As promised, here is Richardt Strydom’s comment on the recent “debate” that has been raging around his winning image in the 2008 Sasol New Signatures competition:

With regard to the public debate surrounding Familieportret No. 2, the following response:

My opinion with regard to the date of completion of an artwork in general, and Familieportret No. 2 specifically, I proffer the following: I have a library of images that have been photographed over a number of years up until the present. However, I do not consider any of these to be finished artworks. Without the deliberate retouching, editing, formatting, cropping, printing, editioning and signing and the express intention of making these images public in finished form as artworks, these images remain artworks in progress.

I would also argue that a negative couldn’t be considered an artwork, unless the negative was the intended end product or medium as determined by the concept and content of the artwork, which in the case of print based photography (and the artwork under scrutiny), it most certainly is not.

Furthermore, as a conceptual artist I consider the completion and release of an image as an artwork with regard to its proper timing and context very carefully and deliberately. In essence this completes the artwork for reception. In my opinion, the amount of press and debate this image has garnered is for me evidence that the timing was most effectively chosen in this case. Particularly because, the image raises current issues such as the impotent position of the white male in the current post-colonial context (this obviously extends across social, economic and moral spheres), and is a debate that has been surfacing repeatedly in the South African media over the past year, and therefore in my opinion creates a most poignant context. If one investigates the inter-textual art historical references made in the work Familieportret No. 2, such an interpretation becomes cogently clear.

Again I would like to point to the fact that this image, as representative of a part of my oeuvre is a deliberate construction — a masquerade of signs. The photograph is clearly not documentary — nor sneak photography, but was deliberately and consciously posed and styled according to specific art historical references. The intertextual references, which the poses of the models alludes to (Michelangelo’s David and Gabrielle d’Estrées and One of Her Sisters from the School of Fontainebleau) are in fact generally accepted representations of classical ideals of beauty. Furthermore, the pose of the couple does not refer to depictions of the Christ-family as one source suggested, but to the Arnolfini-portret by Jan van Eyck.

Unfortunately, the majority of press coverage tended to sensationalise and fixate on the male nudity without making the effort to contextualise this as a mere sign within the greater construction of the image and the social contexts it alludes to. However, in my opinion it did stimulate many other worthy debates — many of which are already potently addressed by other artists, but who did not benefit from the exposure this podium has afforded me. In my opinion this also highlights the role that art competitions such as the Sasol New Signatures play in the South African arts — to expose, invigorate, to stimulate and to encourage debate. Whether one agrees or not, in the absence of alternative platforms or sources of funding, the role of corporates needs to be considered and debated. — Richardt Strydom

• Asking nicely...is a bad position to be in

This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 16th, 2008 at 10:51 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.