Archive: Issue No. 134, October 2008

These days, I have fallen into the habit of Googling 'Sasol New Signatures Art Competition' first thing each morning. Even now, more than a month after the 2008 winner was announced, some or other twist in the tale of this ongoing saga still manages to elicit online remarks. Maybe Brendan Behan's idea that there is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary, is right on the money in this case.

The Sasol New Signatures entry form calls for artworks 'that either have strong statements to make, ask pressing or uncomfortable questions and/or exhibit high quality of craftsmanship and technical skill'. Asking uncomfortable questions is an impulse that is emphasised in the workshops preceding the competition, which are held two months before entries are invited.

All 'new' artists over 18 who have not yet had a solo show qualify to enter, making this arguably the most inclusive national platform for new artists. Yet this fact still seems to elude art critics and gallery goers. Apart from the Sasol Wax Art Awards, it is the only art competition in South Africa that is not organised by the sponsor itself. While the competition has had a consistent sponsor in Sasol for the last 19 years, the Association of Arts in Pretoria has been organising the competition for half a century. They organise the event with integrity, appoint the panel of judges annually, and ensure that the judges' choice, based on their expertise as professional academics, art curators, and senior artists, is beyond reproach.

This year's winning work, Familieportret 2 by Richardt Strydom, certainly made a strong statement. The monotone photograph depicts a young white couple standing in front of a pre-fabricated wall partially hiding a shabby washing line. The woman cradles a naked lifelike baby doll while a mangy dog sits at her feet. The man, pinching the woman's exposed breast, wears a shirt without trousers, while the woman's dressing gown partially uncovers her lace panties. According to the artist, the work 'depicts and exposes, both literally and figuratively, the extreme misery, the pathos and dehumanisation of poverty. In a true sense, it is a picture of severe loss and finally a loss of human dignity.'

For the first time in the history of its sponsorship, Sasol became uncomfortable.

After the judges made their decision, Sasol's Public Relations machine kicked into gear. A disclaimer, distancing the sponsor from the winning work, was inserted into the catalogue. Sasol Corporate Affairs Manager Mike Biesheuvel issued a statement that, although they had accepted the decision of the judges, 'we also recognise that some members of the Sasol staff as well as some members of the public may be challenged or even offended by the piece and we feel it is both responsible and appropriate, that we distance Sasol from the artwork'.

The disclaimer created a stir in the art world. A previously mostly ignored 'youth art' competition with a smattering of local publicity suddenly hit major newspapers. Journalists and bloggers got onto the bandwagon. Comment ranged from Sasol being at best a bit of a bully, and at worst, acting in a highly questionable and unethical way that would have a severely negative influence on the future of the competition. A few writers hailed the sponsor's stance as taking the moral high ground.

Johan Myburg of Beeld newspaper raised the first voice of dissent. He questioned Sasol's motive as sponsor, saying that young artists are not in a position to decline prize money of R60 000 because the intentions of the sponsor might be questionable, but that the onus must lie with the sponsor to act morally by not using the arts for its own agenda (Do I hear echoes of the Brett Kebble Art Awards?). It was a brave standpoint for a journalist whose editorial team sadly lacked the guts to publish an image of the winning work for fear of reader alienation.

The Mail & Guardian was the only publication to print Familieportret 2 uncensored, devoting half a page to 'The pic that made Sasol pink'. It quotes the artist in stating that the idea of the work is to 'undermine the patriarchal system. If the woman had no knickers it probably wouldn't have caused a furore at all'. The Business Times even afforded the issue a few columns of precious space on their front page that same week, but without the image. Clearly, the issue around the questionable ethical behaviour of the sponsor was drawing most of the attention.

From here on, bloggers had a field day. The debate went one of two ways. No matter how hard journo-bloggers like Gerrit Brand (Burger) and Anthea Buys (Thoughtleader) tried to steer the debate to the issues of the sponsor, comments inevitably hurtled back to the merits of the work as art and the social reaction to it. Brand made the valid point that works that have won art competitions before have often caused discomfort. He states that art is not supposed to validate one's own comfortable view of the world, but rather, as David Kramer said, to make you see something that you have previously missed. Aesthetic beauty becomes irrelevant in this instance. Brand's main question then revolves around the role Sasol sees for itself in this process: is it as a sort of a 'super' judge, who is not only allowed to judge the work, but most disconcertingly, judge the judges? Moreover, Brand asks, precisely what is Sasol's role as a patron of the arts?

Mandy de Waal questions the cultural enrichment value of such an attitude on Marklives.com, saying of Sasol that it is 'a business giant that positions itself as progressive, at the forefront of change and innovation. But when the chips are down and it can no longer hide behind glossy ads, more conservative, more middle of the road than maybe itself expected'.

Other bloggers opportunistically cashed in on the idea of censorship by sponsors. Buys, an independent journalist, condemns the sponsor outright. Her blog is riddled with inaccuracies. She makes hyperbolic statements such as that Sasol's representatives are, 'men with their buxom secretaries', who 'begrudgingly handed over R60 000 on the opening night'. She fails to mention the competition's real organiser, the Association of the Arts. Erroneously, she implies that Sasol clashed with the judges they appointed themselves. Sasol does not appoint the judges. The Association appoints a competition chairperson. This chair, together with the Association director and gallery manager, compile a panel comprising an academic, a gallerist, one practicing artist, and one of Sasol's art advisors. Great care is taken to avoid repetition of judges, to ensure that the panel always brings a fresh eye and sound judgement.

Buys questions whether the arts need a sponsor like this. Her comments might be hindering rather than helping the cause of the art competition in society. When her attention was drawn to some of her mistakes, she inconspicuously corrected them in her original blog entry without drawing her readers' attention to the corrected version. (Note from editor: in fact Buys did draw readers’ attention to this in the blog comments section, on September 14.) Acts like these do as much harm to the image and ethics of artists as random acts of 'distancing' by sponsors do. Link to Anthea Buys’ blog: http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/antheabuys/2008/09/12/sasols-smut-things-get-nasty

But exactly what offended Sasol? Brand asks whether it is the fact that the half naked woman holds a doll (and the inferences of the doll and sexual submission) while the half naked man touches her breast. Or is it the religious references to the holy family? Does Sasol, in this regard, subscribe to a form of Gnosticism? Or, he asks, is this just a kind of blanket precaution to exempt them from criticism by people who do not understand art, thus curbing potential damage to the brand?

While journalists tried hard to keep the debate at the ethical stance of a sponsor in a competition, it inevitably veered to the partially clad couple.

A group of blog-voices like Mike A on Thoughtleader initiated a discussion around public decency, nudity, and whether artists 'are exempt from public decency'. Can artists do and say anything in the name of art, and can we therefore also indulge in accounts of bestiality and child abuse? Opinions also vary on the merits of nudity. Can this image be seen as obnoxious because the subjects cannot aesthetically compete with the likes of Minki van der Westhuizen? Is it hypocritical to disallow male genitalia to be exposed while the naked female form is so often exposed? Should a sponsor endorse such a work of art? This is reminiscent of Socrates' lament that people easily condemn, while 'thinking we are wise when we are not'.

By then, the male subject who posed for this image had also come to the fore. He claimed that the artist had no release permission from him personally, and that the work was significantly dated anyway. This sparked a fresh debate centering around issues of consent and rules of the competition, and whether the artist had actually produced the work within the last year. One commentator on Buys' Thoughtleader blog exclaims: 'Some oke who could have stayed anonymous actually comes rushing out of the woodwork shouting "DIS MY P*** DAARDIE!". Why would the subject, being so aggrieved by his image being splashed in the media, draw even more attention to this "injustice" by sparking a brand new debate?'

Again, some journalists partially quoted the organisers in such a way as to give the impression that they acted in an ethically questionable way by not caring whether the artist had permission or not. In fairness, artists sign an entry form in which they take full responsibility for issues around consent, royalties, and the production date of an artwork. Responsibility clearly and traditionally needs to rest with the artist in this regard.

But is it art? Space disallows that debate here. Rather than dabbling superficially into a tired issue, the blog comments once again made clear that there seems to be a huge chasm between critical art debate and the perceptions of the 'lay' public. On the Burger blog Nicholas asks whether it really is art, or whether it is another case of the emperor's new clothes. Another commentator jokingly relates asking his wife to pose for him, but she declined. Some people took serious offence, calling images like these scandalous, immoral and totally inappropriate on every level. 'Gatvol van Perth' on Brand's blog scrambled Sasol's acronym, ending up with 'assol', indicating his level of anger for allowing the work to win at all.

Disregarding the reaction either being pro-Sasol or anti-Sasol, or pro-artwork or anti-artwork, Familieportret 2 marked itself as complying with the requirements of a winner: to spark debate. The entry form sets the scene: 'an art competition is a barometer reflecting the state and mood of the visual arts. It highlights new trends and techniques and it explores modern, innovative means of expression. It creates a public awareness and as such, constitutes a cultural force of its own for mutual understanding and nation building'.

Is Familieportret 2 a good work of art? This question calls for a long answer. But does the work measure up to the requirements of a work worthy of winning this competition? For me, it is a resounding 'yes'. The debate laid out here is testimony to that. As Gerry on Thoughtleader says: 'This is how you know your art works - it's more than just a pretty picture, it has tongues waggin' and people who never entered a gallery in their lives voicing opinions. This kid is gonna go far!'

Franci Cronje has an MA(FA) and is a PhD candidate in Media Studies at UCT. She is an artist, curator, curious academic and chairman of the Sasol New Signatures art competition for the last six years. She writes on this topic in her private capacity