The art form of Ta Moko has its origins in Maori mythical narrative, where Mataora was responsible for bringing moko up from the Underworld where he was trying to win back the affections of his wife Niwareka. Whilst down there, her father Uetonga carved a moko onto his face and from this he also learnt to apply moko. Moko has also been associated with Maori in a time before European settlers arrived in New Zealand.
Tattooing was carried out in New Zealand in the earliest days of Maori settlement and is an art form that is shared with other islands of the Pacific where tattooing is as old as the culture itself. At some point moko diverged from Polynesian tattooing into an art form that belonged uniquely to New Zealand. It developed special motifs in both tattooing and carving which further helped to separate their work from other Polynesians.
Cook was the first to observe and record Polynesian tattoo in 1769 where he commented on its 'extreme elegance and justness'. Later observation confirmed that the extent of Moko varied from place to place. Moko designs were cut into the skin of the face with chisels, and is similar to carving techniques, which links moko with wood and other forms of Maori carving and suggests wider comparisons with other aspects of Maori traditional culture. Moko was a system of information; it served to identify people of rank, status and tribe, give recognition to its achievers and provide an identifiable authority structure. In the nineteenth century there was a decline in the making of Ta Moko, and in 1907 the Tohunga Suppression Act made it illegal to wear or perform moko. With the talk of the Maori as a dying race, moko was confined only to the faces of elderly Maori women who lived in remote areas, and the last recorded moko was on a woman in 1953.
However in the 1970s and 1980s Moko underwent a Renaissance and became popular amongst young adults where they believed that the past traditions were the way to the future. The revival and awareness of Maori culture in the late twentieth century has also helped generate the positive and popular approaches to Moko. Today both men and women are wearing the Moko as a symbol of identity. It is regarded as an expression of the way Maori see themselves in relation to their present and their past. Another reason why young Maori adults take on Moko, is a method of protest, where they do so in order to emphasise the alienation of themselves and of their lost culture. It also acts as a fraternity badgeâ where it allies them with others. On a whole it is associated with tino rangatiratanga, and a visible symbol of a culture being revitalised by this assertion of mana. But it is not just Maori who are adopting these traditions of their ancestors. It has become extremely popular both in New Zealand and internationally to represent moko in advertising, fashion and film and it is here that the notion of the contemporary Moko becomes problematic. Should non-Maori people be allowed to adorn themselves with Moko? Is it appropriate to depict Moko in the Media both in New Zealand and elsewhere?
Today those who wish to attain a moko, still have to go through the protocol and rites, that one would have gone through before European settlement, despite the new tools and methods that are in use. Because tattooing involved marking the face and the shedding of blood it was highly tapu and the process was associated with extensive ritual and regulations. A rite of passage, such as receiving Moko, was characterised by its three stages of separation, liminality and re-aggregation. The person is separated from society, enters a period of liminality during which normal behaviour does not apply, and is later re-introduced into society in his or her new form. Many contemporary Moko practitioners still apply these rules, to a lesser extent, if they are making a large piece. Customarily Moko represented the mediation of powerful forces beyond the mortal person as negotiations with the spiritual world. The Moko is intensely personal, and by wearing Moko, links a contemporary wearer to their ancestors, and tells the story of your history. These are the reasons that some Maori are unfavourable towards non-Maori choosing to wear a Moko. Mark Kopua, an Auckland based moko practitioner, also claims that Maori don't like Pakeha to wear Moko because they believe it is a birth-right, because of the spiritual knowledge that pertains to Moko, and many Maori feel that Pakeha have already exploited too much of Maori symbols and indigenous rights. That without the process, the consent from hapu and the knowledge of your tribe's genealogy, Moko is not Moko. He also believes that Pakeha interest in Moko stems back to the first arrival, where Europeans produced many pieces of documentation, and wrote for a non-indigenous audience, such as General Robley's large book on Moko. Moko is also a form of oral tradition, so when worn by non-Maori it does not fulfil the role of telling a Maori's whakapapa, as it is designed specifically to have a personal significance and relevance to the family's background. Many believe that if you don't know the language or have the identity you shouldn't be wearing Moko.
Contemporary practitioners believe that Moko is language itself and each individual should wear only what they are personally able to understand and explain to others. Yet this opens up the problem that many young Maori do not know the language, and that although New Zealand may be undergoing a Maori revival, prior to that many were unintentionally naive to their culture. Even within the culture there can be oppositions to Moko. Hirini Moko Mead is happy that young people are pushing to have Moko brought back, but firmly states that the reasons for wanting a Moko should be well thought out and a commitment to the survival of Maori culture.
Moko has been very visible in popular culture media over the last ten years or so where Moko was used to a great effect in The Piano and Once Were Warriors. These movies raised the profile of Moko internationally, but with the case of Once Were Warriors, reinforced Moko as associated with gangs. Inia Taylor, a well known Moko artist with his own studio Moko Ink in Grey Lynn, constructed the Moko in Once Were Warriors to avoid telling a narrative. The Moko on the gang members had no associations with tribal affiliations, and were created entirely from the artist's imagination. From this movie, began a fascination with the art of Moko; it was appropriated by European fashion designers Jean Paul Gaultier and Paco Rabanne. Although it raises the awareness of moko, there are negative aspects. While some believe that it creates opportunities for education, and that the internationalisation of moko is a way of celebrating Maori, it does so firmly within historical western constructs. The industry will attempt to copy as long as they see value in doing so.
Of the most globally visible, is Robbie Williams' piece on his shoulder that was executed by Te Rangitu Netana. Another well known musician, Ben Harper, has a full Moko on his back, executed by Gordon Hatfield (another contemporary Ta Moko artist) and Michael Franti of Spearhead, was tattooed by Taylor.
Netana and Hatfield make frequent trips to Europe to apply Moko to non-Maori skin. They both believe that you should be Maori to perform these tattoos, and that although non-Maori are wearing moko tattoos, Maori are still in control of it. They also claim that those who are non-Maori and want a moko, are not in it for the aesthetic of the tattoo, but are searching for something spiritual. To some, these human billboards offer promotion and positive outlooks to the design of an art form. Others however argue tribal designs are debased by being applied to someone with no understanding of the culture. Julie Kipa believes that if Maori fully engage with the tattoo industry and make Moko available to non-Maori a message is being sent that Moko is freely available for anyone, whereas Taylor describes the view as 'artistic racism' that non-Maori cannot wear Moko because his Ngati Toa forebears tattooed several Pakeha with full faced moko before the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. In their defence, however, Julie Kipa in another article claims that Moko and tattoo are recognised as opposites with Maori likely to wear both if they wanted. Kipa differentiates Moko by whakapapa, birthright afforded by tupuna connections, a language of symbolic design, initiation and achievement, mediation between personal and spiritual and an assertion of tino rangatiratanga. Moko is a manifestation of who you represent; your genealogy and is to do with the lives of your ancestor before you that made you, whilst a tattoo is a manifestation of yourself and aspects specifically to do with your life. To my knowledge, these musicians have never claimed to be wearing moko, but a tattoo of Maori design. Williams tattoo is a simple Maori design based on events in his life that both he and Netana designed, whilst Michael Franti is of African American and Native American descent and received a Maori tattoo on his arm, because he felt an affiliation with Maori.
Advertising agencies have been quick to recognise the changing symbolism of Moko and use the motifs in their campaigns. The campaigns for the New Zealand Army and the All Blacks have both employed the use of Moko. Overseas also, English soccer hero Eric Cantona is represented with a Moko on the cover of GQ magazine. As with a topic as sensitive as this one, there are both positive and negative aspects. Where there is the idea that using Moko for these three images is an emphasis of the sporting prowess and warrior-like connotations of the subjects, others have expressed concerns about generating Moko in this way. By using Moko to reinforce notions of warfare and warrior-hood, Moko is then associated with concepts of war, aggression and male prowess. Kipa believes that the public are being sold stereotypes of Maori as warriors, fierce, hostile and aggrieved and also claims that Maori art forms, like that of the Moko, is being thrust into the claws of commercialism. Dick Frizzell's Grocer with a Ta Moko is also a play on commercialism. This painting offended many Maori, because aesthetics aside, Maori wear Moko because it is based in tradition. Frizzell juxtaposes two local icons, which is where Maori found a problem. They claim that Moko is not a New Zealand icon, but a Maori one and that he in turn has abused a Maori art form. It comments on high and low cultures, and the binaries between culture and advertising. While these images, supposedly, enhance negative aspects of using Moko, the use of Moko in a magazine advertisement for breast cancer, is more of an enticement. The image is passive and the womanâs Moko is probably real. The use of the Moko and the kakahu that she wears is a positive incentive for a health issue that many ignore. The use of the Maori symbols are non-threatening and are targeted to the Maori female population specifically with which they are familiar, therefore comfortable with.
Within this energetic art debate is the notion of whether culture is a thing, and whether components of it can be taken and misused. The hostility of who should wear Moko and how it should be used can be seen as a political response to the settler culture and to its extensive and highly visible use of indigenous motifs, styles and invasions of the culture. Cross-cultural adoption of Moko, however raises the issue of appropriation and issues of ownership of intellectual property. In the Treaty of Waitangi, Maori essentially are guaranteed the right to practise and maintain Ta Moko and to benefit from it under the article claiming that Maori are guaranteed control over all that they declare as treasures in which Moko is considered a taonga whakairo (carved treasure). This then raises the question of the Tohunga Suppression Act of 1907, which deemed it illegal to wear or perform Moko - did this mean that Maori lost ownership? Moko is one of the most complex taonga, partially due to the traditional and contemporary aspects of it. It bridges the separate domain of personal and public art, and involves complex negotiations between individuals, iwi, legacy and inheritance. This synopsis is applied to the book by the Dutch photographer, Hans Neleman, entitled Moko - Maori Tattoo which has gained much controversy. The book was the artist's daydream as he had been captivated by the tattoos in Once Were Warriors. After reading up on the indigenous people of New Zealand, their customs and culture, he decided to come to New Zealand and create a photographic piece capturing the renaissance of Moko. However he didn't realise the cultural magnitude of this request; that of a non-Maori taking photographs of the sacred art of Moko. Those that were involved were divided about the situation; some didn't want to be part of a 'coffee table' photographic book, and questioned the idea of ownership and intellectual property rights, while others thought it was a way of educating and promoting the form of Moko.
On his first trip, Neleman hit a brick wall and went back to New York where he won a $25,000 grant, hired Peter Turei as his Maori liaison and returned to New Zealand. Turei drafted protocols for Neleman on his return, where a hui was called. At first, the community was sceptical, and only when Neleman agreed to let the copyrights of the photographs remain in the property of the Moko wearers and to donate his shares of the royalties to a Maori organisation of their choosing, did they finally agree on the book. Another condition was that the Moko wearers were allowed to speak for themselves and have their words published alongside their images.
This book presents a look at who those Maori of today are that wear Moko - it is a new generation of Maori who wear facial tattoo, many for different reasons. The book is separated into three contemporary stages: the first is the contemporary Maori that adhere to traditional values; there are the contemporary Maori using Moko as a way of contemporary religious expression - namely the Ruatoria Rastafarians; and lastly the gang members who use traditional designs to compliment their gang culture. Neleman photographed over sixty Moko-ed Maori, where his aim was to take pictures of a proud people. Kipa claims that many Maori signalled disdain for this project and that the 50 that initially agreed, refused to be photographed. In the book, there are two pages glued together, because after publication a woman wanted to withdraw her image, but otherwise those that were photographed were happy to do so. Kipa also believes that the re-selling of images in digestible forms for public consumption is not the Maori re-assertion of control that many believed it was.
In the art world, the interest in Moko has come from photography. In the early nineteenth century this was a tool that portrayed Maori in stereotypical ways for the overseas viewer. Interestingly enough, this photographic book of Maori can be viewed as opposite to past conduct. Most of the photographs are accompanied by the words of the subject, the book also consists of images and descriptions of the old tools and traditions that would accompany the making of a Moko, and the book is dedicated to the return of the tattooed Maori heads in museums and such all over the world. It is a book that captures the resurgence of Moko among Maori.
The first three images are of those that adhere to the traditional values. Hemi Te Peeti decided to get a Moko after his father died, as he was given the role of leader and spokesperson for the family. He researched his history for two years before he received his moko. His Moko represents courage, bravery, wit and the skills of the warrior and also a representation of him as a family man and teacher. He believes his Moko can prove that it is not radical or frightening, but a part of his life. The upper part of his face is untouched to defer to the realms of God from where he seeks his knowledge. This type of Moko is very tribal based and quite a rare form. Tame Iti was at first wary of this book but after much discussion, agreed to take part. He believes that Moko re-arranges the mindset that Maori was a dying race. He received a Moko because he was exercising his rangatiratanga - his right to exist. The placement of the white horse is a reference to his tribal background of Tuhoe - it is common for people from Tuhoe to be depicted with horses as it shows they are from a rural area. Hine Te Wai's Moko has a personal meaning. She wears Moko as she believes it to be a birth right, and that her Moko is not just a reflection of herself but of her whanau, hapu and iwi. Moko is a life long commitment of self-discipline, self-tolerance, and self-acceptance and of her spiritual nature.
The second section belongs to those of the Ruatoria Rastafarian group. Their art came from prison, in the fear that if they died there they wanted the mark of their ancestors on their faces. The Ruatoria Rastafarians are a religious gang of the East Coast. In 1990, the leader of the group, Chris Campbell was shot dead by a local member of a vigilante group. Luke Donnelly was charged with his murder, but before a jury of Pakeha farmers was found not guilty. Te Ahi, who was Campbell's right hand man believes his Moko is a heritage enabling him to enter in and out of the land of his ancestors. He has the words Alpha and Omega tattooed on his forehead, suggesting religious connotations. The prophet of the early twentieth century, Rua Kenana, used to motifs of the Alpha and Omega on his marae, and perhaps there are connections here between the two, as to an extent, they are practising similar things. Negus Negusta states that the reason for wearing Moko is Godly, by putting God's name on her forehead. Her name also takes on religious content. Negus was the leader of Abyssinia, who let the prophet Muhammad and his followers in because of their persecution elsewhere, and Negusta is associated with the Jamaican Rastafarians, so her religious intentions are quite strong.
The last section of the book are depictions of those that are in or were in gangs around New Zealand, namely the Mongrel Mob and Black Power. The association of Moko with gangs still continues, and the media often portrays those with Moko as those who have emerged from prison. The tattoos symbolised group membership in gangs that took the place of Maori communities. Historically tattoo was not just about markings on the skin - sailors, criminals and more recently gangs, punks and bikies took on tattoos to symbolise their belonging to these groups. The demise of Moko was due to negative connotations that the Western World held, because predominantly in their cultures, it was prisoners and sailors that adorned themselves. Identity is one of the main reasons that gang members get tattoos. Prison tattooing is Western Culture based and can't be compared to the art of Moko. Wider society was taught to fear these emblems of membership rather that address why Maori took sanctity in these forms. It was an act of defiance and rebellion, where they took on the symbols hated by society. Sinn Dog's attraction to Moko started when he was in jail, because when inside their is not much to do, and he spent a lot of time thinking of his heritage. With the time on his hands he was able to study the language and his whakapapa. At first he was going to choose a Maori design, but decided instead to make a statement for the Mongrel Mob. The style of the Moko (if you can call it that) is modelled on Native American design which he chose for the impact and recognition, by bringing the black lines as close as possible to the eyes so as to emphasise the white of them. Martin Cooper was raised in a state ward and lost contact with his family. In 1978, aged 17 he joined the Black Power gang. Many within the gang took on Moko as an assertion of who they were and as a protest to the Government. His was a careful path - his motifs were prepared from his own tribal designs and were taken back to his hapu for approval. He treats his Moko with respect and has changed his perspective to maintain himself. He hasn't had his face tattooed because he doesn't believe you should have one unless you have acquired enough knowledge.
The revival of Moko in the twenty-first century is an expression of Maori art and has been driven by a younger generation as an expression of their suppression, suffering and an expression of a collective identity. Outside the space of galleries and cultural performances the images of Moko can be quite intimidating yet the direct application of Moko on the body creates the closest bond possible between human and art, and is a marriage of natural and cultural aspects of being Maori. These images capture the renaissance of Moko and Maori Culture, in both positive and negative lights depending on what the images are trying to portray . The use of Maori designs, specifically that of the Moko, in non-Maori figures or images can be quite problematic. There are many issues raised mostly to do with a lack of understanding and sensitivity towards the Maori culture which some Maori do not believe have been appropriated. It is these concepts that are offensive and problematic where Maori are concerned. To make a commitment to Moko, is to make a commitment to its origins, to the celebration of spirituality and to the growing stature in the Maori world. The contemporary Moko is quite a commercial one, where it is seen on celebrities and within the fashion and media both in New Zealand and overseas and despite its popularity and reappearance, will continue to pose problems if not treated as it should be.
Bibliography
Harawina W, Maitai C and Umbers L, Tattoos are Back!, Mana Magazine, Apr/May, 1993, no 2, pp 5-11
King M, Moko: Maori Tattooing in the Twentieth Century, Alister Taylor Publishing, 1972
Kipa J, Attack - Counter Attack, TU Mai, April 2000, no 12, pp 38-40
Kipa J, Commercially Maori, TU Mai, June 2000, no 14, pp 30-31
Kipa J, Visible on our Hearts, Close to our Skin, August 2000 form the website www.artmaori.com
Kopua M, More About Moko, from the website www.tamoko.org.nz
Lardelli D, Moko: Works of Art, TV One, 1995 (video)
Lythberg B, Moko and Mataora: Locating Gordon Hatfield and Inia Taylor in a continuum of tradition, Graduate Diploma of Arts Dissertation, Auckland, 2001
Neleman H, Moko - Maori Tattoo, Stemmle Publishers, 1999
Pederson M, Moko - Maori Tattoo, Graphis, 1999, no 324, pp 58-65
Rubin A ed, Mark of Civilisation, University of California, 1988
Smithies G, Skin Deep, Sunday Star Times, F1, 14 July 2002
Te Riria K and Simmonds D, Moko Rangatira: Maori Tattoo, Reed, 1989
Thomas N, Possessions: Indigenous Art/Colonial Culture, Thames & Hudson, 1987