Comments on: Sasol’s smut: things get nasty

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 02:37:38 +0000

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.

By: Elmarie Claassens aka Amalanka

Elmarie Claassens aka Amalanka — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 05:17:48 +0000

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!!!!!

By: Riaan

Riaan — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 06:10:42 +0000

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.

By: Anthea Buys

Anthea Buys — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:00:24 +0000

Er, do you mean Roger Ballen (Van Balen)? Roger Ballen meets Van Halen, maybe?

By: Lillo

Lillo — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 11:57:11 +0000

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.

By: Kit

Kit — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:04:29 +0000

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 ]

By: Mike A

Mike A — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:38:43 +0000

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.

By: Franci Cronje

Franci Cronje — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 07:48:45 +0000

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.

By: Anthea Buys

Anthea Buys — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 07:23:37 +0000

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.

By: Willem

Willem — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:18:49 +0000

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.