Anthropologists of art have a problem: how to define the central term of their sub-discipline? Their quandary is how to compare something across cultures without the particular definition chosen predetermining the answers arrived at. If they choose too restrictive a definition they exclude a host of potential objects of study and end up producing generalizations which are neither novel nor representative of human endeavour. If they choose a very open definition they run the risk of including such a broad range of different types of objects that meaningful comparison is turned into a near impossible ideal. This difficulty of choosing the appropriate level at which to pitch a comparative concept is particularly acute in this case because, unlike terms such as ‘rites de passage’ or 'reciprocity, ‘art’ is not one primarily derived from anthropological analysis or whose usage outside of academica is highly restricted. On the contrary, the concept of ‘art’, like that of ‘aesthetics’, is very deeply embedded in the historically particular evolution of European cultures. It is significant, however, that, to my knowledge, no anthropologist of art has acknowledged that the term or synonyms for it in other cultures may themselves become a cause for internal contest between interested parties. In these contexts, the question ‘But is it art?’ is not a hoary chestnut to be ignored but a politically motivated interrogatory to be studied.

The aim of this chapter is to study such a case, in which ‘art’ or its synonyms are not locally unproblematic terms but are the sites of dispute as different parties struggle to impose their own definitions.