h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

A big story here in South Africa right now is about a painting called 'The Spear' by Cape Town artist Brett Murray. This painting has been hanging in the Goodman Gallery in Johannesburg for a while and has garnered considerable publicity. The reason? It portrays our president, Jacob Zuma, with his manly bits hanging out from his trousers.

The painting is a part of an exhibition by Murray called 'Hail to the Thief' which is generally very critical of the current government's many corrupt practices. Zuma himself has been surrounded by scandals for very long now. He has been accused of rape; he has admitted to extramarital affairs; he has recently married his sixth wife (he's still married to three others). He has reportedly children born out of wedlock by four other women as well. And then there are his political actions and affiliations that are also considered corrupt. So: Murray by his portrayal has as he sees it simply expressed a metaphor for Zuma's being morally compromised.

But there has been a huge outcry against the painting in this country. Many black people consider the painting to be assaulting the dignity of our president. Some consider it racist, insulting to all black people. Meanwhile many white people also consider it to be lewd and disgusting, even many who are critical of the president. Then there are those who defend it as being protected by the right of free expression, and as legitimate social criticism by an artist. At least a few black people critical of Zuma and the ANC have voiced their support of the painting and the exhibition.

This came to the point where the ANC threatened to go to the courts and demanded that the gallery take the painting down and also that all images of it be removed from the internet. This has had the effect that there are probably now thousands of different images of the painting on the 'net (Not Safe For Work: google at your own risk).

The gallery prepared for the legal action, saying that they would not give in to attempts at censorship …

And then yesterday two men came into the gallery and while other people were watching and even taking photos and videos, proceeded to deface the painting with red and black paint. The offending bit of anatomy as well as Zuma's face were covered up. The men, one white, one black, said they did this because they felt offended by how our president was ridiculed.

What do you think? We have here a value conflict. Which is more important: freedom of expression, or respect for a president and for people whom he represents?

Personally I don't think there's a 'racism' angle. So the artist is white and the president is black. If the president was white or the artist black, would the people complaining now then be perfectly happy with the painting?

As for the manly bits painted: are people who complain at all familiar with the frequency with which these thingies have already been portayed in the art world for a very long time now? Take the statue of David by Michelangelo. The differences? 1. Zuma is actually wearing more clothes; 2. Murray is more generous towards Zuma than Michelangelo has been towards David. 3. Michelangelo's statue is a thing of beauty whereas Zuma as portrayed by Murray cannot really be called that. But anyways, I'm an artist, and the issue about which the people are now getting very angry and polarized has little to do with art.

How much offense should an artist be allowed to give in the name of art? Or should anyone at all be in a position to 'allow' or not allow an artist to paint or portray anything? On my part: I paint rather to convey a sense of beauty than for provoking or shocking people. I think more could be achieved that way, because when people can see beauty in as many things as possible, they will be enriched and will be more likely to cherish beauty in themselves and others and in the whole world. But sometimes artist have to show the ugly side as well. What do you think?

This reminds me of one name: Mapplethorpe.

I agree - even though artists may shock us, they have the right to expression. (I say this as an official 'non-artist': Mala today commented that I 'draw like a scholar'. )

If we learned more, we'd argue less.

Mapplethorpe? Interesting. I saw a Mapplethorpe exhibition last year.

Yes, good question,Willem.

For me it depends on the intention of the artist. Sometimes I object to being shocked, and I question the intention of the artist. Just depends. It's the way it is done that is the all important thing, for me.

I find it really annoying when one walks away from a shocking content, to protect oneself, and then gets accused of being narrow minded, or blinkered.

Very interesting debate, and thanks Willem

cc

Well it is certainly an interesting constitutional issue. I am not sure that an gallery which allows people to bring in paint cans and brushes however deserves to re-open. This weird vandalism occured during the day and NOT as a result of a break in at night. When you get exibits of your art, Willem be sure to check the security procedures of the gallery.

I am sorry about Zuma, unfortunately in a democracy you'll get some bad eggs, I hope that South Africa insists on term limits for presidents---that should reduce the extent of the damage of one of these bad guys. Did any women vote for this guy?

Hi folks and thanks for the comments! The interesting thing for me here seems to be this, going by the talk over here: if you are against Murray, you're against freedom of expression; if you support Murray, you are a racist. Choose your poison. Interestingly many Afrikaans people would rather be against freedom of expression than be racists, so Murray is liberally condemned in the Afrikaans newspapers. The white man who started with the vandalism, Barend la Grange, is an Afrikaans man. He smuggled the paint and brush in under his coat. The black man who continued the defacement, Louis Makobela, apparently did so independently, la Grange says he doesn't know him.

Anyways, my work is, I hope, not so offensive that people would want to deface it! And also, most of my work is watercolour, so there's a pane of glass over the painting when mounted.

Here, people vote for a party, who appoint a guy to be president (Actually, the National Assembly elects the president, but in practice it's the political party that has won the majority of the vote that gets to decide, since they'll also have a majority in the National Assembly). No president has so far served a full second term. The limitation is two consecutive five-year presidencies. Nelson Mandela was, as president, mostly a figurehead and just a single term because of his advanced age. He had little influence over policy but was very valuable to the ANC because of his moral stature. Thabo Mbeki who followed him was seen as an intellectual and far removed from the common people and followed his own head too much, so the ANC got rid of him in a rather embarassing spectacle; otherwise he would have served two full terms. Jacob Zuma now has almost no personality or initiative of his own, so he's a handy tool for the ANC. Now as for women voting for him, if all his mistresses did, then he'd have no problem on that front.

The problem is, the president material is getting worse instead of better. I could say a lot about why this is so but will leave that for another posting. The big problem over here is still that if you're critical of the ANC you're seen as a racist. The thing is I really want what's best for all people (and other living things) in South Africa, but we're stuck with a kind of corruption here that in the end is going to harm everybody and everything. The bottom line seems to be that those now in power seem to think the best thing for them to do is to follow the example of the Apartheid government: enrich themselves and a small group, at the cost of everyone else. Like: it was their turn, now it's our turn. This is not the way to get rid of injustice! And the problem is, they were there to challenge the old government - but now there's no faction powerful enough to challenge them!

OK I'll stop and leave this stuff for, perhaps, a later posting.

Fui, term limitations make no difference, here I was thinking that it would avoid one person absolutely ruining the country. But obviously one party systems come to the same thing. Aren't there enough intellectuals in the ANC to splinter off and form another party?Surely there are other people from SA who are embarrassed by Zuma's behaviour and would like to see someone a bit more mature and rational to run the country.

On the other hand, I saw that they wanted to label goods from the
West Bank settlements in Israel separately from other Israeli imports. I think that might come to some good, after all, Jimmy Carter labeled the Israeli government as encouraging apartheid. If the shoe fits people wear it or change your mind.

That occupied territories label thing was a story over here as well. The Palestinians have a lot of sympathy here, Israel being seen as practicing a form of Apartheid. Not the same of course, but still a lot of discrimination and oppression.

No single person is going to ruin this country. The President is just a mouthpiece for the ANC, but they are not going to ruin the country either. There are too many good people who will do all they can to ensure that it doesn't happen.

About censorship ... I've been reading through some of my father's correspondence from the 80's, and came across a mention of a mildly lewd painting by Walter Batiss that was confiscted by the police. It wasn't even at an exhibition; it was hanging in somebody's bedroom. The telephone repairman saw it, and contacted the police! That's the kind of censorship we used to have.

I also came across interesting references to Breyten Breytenbach. A letter to my father from the early sixties mentions him as a rebellious young bloke who should be watched - but in the sense of that he's soon going to do some very good and interesting things. And then later letters indirectly refer to the progressively worsening troubles he experienced from our government. He was eventually jailed and exiled. During that period my father reacted vehemently about a book about Breytenbach where it was said that the government had silenced him and would erase his work and his fame. My father said that this was preposterous: even at the time all Breytenbach's works were still freely available, and my dad also said, if a poet is good enough, his fame shall last, irrespective of what the government could do. My dad was right: not a single work of Breytenbach was ever 'erased', he maintained huge fame through the period of him being branded a terrorist, through his exile, and he's now back again, having outlasted the government that tried to squash him.