At the end of August Sasol begrudgingly handed over R60 000 to Richardt Strydom (whose name nobody seems to be able to spell correctly) for his winning artwork in the Sasol New Signatures competition, Familieportret No 2. The photograph, which you can see here, depicts a young white couple standing in an unkempt garden, the man naked from the waist down with his genitals showing, tweaking the exposed nipple of his female companion. She is wearing nothing but panties, black socks and an open dressing gown and clutches a baby doll. A mangy-looking dog stares dispassionately out of the picture plane. The image is a critique of small town Afrikaner culture, but we wouldn’t know this with any certainty apart from its suggestion in the title, because Sasol has removed Strydom’s artist’s statement from the New Signatures home page (or maybe it was never put up), where it is supposed to be. The runner up Nare Mokgotho’s artist’s statement stands 468 words long alongside an image representing his work, but where Strydom’s should be is Mike Beisheuvel’s feeble statement that Sasol would like to “distance” itself from his work.
This is interesting. In the 18 years that Sasol has sponsored the New Signatures competition they have never expressed contention with the selection of winners. But then again, they have never had to deal with nudity — and not just any nudity, male nudity — and a smattering of criticality at the same time. You can read Hayibo’s satirical summation of the penis problem here.
If Sasol had only known what they were in for this year, they might have motioned for the rules to be changed, or even vetoed the decision. But how could they have known? They are just the money, after all. The New Signatures competition is adjudicated by a panel of judges selected by the Association of Arts, Pretoria, whose evaluation process remains completely free of interference from Sasol’s head honchos. These men (invariably) or their buxom secretaries are nonetheless expected to say something intelligent about the selection at the award ceremony and from my experience of the competition over the last four years, they have only ever given the most moronic votes of support to the recipients of their money. Then, after having had nothing worthwhile to say about the winner’s work, they acquire it and have to look at it in the Sasol canteen everyday. Of course, since penises don’t always look so nice in canteens, Sasol will not be acquiring Strydom’s Familieportret No 2.
Sasol is embarrassed by the image because, as they put it, “some members of the Sasol staff as well as some members of the public may be challenged or even offended by the piece …”. God forbid anyone should be challenged by art! Therefore, the statement goes, Sasol feels “it is both responsible and appropriate” to “distance” itself from Strydom’s piece. If you can stomach it, read the whole statement on the New Signatures website.
Biesheuvel does suggest, however, that Sasol does not intend this as a step of indirect censorship of the competition and believes that their condemnation of Strydom’s image will not have a controlling effect on the content of works entered in future competitions. How naive does this man think artists are? If I want a hassle-free R60 000 next year, I am going to enter a pimped photograph of the Johannesburg skyline. No class critique. No sexual explicitness. And definitely no Afrikaners.
A number of important questions arise out of this situation:
Firstly, what exactly does it mean for Sasol to “distance” itself from artwork? How is “distancing” different from disapproval, since Biesheuvel explicitly says it is not Sasol’s objective to “offer any form of censure” within the New Signatures judging process?
Next, why has Sasol seen fit to silence the artist in all this? In my opinion it is unacceptable that his work is unaccompanied by an artist’s statement on the New Signatures website.
Lastly (for now), if this is Sasol showing their true, dull colours, do we really want them as a sponsor of the arts in South Africa?
I will go into this some more next week, but for now …
Uh-oh
In the midst of all this, a fresh scandal has emerged with one of the subjects of Strydom’s photograph Johan Steyn coming out of the woodwork to express his incensement at the publication of the image. Steyn told The Times in an article published yesterday that the image was publicised without his or the unnamed second subject’s permission. Moreover, Steyn says, the image was shot eight years ago and by submitting it for this year’s New Signatures competition, Strydom breached competition rules specifying that works submitted must not be more than a year old. From competition chair Franci Cronje’s statement to The Times, it seems that Strydom might be exonerated from this accusation if he actually printed, signed or dated the work within the last year.
Do we need a subject’s permission before publicising their image for personal gain or at all? If so, what are the implications of this for just about all artistic production (and even photojournalism)?
Watch this space early next week for Strydom’s say on the whole debacle.
Related Posts
None
This entry was posted
on Friday, September 12th, 2008 at 3:54 pm and is filed under Perspective.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
21 Responses to “Sasol’s smut: things get nasty”
Gasp! And sies! NUDITY!?! Rather we start wars, kill babies and pollute the air than depict NUDITY!!
You okes remember this: Your piel is disgusting and dirty and shameful and filthy and you should save it for the one you love.
This just gets better! I just read your second stukkie.
Some oke who could have stayed anonymous actually comes rushing out of the woodwork shouting “DIS MY PIEL DAARDIE!” How marvelous! Someone please send Strydom another 60 grand!
Where are our comedians: Come on, guys, this is rich and rewarding stuff, and I can’t wait to hear your take on this!
Do we need a subject’s permission before publicising their image for personal gain or at all?
That depends. If you are a public figure, like Madonna or Jacob Zuma, then no. If you are a nobody, then yes. I would be devastated if a picture hanging somewhere shows exactly how hung I am without my prior knowledge, my consent or my reimbursement.
By the same token, a public figure could always see how far they get with lawsuits and other interesting hobbies of the rich and famous, but by virtue of being a public figure you do sacrifice a certain amount of privacy ordinarily reserved for the disenfranchised (yawn) classes.
If Sasol had only known what they were in for this year, they might have changed the rules, or even vetoed the decision. But how could they have known? They are just the money, after all.
As it should be. Sasol sponsors the event, and this is a wonderful gesture - not to mention a great way to get rid of excessive corporate tax.
I do feel Sasol is entitled to their opinion of any art work - informed opinion or not. For Sasol to express their disgust at witnessing boerewors is one thing. For Sasol to stop sponsoring New Signatures, or to start interfering in the evaluation, or to start censoring submissions are different matters entirely.
By analogy, just because your tax money is paying for the Gautrain, doesn’t mean you have to like the project. By the same token, expressing your disgust over the Gautrain and burning down the Gautrian are two different matters entirely.
I think it is bighearted of Sasol to still award the prize money, even though they wish to distance themselves from the meat and two veg as far as possible. I will revise my view once Sasol starts becoming more than just the prize money.
I quite like the art work, despite the offensive tottie-toting Afrikaner. Looking at it while consulting corporate clients or sipping a cold one down at the pub might not go down so well.
On the other hand, Sasol could train their staff to always cover the offending parts when they move into or out of their offices, like they do in Austin Powers movies. Or they could use the old apartheid Scope black stars until the next New Signatures.
Come on! Penises are ALWAYS going to be controversial and any “artist” who wants to stir up a bit of controversy knows exactly where to go to find the spoon. This is not rocket-science, people!
Some of their employees might be challenged!!!!!!!!! Heavens forbid that should happen, their brains might explode. Hilarious commentary, far outstrips the entertainment value of the art in my view. But then I should be challenged by it, not entertained I guess. Never mind, perhaps my head already exploded and I’m now living in a parallel universe.
Note an important clarification: the judging panel for New Signatures is appointed by the Association of Arts, Pretoria, and is unaffiliated with Sasol.
This is brilliant. Richardt could not have bought this type of publicity! This is how you know your art works – its 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!
As for the intrinsic value of the pic itself – well, I wasn’t at the event, but if he won 1st prize, then the rest of the entries must be pretty dismal.
I think that if you look at the artwork it is clear that the model was fully aware that he was in a picture that is clearly set up.
So my thought would be that he knew that he was on a work that would be exhibited. So to come later and say that he was not consulted is pure rubbish.
Usually one signs model release forms, but that is not neccesary at all times.
I’m sure that the model had to have been aware of the intention of what the picture was taken for.
Secondly, if you have such an issue with being in an image, why make such a fuss. Its purely building the publicity around the image, resulting in more people seeing your penis…
I think no-one could’ve asked for this amount of publicity as an artist.
Anthea, pray do tell, what aspects of small town Afrikaner culture could the image possibly be criticizing? I know from personal experience that Afrikaners love to walk around without pants, but are precast cement walls and washing lines peculiar to our culture? Really?
Willem, this was not my critique of the image, but rather one implicit in the title of the work and promulgated by whoever is responsible for the PR of this competition. I agree with you that some deeply problematic racial assumptions may be inferred from the image if it is read as a critique of “Afrikaner” culture (as if this were one unified phenomenon).
Willem, this is fascinating stuff! What’s in a name? The fact that the artist named the image ‘Familieportret’ led people to ASSUME that the couple is Afrikaners. I wholeheartedly agree with Anthea that the Afrikaner culture is in no way some ‘unified phenomenon’.However, although an ‘Afrikaner identity’ could have been assumed from the title, this assumption was in no way promulgated by the PR of the competition.
I quote out of the publicity statement: ‘The work depicts a controversial level of nudity. However, the judging panel felt the entry could be any South African family, or part of the global community of suffering middle-class.’
If this was interpreted by journalists in a different way, the blame can by no account, be laid on the shoulders of the PR.
Anthea, there you have it from the horse’s mouth. Personally, I interpret the image as being a critique of Afrikaner counterculture. The Johannes Kerkorrel lookalike with the limp dick is rather plausible as a visual pun on what the hedonistic and ideologically bankrupt “Voëlvry” generation has bequeathed us.
Obviously the judging panel’s sense that this “could be any South African family” is just demographically false. Maybe it could be any white South African family, but with a title like “Familieportret No 2″ it’s hardly likely to be read as an English-speaking one.
And I don’t think it is unreasonable for viewers to assume from the title that the couple is Afrikaans. The artist’s choice of a title is inevitably a deliberate gesture.
Willem, I would not contest your interpretation at all, and I don’t think the point of any part of this discussion (from my perspective at least) has been to enforce a particular reading of the work.
Anthea, I agree with you on the interpretation, but once again, I have to emphasise that it was the artist’s own title, and not the PR of the competition, who led in this regard.
Considering the brief to artists entering this competition, I am pleased that this work is stirring up debate on so many levels. Personally, I believe that an artist’s main obligation to society is to act as protagonist.
The artist’s job is not to be agreeable, but to ask questions and make people think.
I have heard some of the standard critiques of the outlook that I express here, but I have a couple of questions.
Is there any such thing as “public decency”? Are artists exempt from public decency (do artists have an automatic right to do or say anything in the name of art)? What was the theme or rationale of the competition?
Sure, the position that says that there are bounds on pubic behaviour and expression runs into difficulties around who decides and on what basis. But, do these difficulties mean that there can be no restraint in public life? That anything goes, and this is OK? What about bestiality or child abuse being depicted? OK, so there are some moral boundaries - the question is where are they.
The real problem, in my view, was that Sasol was naive in allowing an “anything goes” approach, and expecting that no “problematic” results would come forward.
Mike, was ‘pubic behaviour’ a Freudian slip or intentional? Either way, bravo. It’s made my day.
[I have a small mind and watching AIG slink the way of Lehman Bros is not helping. It’s the end of the world, I tell you ;)]
Talk about tongue wagging!!
I feel that attacking an artist who is dead and cannot defend himself or what he stood for is unnecessary and not relevant here. There is a photographer, Van Balen (I forget his first name) who went to ALL the small towns across South Africa and photographed people who, for the lack of a better phrase or word looked like products of incest. There were guys with slobber stains on their T-shirts, and as the picture was taken, had strings of saliva stretching and reaching out to those very stains. His (Van Balen) work is compelling and different and no one complained about it. There could be several logical reasons for this, 1. He did not win R 60,000, 2. The photos were printed in a coffee table book, 3. The subjects never knew what the photos were taken for and will never have enough money to splash out and purchase a coffee table book.
As far as exhibiting your bits for a friend who happens to be a photographer, well that is entirely up to the subject. But putting such a photo up for exhibition and entering it into a competition without as much as mentioning it to the subject I feel is morally wrong. Who are you to decide whether your friend’s bits should be on display? This photo was taken as part of a Technikon project, years ago. When a photo is used for commercial gain and exhibition, a model release IS most definately required. Richardt, being a lecturer in one of the leading Photographic training institutes in SA (Vaal Triangle Technikon) knows this, teaches this. He should’ve known better.
The subject happens to be a friend of mine and I agree with him, beacause I myself am a fine art photographer. He has not much shame in the photo, otherwise he would not have allowed it to be taken. His issue is merely with what we are discussing here - the fact that it has become so public that one of his clients can open a newspaper and actually see his riches. Who would want that? Come on!
By the way, he looks NOTHING like Johannes Kerkorrel but at least he has the same spirit.
If the model really want to remain anonomous, why did he make sure that his name was mentioned and linked to the photo in just about every newspaper available.
As far as I know it was the Mail&Guardian who had the guts to publish the picture, and I’m not aware of any others. In fact Johan Meyburgh stated in an article in the Beeld that the paper didn’t have the guts.
So technically, what could’ve been one or two people seeing the pic, became a much larger group due to the model deciding to ‘out’ himself on a national scale. Unbelievable.
Well done Richardt!!
You made people observe, think, talk, bitch, moan, ponder, argue, celebrate, laugh, snicker, debate, fume and cry! You are therefore reaching emotions and the subconscious minds of SO many. Isn’t that what art is also supposed to do???
Congratulations!!!!!
Elmarie Claassens aka Amalanka on September 28th, 2008 at 7:17 am
I don’t know why the blokes from Sasol are all up in arms. Surely, if you fund modern “art” and you get stuff that offends you, you should not act all hurt and surprised? After all, for almost a century now, whenever mainstream “art” had any point at all (which was actually rather seldom), its point was to offend, or else simply to be as hellaciously ugly as the “artist” could make it. Now if a big company is going to pay a bunch of adolescent-minded amateurs to pull out all the stops, what the heck does it expect will happen?
Having seen the “art” of past winners of the competition, I have to say that I think the whole thing is a gigantic waste of money. Thank heavens it’s private and not public money.
For what it’s worth, Strydom’s photo doesn’t offend me in the least. It is as blandly pointless as everything else Sasol has been blowing its money on for the past decade or two.
All comments must be approved by our editors, click here to read the editorial guidelines for comments. Please allow some time for our editors to approve your comment after posting.
profile
Anthea Buys is an independent journalist and curator who writes about visual art for the Mail & Guardian. However, that does not mean that anything she says on this blog is said in her capacity as a contributor to the Mail & Guardian. She gets really annoyed when people think it does. She curates exhibitions when she can and reads about curating them when she can't. Two of her great grandfathers - one maternal, one paternal - were world champion boxers. She can't throw a straight punch, but then again, she doesn't need to (not yet).
Anthea's links
ArtThrob A fine monthly webzine on art in South Africa. Quoted by students everywhere (didn't they tell you not to believe everything you read in the press?). I am the new Gauteng editor for this site.
If I could ask Harald Szeemann -- one of the most influential curators in recent times -- just one question, it might not be this (though that's not t...
Molemo Moiloa and Nare Mokgotho are fed up with the commercial gallery system, even though both of them would do exceptionally well at it if they had ...
On Monday May 10, Lulama (Lulu) Xingwana, South Africa's minister of arts and culture, was meant to deliver a keynote address at a major Fifa-sponsore...
Aren't we lucky, here in the art world, to have as qualified a moral barometer as Lulama "Lulu" Xingwana, (minister of arts and culture, formerly of a...
I'm just back from a month's curating course in South Korea, courtesy of the Gwangju Biennale Foundation. I spent my spare hours in my dingy downtown ...
Loading ...
Gasp! And sies! NUDITY!?! Rather we start wars, kill babies and pollute the air than depict NUDITY!!
You okes remember this: Your piel is disgusting and dirty and shameful and filthy and you should save it for the one you love.
(Report abuse)