazine, New Culture, and The Eye are dead or hibernating. Glendora and Position seem to be operating, but they appear rather too esoteric and temperamental to influence critical theory in Nigerian art. Of all the journals mentioned above, only The Eye and Uso have shown a strong inclination to the visual arts. The others were/are a bit generalized in their approach to the arts and related matters. Although Glendora and Position have maintained the most international outlook and standards, their interests are not strictly restricted to the visual arts.

Perhaps the greatest problem in the history of journal publishing in Nigeria is that none has lived long enough to enact a tradition in the business. Poor funding, lack of professionalism, and bureaucracy (in the case of public-institution-based journals) have been some of the greatest misfortunes of art journals in Nigeria. The situation has contributed to the usually short life span of most the publications and the epileptic issuance of others. Moreover, the dissemination of art, including publishing of art literature, can be a very expensive and demanding enterprise. In Africa, it is even more difficult, considering that there are usually no funds for such ventures. Thus some of the major journals like Glendora and Position occasionally depend on Euro-American funding for their continued existence. Those published by government institutions, like Nigeria Magazine and Uso often depend on scarce and meagre government subventions and thus may not live up to professional and other expectations. Other private initiatives such as Letter from Africa and The Eye have not succeeded due to problem of funding. This situation is certainly a major impediment in the practice of art criticism in Nigeria, as it narrows the publishing opportunity for practitioners. Although a few critics have published abroad, the gap created by the absence of a critical tradition among Nigeria’s few art journals remains the bane of art and criticism in these parts.

But newspapers and news magazines often come to the rescue. Not only have they put their art pages at the disposal of professional art critics, they have also published materials and critiques on art written by their own reporters. These reporters are usually not trained in the technicalities of critical theory. Some of them are visual artists who happen to have the ability to write. In other cases, they are graduates of the English language, theatre, or mass communication. A few actually write intelligently on art, while others are capable only of jejune and uninformed news reports on art and art events. Yet one cannot deny that these journalists represent a certain category of critics. For when they are insightful and persistent in their writing, they are able to influence the art trend. A few also become so committed to art that they attain proficiency and professionalism.

Yet it is a fact that media-based criticism if often a cash-and-carry affair. Media-based criticism can be sponsored and sympathetic and this obviously can miscarry the core essence of criticism which is to look art in the eye, praise it where it so merits and spit in it where and when necessary. Although sympathy and attraction to sponsorship are not possible only in media-based criticism, it is more common there, being an extension of the hyper-commercialism that attends media practice in general, not only in Nigeria, but in most parts of Africa. The “brown envelope”11 syndrome is as rife in art-culture journalism as it is in other aspects of the profession, and it derives from the prevalent monetization of values in Africa.

This, however, does not discount the role played by media-based critics in the development of art in Nigeria. As against the peripheral treatment that was the norm about two decades ago, most magazines and newspapers now publish reports on art as regularly as they are issued. Most of them now devote at least two pages to art in one issue as against the traditional one page that previously obtained. As agencies of the mass media, newspapers and magazines certainly make more impact within a wider circle than would scholarly journals. The implication here can be two-fold, however. While they fill a crucial gap in the dissemination of art through their wider coverage and implicit ability to influence public opinion, they also portend danger to art when their art pages are manned by incompetent and uninformed editors and reporters who may make misleading comments on art and artists.

Media-based criticism often takes as its focus art activities and art personalities and rarely deals with very critical theoretical issues. Thus, there is a tendency for practitioners to liaise with galleries, museums, and other art institutions as they seek for possible critical resources. Like journals and the mass media, galleries and museums are some of the consecrating agencies of art. In fact, they are more so when the consecration of art means the transformation of the work of art from a monologic experience into a concrete basis for diversified dialogue. Thus, the importance of museums and galleries in the art ecology cannot be over-emphasised, for their temporary exhibitions, permanent collections and sundry professionalizing activities represent some of the wheels on which art, its criticism and history all turn. One may then ask, how have such institutions fared in modern Nigeria? How have their successes and failures affected the growth of criticism as an art complementary vocation?

Nigeria’s National Museum was set up by the colonial government as an arm of the Federal Department of Culture. The Exhibition Centre at Marina, Lagos, was established in 1946 and later moved to the ground floor of the Independence Building near at Racecourse, also in Lagos, in December 1966. It was the first public gallery in Nigeria and was also under the supervision of Department of Culture. As at the time the Exhibition was established in Marina, there were already about half a dozen galleries owned by Nigerian artists,12 but private galleries did not become a major catalyst in the development of art in Nigeria until well after the civil war, especially from the 1980s onwards. Nigeria’s National Gallery was also established in 1981, but its presence was not felt until the 1990s. Today Nigeria boasts of more than 20 art galleries with majority of them located in Lagos and Abuja. A few galleries may be found in such cities as Port Harcourt, Kaduna, Jos and Enugu, but they are usually not very influential galleries. The concentration of the major galleries in Lagos, Nigeria’s economic capital, only affirms the fact that art harbours some economic essences and that the history of art is written, primarily, not in history books but on bank ledgers.

If the success of Nigeria’s galleries is to be measured by their sheer number, they would be scored very highly. But professionalism in the dissemination of art demands much more. Individually, the galleries are usually battling to survive, mainly through the sale of art works. This, of course, is the traditional preoccupation of galleries all over the world, but often this tendency is pushed beyond the boundaries of sense by galleries in Nigeria. Apart from organizing periodic art exhibitions which have commercial visions and on which newspaper/magazines reviews could be anchored, most of the galleries hardly initiate or engage in projects which aid critical theory or the professionalization of art and its dissemination. Normally, exhibition catalogues should be a useful purveyor of art criticism in the form of introductory essays and other critiques. But most often both the galleries and the exhibiting artists undermine the potentials of the catalogue as a major instrument of art criticism.

Only in rare cases are incisive, insightful introductions published. In most cases, praise-singing is preferred to meaningful, constructive criticism. Yet in other cases, important exhibitions have been held without any documentation and, therefore, no critique. Of all the private galleries in Lagos, for instance, only two – Nimbus Art Centre and Pendulum Centre for Culture and Development – have undertaken projects which transcend the commonplace. Pendulum, particularly, has in the last two years published two major books on aspects of Nigerian art with contributions from reputable Nigerian critics, artists, and art historians.13

On its own part the National Gallery in Nigeria has played some role in the development of art criticism in Nigeria. In 1996 when its Director-General Paul Dike was named patron of the newly-formed Nigerian chapter of the International Association of Art Critics (AICA), it seemed that the gallery was convinced that it should support not only the creation of art but also its verbalization. But the Nigerian AICA has never worked and one cannot judge the gallery’s interest or otherwise in art criticism on that. The National gallery’s support for critical theory is, perhaps, evidenced in some of its recent exhibitions, annual lectures, and publications in which some prominent Nigerian artists have played key roles. Of course this is very significant considering that it is a government establishment and that for such institutions in these parts the greatest achievement is often the payment of staff salaries. But the National Gallery is yet to become the real flagship of art in terms of the quality, scope, and impact of its activities. In spite of palpable efforts by its management to brace it with the challenges of contemporary art and society, its activities and publications evince some evidence of a struggle between bureaucracy and professionalism.

It would have been pertinent to discuss the National Museum in Nigeria alongside the National Gallery, but unfortunately the museum in Nigeria, as in most parts of Africa, prefers to live in the past. Almost all over Africa, museums are dead ends. They have a hackneyed definition of culture and lack the resources necessary for the dissemination of modern art. In the 1980s and up until the mid-1990s, the National Museum, Onikan, Lagos, played host to major exhibitions in Nigeria. Today, many artists would not go there. This is as a result of the museum’s inability to modernize and professionalize its vision and activities in relation to visual arts and artists. Unfortunately, apart from the national and private galleries, there are no state, municipal, or private museums to compete with the National Museum. The only private museum – Didi Museum – was established in the late 1980s, but is only as good or bad as most gallery in Lagos. Since its inception, it has not seen its role beyond the hosting of exhibitions; it has shown very little or no appreciation of the importance of art criticism in the dissemination of art. This is evidenced in the catalogues of its exhibitions and the fact that there is no single publication on art that can be credited to it. In recent times, it has become most commercialized and unpopular among Nigerian artists.14

All told, museums and galleries in Nigeria have not driven art as vigorously as they should. In most cases, their activities are encircled in the pursuit of monetized gains. Money is vital to the survival of these institutions and the artists themselves, but should it impede the pursuit of a professional vision that is fundamental to the development of art and criticism? I am unaware of any gallery or museum in Nigeria – both private and public – which has consistently organized conferences and workshops where general issues and critical theories in Nigerian art could be discussed and interrogated as a basis for perpetual development. Even the tradition in some other parts of the world where mini-roundtables are organized as part of opening receptions of exhibitions remains unattractive to galleries and museums here. To them, an art exhibition is often a variant to the open market where chicken and kola nuts are sold. Apart from the National Gallery, none other publishes an in-house newsletter, magazine or journal. I am aware that Nimbus Art Centre and Pendulum Centre for Culture and Development both in Lagos, have been mouthing their intention to initiate a magazine and a journal respectively, but this has not materialized. 15

The point being made here is that exhibitions are not all it takes to make an art ecology vibrant. They are only a means to an end. They are raw materials open to diverse uses by art critics and art historians. When they are configured as the beginning and end of art dissemination, they run the risk of counter-productivity. And in most cases in Nigeria, galleries rarely engage the services of professional art critics in their activities, including exhibitions. Art, to them, is an all-comers thing; the gallery proprietor is an all-knowing hydra-headed animal; his/her ultimate goals are defined by economics and he/she is often impatient with the demands of professionalism.

Conclusion
Art and art criticism complement each other. Art without a responsive critical tradition is like a masquerade without followers and audience. The critic must not necessarily be an artist, but he/she should have a deep understanding of extant trends and be able to monitor and follow them scrupulously. At best, he/she can operate as a legless person who teaches running. But for the critic to function effectively, all the enabling factors must be in place and should be fairly operational, at least.

In Nigeria, as indicated above, the art tradition is very rich and eclectic. Like the art, the critical tradition has also come a long way, but it leaves much to be desired, not because there are not enough critics, but because the enabling factors and conditions have not been too favourable. No doubt, Nigerian art critics operating inside the country are very few, but their exertions over the years cannot be minimized or neglected. Although I would grudgingly give it a pass mark, Nigerian art criticism, like her modern art tradition, remains very dynamic and promising. In spite of all the shortcomings mentioned above, it is most adaptable to contemporary demands and the challenges of internationalism. This is obviously in contradistinction to some of her neighbours where the development of the art traditions remains lacklustre, in spite of the obvious preponderant European interests. In neighbouring Benin and Togo, for instance, it is only one professional art critic and historian that keeps the flag flying. Domiciled in Porto Novo, Prof. Joseph Adande shuttles between Cotonou and Lomé on a regular basis to give art history lectures to students and other people. In Abidjan, Professor Yakouba Konate has been filling the gap, although he trained in philosophy. In Zambia, William Miko holds forte, and in Uganda, Margaret Nagawa claims she is the only professional curator in that country.16 Similarly, for most other countries in the West African sub-region and beyond, critics are shockingly few or totally non-existent.

Comparatively, the situation in Nigeria is relatively heartening. And I should hasten to affirm that art and art criticism cannot be isolated from the general condition of their time and environment. The socio-political situation in Africa neither appreciates nor rewards excellence or creativity. In this regard, art is not an exception. The intellectual desertification and the anti-art syndrome which pervade Africa in this era of political bankruptcy are factors that have been very corrosive to the arts as they have been to other humanizing enterprises. This, perhaps, is the bane of art and art criticism in Nigeria. But it cannot pulverize the modest achievements of Nigerian artists and critics in the last one hundred years. Nigerian art, as well as its critical traditions, are among the most decolonized in Africa.







Notes and References
1. In the West African sub-region, Nigeria stands out as one country with an impressive number of academically trained artists due to her large number of universities and other higher institutions. In most of the other neighbouring countries, most of the artists are autodidacts. Whether or not this fact contributes to the quality of the art produced in the different countries is yet another matter. But there is no doubt that the notion of art in much of francophone Africa suffers from normalization in relation to Europe’s (France’s) notion of what African art should be.

2. Simon Ottenberg, “Teacher of Modern Nigerian Artists”. Position: International Arts Review, vol.1, no. 4, pp.38-42. See also C. Krydz Ikwuemesi, 2003. The Triumph of a Vision: an Anthology on Uche Okeke and Modern Art in Nigeria. Lagos: Pendulum Art Gallery.

3. Babaseinde Ademuleya,2003. “Synthesis: Between Onabolu, Enwonwu, and the Zarainists”, in C. Krydz Ikwuemesi, ibid, pp. 145-154.

4. Aina Onabolu is a modern artist, but not necessarily a modernist, in the sense that he was the bridge between the so-called traditional mode and the stylistic and paradigmatic shifts which occurred in Nigerian art in the early years of the 20th century as a result of the colonial encounter. The earliest signs of modernism are to be seen in the works of Ben Enwonwu and the modernist principle in Nigeria received full impetus from the works and activities of the Zaria Art Society in the late 1950s.

5. Because of the new requirement in Nigerian universities for all academics to hold the PhD as the prerequisite for attaining the highest possible position in the university system, most artists have obtained M.A. and PhD. Degrees in art history and other odd areas just to ensure their onward momentum in their teaching job, but hardly ever practice in the field as historians or critics.

6. Uli is the name of the indigo dye extracted from the pods of certain plants and used as a medium for drawing on the human body among the Igbo of eastern Nigeria, as well as the name of the four-colour palette used in Igbo traditional wall paintings. It is also the name of the painting tradition in which it is used and equally described the drawings or paintings themselves. The uli painting tradition is generally a feminine one.

7. “As for me, Eziafọ Agbaelo, whoever I decorated, when she/he appeared at the king’s coronation anniversary (ọfala), there would be uproar and it would be immediately acknowledged that I was the designer who decorated the person. And people would gather… my client would be admired all round with the uli designs on the body...” See C. Krydz Ikwuemesi, 2005. “Ayi nọ n’Ọmenanị: Nkata Eziafọ Ọkarọ, If’ude Ejiọfọ, Ezechinyelugo, C. Krydz Ikwuemesi Kpalụ n’Ogidi, Anambra State, Nigeria, n’ọnwa August 2004”, in C. Krydz Ikwuemesi, 2005. Uli and the Politics of Culture. Lagos: Pendulum Art Gallery, pp. 104-112 (and in English, pp.114-122).

8. “Poetry and Art of the Nsukka School: A Panel Discussion”, in Simon Ottenberg 2002, The Nsukka Artists and Nigerian Contemporary Art. Seattle and London: National Museum of African Art in association with University of Washington Press, pp. 147-177

9. Crucifix Anonyuo is the name of this first art historian major of University of Nigeria. He has not practised effectively. Two other art history major from Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Simon Ikpakronyi and Epko Udo-Udoma, have done some writing on Nigerian art, but their impact is yet to be felt within and outside Nigeria.
10. Critics who have been operating from Nigeria include Chike Aniakor, Ola Oloidi, Kunle Filani, C. Krydz Ikwuemesi, Peter Ezeh, Ozioma Onuzulike, Simon Ikpakronyi, and few committed others some of who are media-based critics. Among those in the Diaspora can be counted Olu Oguibe, Okwui Enwezor, Sly Ogbechie, Nkiru Nzegwu, Ikem Okoye, and Chika Okeke.

11. The “brown envelop” refers to bribe or prior appreciation, usually money, given to journalists in Nigeria for expected reviews or commentaries on particular issues, personalities or events.

12. See C. Krydz Ikwuemesi, “From The Nigerian Teacher to The Eye: Journals and Magazines in the Development of Nigerian Art” in Ezumezu: A Festschrift for Demas Nwoko, Obiora Udechukwu and Chika Okeke (eds.) under publication.

13. A full list of Pendulum’s publications, especially the recent ones can be viewed at www.pendulumartgallery.com.

14. As at 2002, a solo exhibit at Didi Museum, Lagos, cost 100,000.00naira (about $800.00), while a group show cost 250,000.00naira (about $1,750.00). The charges covered only the procurement of the exhibition hall.

15. Since 2001, Nimbus Art Centre has been planning to initiate a magazine known as Bogobiri. Pendulum Centre for Culture and Development in 2003 called for articles to produce the maiden issue of its journal The Art Field. Up until now, both publications have not appeared.

16. In a personal conversation with Margaret Nagawa at the Symposium Africa 2001in Tokyo, 2001.