The end of an era: interview with Marilyn Martin
by Tavish McIntosh
Tavish McIntosh: You arrived at the National Gallery in 1990. Could you talk about the institution at that time and the changes that took place then?
Marilyn Martin: When I came here they were busy with the refurbishment, so the gallery was closed. It was 1990 and the gallery only reopened in 1991. There were many preconceived ideas about art galleries and what you could show, etc. So the major shift when I arrived came with our acquisitions policy: the National Gallery seriously started to collect historical African art after 1990. I must acknowledge Bruce Arnott, who in the early 70s was buying West African sculptures. We opened with 'Affinities' which showed beadwork and craft alongside modern and contemporary works.
At the National Gallery, we are not interested in the distinctions between craft and art, we are not interested in what artworks are made of. The material must just convey intentions, the ideas properly.
We have tried over the 18 years of my term to make the work here of interest to more people, by including historical African art, architecture and craft along with the usual 'high art'. In doing so, we have been engaged in a more general project of re-writing South African art history. Like with the current Albert Adams exhibition and the Pancho Guedes exhibition, which brought a whole different group of people to the gallery... We had the Zip Zap Circus outside at the opening, because Pancho was involved with them at a time...
TM: Your time at the National Gallery has seen the exterior quite dramatically altered. But Pallo Jordan still reiterates that tired quotation about many people mistaking it for a lawcourt. Could you talk me through the process of transforming the exterior?
MM: When I came here in 1991, the gallery was closed for refurbishment so the interior was being looked at but nobody had considered that area outside the gallery. But gradually we have moved into it. At the moment you can see the public art project with Roger van Wyk's brick patterns is being re-installed. It looks much better than the plain tarmac!
I am a great believer in the socio-political role of the institution and have tried to adopt a multi-pronged approach to changing the gallery and that includes the impression it makes on the exterior.
TM: You have had a strained relationship with the Department of Arts and Culture (DAC) over the years. Has it improved recently, or does it still seem that the government makes no provision for the visual arts?
MM: On one hand, we are so disadvantaged. Our subsidy has not increased since 1994 in real terms. The salaries make it seem like it has, but the acquisitions budget in 1990 is the same today: R250 000 per year. But when the DAC wants to implement a cultural agreement, we are appointed as the 'nodal agency'. Recently we worked with the National Gallery of New Dehli as the government wanted to develop its relationship with India. So we get these opportunities to work with them and put up exhibitions there.
The DAC - like all the government bodies except perhaps Sars - has delivery problems. The DAC is also motivated by its own projects. Right now that is China... In reality all the money should be channelled through the National Arts Council which has the right mechanisms in place for its distribution. The DAC has no policy on funding but does divert money to projects that grab its imagination. That money is not spent on ensuring South Africa has a presence in Venice, or is properly represented at the various international exhibitions. These events are attended, but there is no volition to ensure that South Africa is represented. Artists and curators have to get there on their own.
It's a double-edged sword being the National Gallery.
TM: In your 18 year term as Director of the National Gallery and then Director of Art Collections, you have witnessed the amazing rise in popularity of South African artists and have managed to be involved in some amazing exhibitions...
MM: It was the political situation that made that possible. With the cultural and academic boycott, we were not invited to curate exhibitions or write for publications. So my predecessors didn't have those opportunities. But it's come gradually with small projects - like those in Boston and France... I have always had a special connection with France. I'm still a student at the Alliance Française. I go to a Tuesday morning class! My ability to speak French opened doors for me. Like in Mali we were able to participate in 'Rencontre' in 1994 and out of that we got involved in Dak'art. I was on the panel there in 2000.
I am passionate about promoting South African art. And we have a powerful platform here at the National Gallery. But we must be careful: we're no longer the international flavour of the month. It's moving towards the East. And we had no presence in Venice except for at the African exhibition. Now China has a place in Venice for the second time running. They are saying 'Here we are!'. But we haven't done that. International curators will select the same artists over and over. We have so much talent here that isn't getting exposure.
TM: What are your plans once you've retired?
MM: I will be able to write a lot more openly once I've retired and am no longer an institution! But first there's a lot of cleaning up to be done. And then I'll see what comes my way. I want to write more. I think that South Africa might be ready for a book on decorative cast iron work - I might dig up an old manuscript that I was working on with some other people decades ago...
Before I left the gallery, I wanted to pay tribute to Pancho who was my Head of Department [at Wits School of Architecture] for 9 years. So I'm glad I've managed that. On September 1 I'll sneak in in a blonde wig and jeans to uninstall the Pancho exhibition and see it on its way to the Museum Africa.
TM: Is there anybody lined up for your position? How do you feel about the team you are leaving?
MM: Well, they advertised late. I'm not involved in the process of finding the replacement and I won't be involved here after August 31. But my Art Collections team is fantastic. We have worked out our programme until 2010. We do all that well in advance and I have no worries leaving things in their hands.
We need to acknowledge however that we have no black curators. We tried for 18 months when Emma [Bedford] left before Nadja Daehnke's appointment. Either there were no applicants, or they were not suitable in terms of qualifications. When we advertised the Conservations post, the only applicant was someone in Nature Conservation! Museum work is very particular and takes a particular type of person. It is poorly paid, not glamourous, not sexy and very hard work. Many of our applicants want to be artists, but want a salary and are therefore looking for a job. A curator needs to sacrifice their own production to a large extent. I was very hopeful about Tumelo Mosaka [Assistant Curator of Contemporary Art at the Brooklyn Museum] and we had many long-distance phonecalls. But she was not interested in the salary. The benefits are good... But curators also want to work independently. Here we decide on curatorial work as a team by consensus. It might be bureaucratic but this is a public institution and we need to make decisions in line with Iziko's national policy.
TM: And the young black curators' programme that seems to have fallen away?
MM: Knowledge is important in museum work. You learn curation on the job, but you need to have acquired the academic knowledge before you come here. That programme was created on the agreement that the candidate continue to study further. This didn't happen. And then we have had a number of young black curators that have all been headhunted by various institutions. And because in the museum you do everything for yourself, there are no people to do the dirty work, it eats into your creativity. You have to be passionate about the institution.
TM: Okay, so we've covered the politics of your team. Could you perhaps highlight your 'top 5' projects/exhibitions that you've been involved with?
MM: I have to say 'Picasso and Africa'. To see the queues down to Government Avenue in the April rain was just marvellous. My disappointment has been that those people don't seem to have returned. You know we did that exhibition for a reason. People who had vaguely heard the name 'Picasso' came to look. But it didn't seem to create a new art-going public. The problem is that many people don't have the leisure or the R15 to come here. Those that do think it's not good enough. They go to the National Portrait Gallery or the Louvre to say that they have been there. They don't come and look at what's going on here. It's only the overseas visitors that do come.
But with the Picasso exhibition, everyone found a way to come. It was great working with Museum Picasso and to work on a project with no financial worries. The funding from Standard Bank and the French meant that we could implement the proper education programmes for learners and for those with disabilities. That was doing what we should be doing: opening the doors. The texts in braille... Works embossed... Luxuries as we think of them that are actually necessities.
The Albert Adams show is also a highlight from a personal viewpoint. Then there was Kentridge with the Handspring Puppet Company. And Marlene Dumas: again rewriting South African art history in the minds of the general public if not in the actual textbooks. For me it is important that these figures like Marlene, Pancho, Albert who are coming from the margins with no access to the general public here are given a chance.
I enjoy controversy. Maybe that's why I enjoyed 'MisCast', Pippa Skotnes' exhibition. It was so controversial and difficult to put up. But I enjoy difficult things.
Another very important thing that I've achieved here is to get new posts and to change the composition of the curators so that we have a curator for photography - initially Kathy Grundlingh and now Pam Warne - and a curator for historical African art - Carol Kauffmann. So there are now different kinds of posts.
I've also managed a certain openness. We understand that we can't do everything. We are happy to draw on other people's ideas and expertise. I like this co-operation. We haven't built a little closed-off empire.
I'm also proud of our work with HIV/Aids. We hosted the 'Positive Lives' exhibition from the UK as early as 1993.
TM: That seems very much ahead of the government on that issue.
MM: You have to be ahead of the government!
TM: So if you were to look at how you see this institution in the future: what would you say to your successor?
MM: Just as I built on the work of Raymond van Niekerk, I would like the next person to build on what we have done. Maybe in a completely different way. Build other buildings (metaphorically) and use it as a foundation for the future.
Oh yes: my one disappointment is not being able to build (physically build) a Centre for Contemporary Art in the car park. The constraints of space are severe here. I have managed to get it onto the list of DAC and Public Works. It is still a dream, but a dream that is making its way onto people's lists. The paper foundation has been laid. Now my successor needs to make a real building!
