Ah, but then you get a flipside voice from the majority as well:
Tselane Tambo posted the following message on a social networking site: "So the Pres JZ has had his portrait painted and he doesn't like it.“Do the poor enjoy poverty? Do the unemployed enjoy hopelessness? Do those who can’t get housing enjoy homelessness? He must get over it. No one is having a good time. He should inspire the reverence he craves. This portrait is what he inspired. Shame neh! [sic]”
They can play the race card all they like. What they can’t do is prevent people from seeing the work. And I’m sure Murray is thanking them for all the free publicity.
It’s overwhelmingly clear to any reasonable observer that it has zilch to do with race. It isn’t aimed at black people; it isn’t even aimed at Zuma’s polygamous marriages (which are virtually universally accepted as part of his culture). It is aimed at his utter hypocrisy and inability to keep his pants zipped up. The satire is well deserved. If the man wants respect, maybe he should earn some.
In case of interest, for those who a) are Cape Town based and b) still consume dead-tree media, I’ve got an op-ed on this in today’s Cape Argus (page 15). It’s also the topic of my Daily Maverick column tomorrow.
And the saga continues…
The controversial painting of President Jacob Zuma in the Goodman Gallery in Johannesburg has been defaced, gallery staff confirmed on Tuesday.A man is being held by the gallery security team.
“The work has been painted over with black and red paint,” a spokesman said.
Police are on their way to the scene.
So okay they’ll “allow” s16(c) freedom of artistic creativity but but the right not to be deprived of property (s25 general) doesn’t matter in the Bill of rights? Methinks they also forgot about that nice little bit: “We, the people of South Africa, Recognize the injustices of our past; honour those who suffered for justice and freedom in our land; respect those who have worked to build and develop our country; and believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it…” That’s from the constitution’s preamble - that little gallery was also standing up and raising it’s voice against apartheid at that time. Maybe they just take Ex 20:4: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness…” you know the woo…
Zuma isn’t some god! For god’s sake (pun intended) he’s just one public figure, I’m gonna eat some pasta now… May ye all be touched by his noodly apendage and be protected from the crazies of woo
The plot thickens! Two idiots have defaced the painting, the one painting a cross on the face and the genitals (remember Scope?). The other smeared black paint down the painting. The ANC intends proceeding with the court case against the Gallery.
Just by coincidence ETV news had a camera up and running when it happened. ???
I’m interested. The Daily Maverick you’ll be bale to link us up tomorrow right? (I’ll see if I can lay my hands on an Argus)
Never mind, aside from the visual joy of the actual artwork, it is now of national importance and will be broadcast:
A full bench of the South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg will on Thursday hear the ANC's application to have a painting depicting ANC president Jacob Zuma with his genitals exposed taken down.Judge Kathree Setiloane also granted permission for e.tv and eSat to broadcast the court proceedings live.
“This is a matter of great national importance,” Setiloane said.
WTF dude???
I wonder how the previous (pre-1994) government would’ve handled the situation. PW and his voorlaaier painted by a black artist.
It wouldnt have been displayed at a prominent gallery in the first place. Secondly, we’re living in far more liberal times now, I seriously doubt anything remotely such as this would have made it to a public gallery regardless of the race of the artist. I recall not allowed in an upstairs section of a gallery as a child because of “adult content” - which now loosely translates into naked women holding apples.
This is true, of course. I have difficulty even remembering those days. I suppose it’s similar to asking how that government would’ve coped with the internet as it is today.
They’d’ve labelled it Die Net Gevaar, declared it “subversive”, banned it and made any access to it from within SA’s borders a punishable offence, as evidenced by regular police raids at rock concerts in the eighties. Anything to keep the volk in line.
'Luthon64
and don’t forget the Kerk: “skande, skande”
Yesterday’s Argus op-ed: Zuma’s Spear and the distractions of “culture” › Synapses
Today’s Daily Maverick column: ‘I see a red door and I want it painted black’
I must say, I shouldnt be, but I’m quite surprised at this:
Lawyers acting for the artist behind the controversial painting of President Jacob Zuma will apply for an interdict to force one of the country's biggest churches to stop calling for violence against Brett Murray. Webber Wentzel lawyer Okyerebea Ampofo-Anti yesterday asked the [b]Nazareth Baptist (Shembe) Church and its spokesman Enoch Mthembu to retract a statement calling for Murray to be stoned to death for the painting in which Zuma's genitals were exposed.[/b]
"A person who committed such a serious sin deserves to be stoned to death. And that is according to the church constitution, the Bible, which guides us."
I had this vague notion that xtianity was about forgiveness and not being judgmental… guess I’m confused…
And the plot thickens further:
“A painting titled “The Shield” showing DA leader Helen Zille, Koos de la Rey, fallen rightwing leader Eugene Terre’Blanche and Jonathan Shapiro (cartoonist) naked with their arms in the air has emerged.”
Of course, they are hoping to also become martyrs for free expression. Hopefully Zille et all will laugh it off and strongly affirm their right to freedom of expression, after which the Goodman Gallery will exhibit the painting without some rightwing goon defacing it.
Gotta say, it’s a pretty amateurish piece of work. Looking at both this painting and Brett Murray’s original “spear” one, I can’t help wishing that artists would spend less time making statements and more time learning to frickin’ draw and paint…
Zille already yesterday complimented a photoshopped naked pic of her doing the rounds, saying it depicts her as slimmer than she actually is. Zapiro will most likely have a good old hearty chuckle and take the piss out of it (I note he’s been blessed with a showerhead on the new painting). ET is as dead as a doornail and Koos is most likely sneezing up dust in whatever is left of his coffin.
I understand a naked march is being planned for today - although I missed whether it is for or against freedom from censorship.
We’ll have to see whether the rightwingers will refrain from complaining about Terre’Blanche and De la Rey in the painting. And I very much hope that the owner of the Goodman Gallery (also depicted in it) will offer to give it exhibition space, and this time arrange for security guards who will shoot any vandals on the spot - I remain pretty astonished that the vandals got as far as they did without any interference from the supposed security personnel. The vandals apparently used oil-based paint, which may be difficult to clean off, depending on how quickly it dries. Hopefully the painting can be restored to its former glory. It is painted in acrylic, which is quite washable.
Well, today is the day of the big court case. Just in case the ANC wins, I made a point of visiting the website of the Goodman gallery - they have good, fairly high resolution scans of the exhibit up there, and I downloaded all the more controversial images. If the court decides in favour of the ANC, I will personally spread those pictures far and wide. Let’s see if the ANC can shut down the internet too.
The irony is that from an aesthetic point of view, the art doesn’t appeal to me at all, and without the ANC’s big brouhaha over it I wouldn’t have looked at those pictures twice, and would have merely shaken my head at the price buyers were willing to pay for them even before the public controversy. However, freedom of expression does appeal to me, big time. So I’ll do my bit for it, and I hope others here will too.
sheeeshhhh…
Claassen had earlier asked him if the ANC would still be making a submission to court if FW de Klerk’s face was used in the painting.Malindi began speaking about the country’s transition from apartheid to a democracy and apparently became rather emotional, put his hands to his chest and started sobbing.
The lawyer was said to be so emotional that even opposing counsel comforted him.
Malindi’s junior advocate might take over from him.
I’m certain the junior advocate is going to jump at the chance to become a “senior” advocate… some prospects for the man.