Notes on ‘Is there an African Aesthetic?’ by Femi Oyebode, from Kiss & Quarrel: Yorùbá/English strategies of mediation edited by Stewart Brown. 

he first frames the question as being – ‘is there a “set of aesthetic values which are said to be recognisably African”(32)’, or do African poems of different origins share overarching features

he notes that the question “presupposes a number of implicit assumptions” (33):
i)	“whether there is such a thing as aesthetics at all”(33)
ii)	are aesthetics “informed by culture”(33), therefore allowing for sub-cultural variations
he says we also need to define what is meant by African

Oyedobe’s own position is that there is no general theory of aesthetics, and no that a “distinct African aesthetic is unlikely” (33)

He cites Appiah’s ‘My Father’s House’ – who argues that there is not one “African aesthetic, but a plurality of African aesthetics” (33) – ‘African’ should not just be used as the opposite of ‘European’, as this uses race (a social, not biological construct) as a distinction
-	yet, Appiah himself uses ‘we’ to refer to his African audience

Oyedobe recognises the logic of Appiah’s argument, but says we need to recognise our desire to label ourselves as part of a group
-	the desire to ‘herd’ is human
“nationality and race are the most dangerous of the banners under which we herd” (35)

He recognises that ‘African’ is a term that we can use to refer to whatever we want, but says “it is probably best if we refer to geographical origin and not to race”. He says his definition of ‘African’ is political and moral, not logical, and that it does not in itself answer the title question. But it does at least prevent the term from being used as a foundation for “false racial ideologies” (35)

Orality, Magical Realism and African Poetics

He says that some African written poetry is poorer because it has similarities to the oral tradition, which depends on “extra-linguistic devices”, which are not noted. Yet, this feature of relating written poetry to the oral tradition is not unique (Pacific) and is therefore not an ‘African aesthetic’.

He makes references to Western traditions of what constitutes ‘good poetry’, and says than “aesthetics is the formalisation of the principles that underlie our value judgements about our sense perception of external forms” (37). Yet this is, of course, subjective:
-	“there are no rules for what counts as beauty…What seems to matter is the experience of the particular work”

While he acknowledges that biological responses may play some part in our response to art, particularly music and stuff with colours, he says this is harder to apply to writing, and, in any case “is unlikely to lead to a general theory” (38)

Kant: “there can be no objective rule of taste which shall determine by means of concepts what is beautiful”
Argues, citing Lyotard, that African culture lacks a clear connection with the past – the decay of grand narratives, instead, “locally based temporary contracts of human goals which depend upon open rules”

“Although we have not shown in an empirical way that an African aesthetic does not exist; we have shown that it is unlikely to exist”

He discusses African poets writing in a foreign language who, by doing so, “inhabit the very existence of the other” (41)

He refers to Maman Vatsa’s corrupted use of pidgin language, and Niyi Osundare’s use of literal translations as devices for using ‘African’ writing in non-African languages. The drawbacks sometimes weaken poetry, but similarly the also create something new.

He compares Osundare to Milton, in that they both create poetry by creating a form derived from other languages (Greek & Latin in Milton’s case) – although they differ in that Milton’s is a narrative, and Osundare’s is a “static and visceral course, sustaining several levels description like a classical Benin relief sculpture” (43).

He concludes by referring to underlying commonalities in all art, despite cultural and linguistic variations – “language has to exploit what is common to all”.