Ten wasted years!
by Mario Pissarra
Dear Minister Jordan,
Congratulations on your appointment. What a pleasure to have a real Minister, and what a relief that we didn't get Kortbroek (New National Party leader Marthinus van Schalkwyk). Hopefully this is the real start to government taking arts and culture more seriously.
I write to you because you have the power to do something about the issues I raise. I could have written you a private letter, but I wouldn't know if you'd read it. This way at least someone (my editor, I think) will read it, and besides, I'm a columnist not a lobbyist, so you have to excuse my bad manners.
The main question I'd like to ask you is: Are you satisfied that meaningful transformation has taken place in the visual arts, or, are you confident that this is taking place?
A related query is whether you think that the previous political appointments served as suitable managers or midwives for the transformation of arts and culture, or can the show now begin?
I ask these questions because in my view there are several areas where transformation of the visual arts is not taking place. These include the establishment of Iziko Museums, and the broad spectrum of arts education and training.
With regards to Iziko, there appears to be one school that sees transformation of our public museums as a done deal: a process concluded with the restructuring of 15 sites into one "flagship of excellence". Another school views this alleged transformation as a hoax, an elaborate illusion perpetrated through numerous acts of window dressing, and facilitated by inadequate processes of recruitment and appointment.
Cynics charge that the establishment of Iziko appears to have been largely a technical and legal exercise, merely adding a tier of management to individual organisations that look like they came through "restructuring" entirely intact. Most disturbingly, the sequential appointment of CEO's with limited management experience, coupled with the lack of opportunity given to competent candidates (such as applicant Gavin Jantjes) creates the impression that vested interests resisted change. Either that or they should hire someone to draw up their shortlists.
Even if that is all behind us (leaving most of us none-the-wiser about what restructuring actually achieved), is anyone prepared to say out loud what they think of the South African National Gallery's (SANG) track record in training young black curators? And can anyone explain how the name Iziko Museums of Cape Town can be used for a national flagship?
Mr. Minister, I do not have the power or resources to make a proper assessment of whether Iziko has really transformed anything substantial. Are you, however, satisfied with what you have seen and heard?
It is very easy today to curate a "rainbow" show to give the impression of a transformed visual arts sector. There is a sufficient range of black artists to vary the lineup, and there is an endless stream of young white artists fresh out of art school and going places fast. However, the foundation on which this illusion of normality is predicated is shaky.
Despite arts and culture being a recognised learning area for General Education and Training (GET) and Further Education and Training (FET), arts education continues to be a privileged site of learning in schools, accessible to a few, mostly historically privileged communities. Until this is addressed there will never be genuine equity in the sector.
Without getting arts provision in GET and FET right there will always be allegations of elitism to level against the demographic profiles of art and art history at higher education institutions. The problem at the top will only be fixed by building from the bottom, but of course you know that.
Fortunately the Department of Labour (DOL), once an almost impenetrable citadel for arts education and training, has shown signs of moving in the right direction. The burial of the arts in the Media Advertising Printing Packaging and Publishing Sector Education and Training Authority (MAPPP-SETA) certainly did look at first like a denial of the arts' rightful place in the economy.
However, the subsequent establishment of Create SA, (a MAPPP-SETA affiliated agency) to assist in the development and implementation of learnerships for the creative industries, does seem to be slowly producing results. But bear in mind the following: the Standards Generating Body responsible for visual arts, crafts and design has produced learnerships for crafts and design, but nothing for the visual arts.
Drawing a line between visual arts, on one hand, and crafts and design, on the other, may not always be very helpful if we want to challenge some of the elitist taxonomies and practices of the past.
It becomes necessary to highlight that none of the existing learnerships address that sphere of the visual arts (used broadly) that centre on gallery-centred practices (or define themselves in opposition to galleries). Where are the visual arts learnerships?
Are the illustrious members charged with this responsibility simply not doing anything, or are they being frustrated by the ghosts of DOL's historical obstinacy in accommodating the visual arts?
In the 1980s, the absence of government provision for arts education and training was to some extent addressed through a dynamic non-governmental (NGO) sector, funded largely by the international community. Most of these institutions have now closed. Today the NGO sector struggles on, under-resourced and trying justabout everything to remain afloat.
Red tape put in place by the South African Qualifications Authority's (SAQA) has proved insurmountable for many and has effectively hindered most of these organisations from getting their courses accredited. This affects negatively the possibility for learners to obtain further and higher learning.
Lest we also not forget, of the host of government-created community arts centres rolled out across the country at significant cost, few are making any impact. Most have descended into chaos. Any lemon with two pips could have foreseen that centres dedicated to the arts in communities, where access to arts education and training was historically limited, would have fared better by locating arts activities as part of multi-purpose community centres.
At present we have one set of genuine multi-purpose community centres, functioning mostly fairly well under one government department, and white elephant "arts and culture" centres under the Department of Arts and Culture. Surely these initiatives can support each other?
Both the institutional transformation of our public museums and galleries and the transformation and implementation of arts education and training are long overdue. The first is sometimes spoken about at various official functions, whereas the second seems to attract little comment (and when it does, this seems to be largely levelled at the universities, some of whom deserve to be attacked more than others).
With education and training, the problems are exacerbated by the overlaps with different government departments, and ultimately no one seems to take responsibility for arts and culture, and visual arts in particular.
Two things can make a difference. One is a Minister and government department committed to addressing gaps in implementation, and to transforming the sector into a more equitable one. The second is a representative national lobby with a developmental agenda.
Sadly, as a visual arts "community" we have not got very far with the second option. In my opinion, the historical vacuum in this regard has meant that the visual arts have fared worse than other art forms in the transformation process. This means we have to look to the first option. Now that government has finally made a decent appointment for arts and culture, it's over to you.
Mr. Minister, I'm sure I don't need to remind you that many people are looking to you to make a big difference.
