Afro-Dit
Design Ambiguity in a Mama Mask
by Steve Price
This mask, made by the Mama, of Nigeria, is one of my favorite pieces. Here are some of the things I really like about it.
1. Artistically and aesthetically, I think it's terrific. The only Mama mask I've seen published that I like better is the one in the Willy Mastach collection. On the other hand, that collection includes my favorites of many types.
2. I think it has what rug collectors like to call "good age." To an antique rug collector, this usually means that there is good reason to believe that the rug was made before, say, 1875. I don't think this mask is quite that old, although it might be. But it is very likely to predate World War II (more about why I think so will come later), and, to collectors of African tribal art, that's pretty old.
3. I think it's among the rather few pieces in our collection that is almost surely authentic (that is, was made for and used within the tribal community). I'll come back to my reasons for believing that this is so.
4. There is an ambiguity to some of its representational aspects, which appeals to me very much.
Let's start with the matter of its age. A good friend who deals in antique European furniture saw this, and remarked that a piece of furniture with a patina like that on the snout would indicate that it was made no later than the 17th century, and is virtually impossible to fake. And, if you were to handle the piece, you would surely notice what I did. The shape and the weight distribution makes it absolutely natural - almost automatic - to lift it by the snout. So the patination resulting from handling matches the physical properties of the piece. That is, there is nothing to suggest that it was applied artificially even if my friend is wrong about the difficulty of faking it.
Now, this isn't a piece of European furniture, so I don't think we can apply the same criteria the same way. But I do think it's reasonable to believe that the patina indicates considerable age, whatever that means, and first half of the 20th century or earlier seems credible. That's one reason I think it has "good age." Another is that I have great confidence in the knowledge and integrity of the dealer who sold it to me, and she thinks it's old.
Now for the authenticity issue. We all know that a rather small percentage of the African tribal art that's around was actually made for and used within the community in which it was made. I believe that this one was, mainly because of the patina on the snout that indicates extensive handling and considerable age, and the patination on the inside and wear to the holes along the edges by which it was attached.
What about the ambiguity? Ambiguity in representational elements is a fairly prominent part of the aesthetic of tribal textiles from mainland southeast Asia, and we see it from time to time in African tribal art as well. Take a look at this closeup of the end of the snout in this piece.
Looks a lot like the end of an animal's snout, doesn't it? Looks a lot like a human face, too, don't you think? Do you think this ambiguity is coincidental? I don't.
Anyway, that's my Mama. I invite your comments on any aspect of it or of what I said here.