I would like to imagine that it was because of last Thursday’s apocalyptic load-shedding that none but the staunchest art followers turned up at the opening of The Trickster at Art Extra in Craighall. Granted, the committed group numbered over 100, but it consisted of, invariably, the same über-cool art crowd one expects to see at every other opening in Johannesburg (only this time, made über-cooler by the appearance of some graphic designers and magazine people).
I am not at all suggesting that this sort of attendance is a problem. Openings are, after all, art parties and who should frequent them if not people in the industry? However, it bothers me that so-called “regular” folk — mothers, partners and lawyer friends, for example; those who are not particularly au fait with the discourses of contemporary South African art — often feel that these events are beyond their grasp. The spin-off is that many shows that may be just as worthy but less prolific than The Trickster are often grossly under-attended.
To swing the pendulum the other way, Sunday’s launch of Rwanda: Lessons Learned, 14 Years after Genocide at the Apartheid Museum was attended mostly by Jewish mamas (and grandmamas), students, journalists and a few historically engaged souls who came simply to sympathise with the cause. There was nary an art regular in sight. The event was orchestrated to commemorate the third annual International Day in Memory of Victims of the Holocaust, and the customary message form the United Nations secretary general was read by Margaret Novicki, a representative of the UN Information Centre.
Other speakers included advocate George Bizos (who liked me very much because I have a Greek name, which must have been emblazoned on my chest …); Don Krausz, a South African Holocaust survivor; and Marguerite Sabamahoro, who managed to escape the Rwandan genocide as a child. This amounted to a very worthwhile way to spend an afternoon — it was interesting and moving, and the snacks afterwards were tasty.
I find this sort of stark bifurcation of exhibition attendance somewhat unjustified. Of course, according to institutional protocols, a museum’s documentary exhibition wouldn’t quite crack it on the arts calendar. But it scarcely needs to be pointed out that forums for public thought and information as topical and historically astute as Sunday’s event should be considered valuable enough to be attended by those who consider themselves attentive to social and historical discourses (that is, the art crowd). Similarly, those who visit museums and find the accessibly realistic form in which ideas are presented manageable might benefit from a little exposure to the aesthetic and conceptual labyrinth that is local contemporary art.
Primarily, without indulging in a diatribe against the elitism of art, I want to be a little bit Marxist and propose that what Johannesburg needs is a layman exhibition-attendance revolution. If nothing else, this will dilute the appearance of the divide, and eventually may contribute to the kind of discursive dovetailing that befits and adds to public intellectual life in a singularly post-colonial context.
Moreover, gallerists and artists would be glad for the increased exposure, and gradually (all other things being equal) people like me who are intimidated as hell by the meticulously dishevelled art fairies would find friends at openings and would not have to pretend to be looking for the bathroom to avoid awkward conversation.
“beyond our grasp” is a bit insulting, don’t you think?
Is it possible that most people find the current art scene a great big self-serving fake and most of its artworks tedious, pompous nonsense? (No doubt your artworks are different, but this has been my experience at an awesome number of supposedly elite galleries.)
Well, perhaps what some might call pompous and fake, others might (perhaps unduly) feel is “beyond them”. I wasn’t making an evaluative statement about the intelligence of so-called ‘regular’ people. I am suggesting that it is problematic and unnecessary that certain people are made to feel, or have the impression that, art is too high-brow for them to understand or appreciate.
And, by the way, I don’t make art anymore (well, at least not for public consumption). Now I write about it.
I completely agree with Ms Buys. I think ,in no uncertain terms, that Art has become the domain of verbose, long winded fiends.
The kind of culture that has been created around the arts only serves to isolate art events and practitioners to a very select (and dare I say elite)group of people.
Lets cut the BS and get real about art. Lets get everyone involved.
I think its a little optimistic to say that most (or at least, many) people who DON’T attend gallery or exhibition openings are avoiding them because they consider that the art on display, or the art world as a whole, is beyond their grasp, or elitist. I think it is optimistic to assume that most people have a desire to engage with the art world, and are either too intimidated by “high-brow” concepts or too annoyed with posturing and pretension. Apathy towards the art world as a whole is, to my mind at least, the main force that keeps “regular folk” away. Some people just don’t consider going to art events, for the same reason I would not consider going to see Michael Buble or Josh Groban. Just not my “thing”.
But you would think that the promise of interesting speakers, or, at least, a free glass of wine, would draw MORE “non art” people to an opening. It is a difficult call to make, however, as other factors, such as publicity, come into play. Seeing it once in a publication like the M&G is not the same as receiving an invite to an opening in your inbox. And, beyond that, the assumption is often that those openings are “closed” affairs. When I was involved in exhibitions I was often asked “are you sure I can come?” when telling friends about events. The exact same thing happens in the theatre world.
Wow Annie. You write so beautifully. That’s all I have to say. Nothing intelligent or on-topic to add
Could the problem be that people simply do not take the time to educate themselves about art? If you know nothing about it, you can hardly have any interest in it? If you have no interest, you will not attend openings.
In European countries, exhibitions are sometimes sold out. Can you imagine that? So many people that the gallery has to close its doors and turn the art faithful away in their hundreds and thousands. In Russia I have been jostled aside by old women and teenagers so eager were they to get a better look at a series of Rembrandt lithographs. Queues out of the museum grounds are not uncommon.
Why there and not here?
Because those people know what art is, what it represents and why it is significant and important. It was an integral part of thier education. As a result, they derive an emotional high from seeing it in person. Most of us here do not because we simply do not attach the same value to it.
Great blog Annie!
I think a large part of the problem is that the advertising for these sorts of events is limited and therefore not very effective. And sometimes I think that this is intentional.
As for the “meticulously dishevelled art fairies” (great image!), I think that most non-”art crowd” people wouldn’t really be too bothered by them if the art itself was accessible. Too bad so much of it is so often deliberately created to be part of a discourse which only a few understand or care about. However, if more of the general public engaged with art, and started to ask questions and offer their own criticisms it might even things out a bit.
In a country where there are pressing issues of justice and need, a rich mix of cultures, a colourful history, and tragically entertaining politics, perhaps contemporary art fails to arouse wider interest because so often the subject matter is so focused on the personal and internal worlds of the artists, rather than the shared issues which unite us all.
So viva mothers, partners, lawyer-friends and other laymen; let us drink their free wine and show them what it really means to be scruffy, without pre-meditation!
A what? A “layman exhibition-attendance revolution”?! Hooray! A great idea. Perhaps this is where events like ArtUP are showing the way forward…
Also strongly agree with Doug, that artists need to get out of introspection and make work that engages with the shared issues of our existence in South Africa, at this time.
Which might then make bathroom-searching unnecessary…but hopefully the tasty snacks will still be around!
This South African Heritage Day (24 September) marks ten years to the day when The Apartheid Museum began nationwide distribution of a concept document that anticipated broad South African participation in the erection of a R1Billion structure called The Apartheid Museum. The founder and originator, Mike Stainbank, began development of the concept in 1977 and registered the trademark The Apartheid Museum in 1990. In March 2000, after many years of slogging from door to door in an effort to find partners, funders and an appropriate location he finally received the one line he had been working toward:
“The Apartheid Museum will be built in Bloemfontein.”
This brief outline of the origins of The Apartheid Museum is to be broadened into a film in which Stainbank hopes to secure the likes of actors Sean Penn and Denzel Washington, playing the part of New York attorneys. Under the working title “THE APARTHEID MUSEUM – the true story”, the draft outline – for now punted as a feature documentary – draws on years of investigation which Stainbank conducted on Gold Reef – the casino company which markets Abe and Solly Krok as “co-founders” of The Apartheid Museum.
The script grants the “co-founders” the centre they claim for themselves and unearths volumes on their lives and history. It explores the patriarchal role Abe and Solly Krok played as the financial muscle behind their BEE consortium which pitched for the Casino License. Although this will be a South African production in every aspect, the New York backdrop, while adding international appeal, is important to shaping the profile of Abe and Solly Krok. Stainbank has already bought the entire record of Case No: 90/4016 in Central District Court of California where Abraham and Solomon Krok (along with Arlene Krok and Sharon Krok Freur and three others) were defendants in a $25M case of fraud brought by the Bank of New York and two other banks. This matter is on record just 7 years before the Krok’s participation in a pitch for a Casino License. “The case against the defendants outlined by the banks lawyers makes for an intriguing insight into the defendants. Beyond their superb acting I am partial to actors like Sean Penn and Denzel Washington for these lawyer parts. Their real life, personal activist profiles, will add to a movie such as this.”
Advocacy and activism are currently at the core of efforts of The Apartheid Museum and this film is a part of the mission Stainbank set in the development of The Apartheid Museum 30 years ago. The Declaration of The Apartheid Museum reads: It shall be incumbent on The Apartheid Museum to engage progressive movements throughout the world; disseminate information to its broad constituency locally and internationally to market its facilities, services and programmes, remain vigilant, alive to change and development relating to issues of human rights and social justice.
The story, in its fullness, coalesces into many astonishing ironies. “I have found that those who have taken the time to read into the facts are downright offended by the impertinence of Abe and Solly Krok” says Stainbank. Abe and Solly Krok were leaders in the skin whitening business in South Africa. The products they manufactured were laced with hydroquinone and mercury. Eventually banned in South Africa, studies show the irreversible horrors of hydroquinone on the skin. Here the point is about the considerable wealth the Krok family generated from this business; the foundations of the capital that funded Gold Reef. But this element is brought into political perspective by a pointed question: What lies at the core of a human being willing to turn a blind eye to the efforts of Black pride and self-actualisation in a crippling apartheid circumstance?
“For me though the greatest irony is that The Apartheid Museum became first victim of its own mission. Even as I anticipated that Apartheid would be with us for a long while yet – to this day I remain astounded by the apartheid style stratagem that was used by Abe and Solly Krok and Gold Reef. With adequate patronage in place the elaborate plot was made replete by drawing on noted, though malleable, individuals from the ranks of the oppressed, to lend legitimacy to the dispossession.” The film synopsis reads: That a palpable fabrication, using the exact modus operandi of the apartheid system, can take root and reside comfortably without consequence is a fascination deserving dramatization on screen.
The development of the script has been blessed with fresh revelations around Gold Reef conduct. A recent news report describing Gold Reef as “the most egregious example of corporate greed” adds enormously to the script. “Way back in 2001 hardly anybody, not the media, and least of all shareholders, listened when we screamed about the lack of ethics and morality at Gold Reef. We feel vindicated by the findings of the Securities Regulations Panel earlier this year. Since the release of the SRP report Gold Reef shares have lost almost 45% of their market value.”
Throughout, the script moves back and forth showing conduct that drove the apartheid mindset while drawing parallels with the facts that make up the true story of The Apartheid Museum. Even as the central message carries social themes of racism, class, power, fraud and dispossession, the intention is for a gripping film in the mould of Inside Man – directed by Spike Lee. Here the character Arthur Case (Christopher Plummer) aided and abetted Nazi dispossession of Jewish property. Come the end of the war Case’s enormous wealth, harvested on the plight of Jewish victims of the Holocaust, propels him into the upper echelons of American society. He slithers into the new dispensation as a banker and high profile philanthropist, believing that little acts of charity will appease his conscience; that something clean can from a thing unclean. On its own facts the story of The Apartheid Museum is plentiful in subterfuge, political intrigue, corporate excess, patronage, racism and deceit. The dramatic climax seeks to draw attention to the matter of an apartheid past against the South African quest for a values based society. More importantly it seeks to identify who sets the example and who exactly erodes those values; the hungry thief, the hijacker or the flush corporate entity sitting with perceived integrity on the JSE.
Investigations into Gold Reef, Abe and Solly Krok and their BEE partners began in 2001 when, unbeknown to Stainbank, Gold Reef assembled reputable local and international media to announce the opening of “The Apartheid Museum” and not Freedom Park, which they had presented to the Gauteng Gambling Board in their 1997 pitch for a Casino License. When Stainbank sued for infringement they applied for expungement, making central to their case, voluminous press clippings of the fabricated version presented to an unsuspecting media.
The fabrication, now sold to South Africa and the world through the writings of highly reputable journalists under trusted media titles had the desired effect. The trademark The Apartheid Museum was expunged in Class 41.
The continuing effort of The Apartheid Museum® operates under the trademark in Class 35 registered by Stainbank in 1998. This trademark is the only registered trademark and is protected by law which gives exclusive use to the proprietor – Mike Stainbank.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:
The Apartheid Museum®
Mobile: 083 391 7077
Landline: +27 11 807 2041/2
Fax: +27 11 807 0766
Private Bag X63 – Rivonia – 2128
Email: [email protected]
(Write to this address to request an electronic version of this Press Release)
WEBSITE: http://www.stainbank.co.za