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 agriculture and land affairs) to let us know when we have become bad people. Even more valuably, and perhaps more in keeping with her portfolio, the minister is helpful in pointing out what does and does not qualify as art, a tricky distinction and one that often leaves artists and art journalists flummoxed, paralysed, before a blank canvas or screen.
On March 1 the Times reported that Xingwana had, five months after the fact, confirmed that she had stormed out of the opening of Innovative Women exhibition at Constitution Hill in August 2009 — when she had accepted an invitation to give the opening address — on the basis that Zanele Muholi’s photographs of black lesbian couples embracing are “immoral” and contrary to nation-building. Oh yes — I almost forgot — not only does the minister do us the service of ruling on our morality and pointing out when we are and aren’t doing what we think we are, but she also very kindly reminds us of why we should be making art in the first place — we are all nationalists! Of course!
In her own words, quoted in an article published on Wednesday on the Mail & Guardian Online: “Our mandate is to promote social cohesion and nation-building. I left the exhibition because it expressed the very opposite of this. It was immoral, offensive and going against nation-building.”
The offending pictures, which Xingwana’s spokesperson, Lisa Combrinck, described as portraying some kind of sex act, are black and white photographs of lesbian couples lying in sleepy, comfortable embraces with all the rude bits hidden by carefully placed drapery (okay, one nipple almost sticks out, but come on — the history of art is littered with nipples). There is no sex. Maybe some light spooning and sleeping, a little kiss, but certainly nothing like sex.
But even if Muholi had produced a series of pictures of lesbian couples, or straight couples for that matter, having sex, what’s the big deal? There is nothing new about sex representations in art. Even pornography — as in pictures cut and spliced from pornography magazines — have made it into artworks without so much as a grimace or a giggle from relevant critics, funders, buyers or historians.
The minister’s disapproval has, I think, everything to do with her bizarre misconception of the mandate of a state arts and culture portfolio and her squeamishness at same-sex love, or perhaps even at female sexuality per se, regardless of its orientation. Female sexuality has, particularly in this country, endured remarkably more censorship in the arts than male sexuality (need I bring up the Useful Objects example?). Penises we seem to be able to deal with. Vaginas — if we must concede that they have something to do with female anatomy — we want at least to pretend that they are superfluous to issues of women’s rights and well-being.
It’s all very Victorian, and there’s enough right there to rant about for pages. But what I love about this story of Lulu’s march of righteous indignation is that her own department funded the Innovative Women exhibition to the tune of R300 000. Technically this dissemination of Muholi’s treasonous, immoral propaganda, or whatever it is, is her own fault. Sure, the grant was probably awarded some time before she assumed office in May 2009, but one would think she might have reviewed the proposal when she took up her new seat. At the very least she might have asked some departmental underling for a synopsis of projects supported in the most recent funding cycle.
Even more astounding than this omission is that she agreed to the honour of opening the exhibition without bothering first to find out, in any detail, what the content of the exhibition was. Did she think Zanele Muholi (if she even knew Muholi was on the show) was going to take photographs of kittens chasing butterflies in the morning sun? Or of dutiful, sturdy women feeding their hungry husbands and sons? One day, I want us to have a minister of arts and culture who happens, if not to know anything about arts and culture, to have a remote interest in them.
“Our mandate is to promote social cohesion and nation-building. I left the exhibition because it expressed the very opposite of this. It was immoral, offensive and going against nation-building.”
Does the minister have enough integrity to engage JZ in the same manner over his stance on AIDS, lust children ? In fact just about anything the ANC does nowadays seems to be immoral, offensive and against nationbuilding. Ministers with integrity: resign!
Which does not mean that I agree the fotos are ART.
(www.Art Mahala shows a black woman, nipples et al putting on a white dildo…..)what please makes this disgusting snapshot of peoples sexual preference ART ? Its the typical move: provoke a big stink or scandal that puts the public opinion on the back foot, in order to then justify your position as righteous, hallowed, untouchable, all of course within some whishi whashi illdefined concepts of’art’. I resent this abuse of art that adds no value except for hyping up the ‘artist’ (activist), whose cause in this case are gender issues and the abuse of samesex minorities. I would not want children to be confronted with that particularily distasteful picture, that is my simple guideline to art, the rest is just boring softporn.
Why is it that child pornography is not also ART?
It’s such a disturbing story. I and several friends actually wrote to Mr. Memela, the PR and Marketing Director in her department to politely express our dismay ([email protected]).
As you imply here, the minister’s reaction speaks directly to her competence. It suggests that we now have an art Manto.
The symbolism of a cabinet minister’s grotesque display of homophobia on Constitution Hill could not be more appropriate to illustrate the dangerous gang of reactionaries that now govern Nelson Mandela’s South Africa.
We can only hope that the document that they despise so much can save South Africa from their biblical ideologies.
Artists are only supposed to paint beneficent pictures of president Zuma. If they are doing anything else, then their talents are of no use to the ongoing struggle.
Speaking at the recent funeral of Winston ‘Mankunku’ Ngozi, the greatest saxophonist South Africa has ever produced, said minister referred to jazz giant John Coltrane as ‘John Koltraanie.’ She is certainly knowledgeable and highly qualified to lead us into a bright future when it comes to arts and culture!
Why is it that child pornography is not also ART? That is meant as a rethorical question.
I understand that there are people who find gay people “immoral” (however silly they may be).
But I’m really not clear on why being gay is “going against nation-building”. Anyone?
Oh the shamefulness of it all! Why couldn’t Muholi stick to conservative sexual subjects like polygamy and extramarital sex with your friends kid? Whatever was she thinking of? Obviously did not get permission from the ANC before she chose her art topics. How irresponsible. Who’s going to overpopulate the world of her work (wow!) inspires young woman to follow suit? Muholi, all I can say, (apart from Excellent!) is that you consult The Party like a good little comrade before you engage in such daring escapades again. Be sure to consult the ANC Moral List before you start. (It changes from day to day)
Oh Anthea, what can I say… Thank you for bringing yet another comedy of errors to our attention. You must remember, this is the same government that put the lady who said sorry after she stuffed up the environment and the mining industry in her post as Minister of Mining into the post of Minister of the Environment. I suppose it is a case of if you don’t at first succeed (pun intended) you will be forced to try your hand at something else.
The rubbish that E-TV, mechanical sex by mostly white people, dishes up around midnight, is immoral.
And now every rural child whose hut has received electricity and the inevitable TV, watches this over weekends.
Mama Lulu should really check into this if she wants to make a moral contribution. Concern about children at the art gallery: “ga!”.
All ministers should read the more than 600 scientific articles and books on homosexual practises amongst animals. No,NOT in captivity.
Pres Zuma also, because he is appointing the homophobe SA columnist, Jon Quelane, as ambassador to Uganda, who proposes the death penalty for gays).
Zoologists have discovered since the 1700’s that 10% -20 % of more than 200 recorded animal species is homosexual, lesbian and bi-sexual. Mammals, birds, bees. Sheep, buck, baboons, elephants, dolphins, whales, lions, crows, kangaroos. Some even manufacture dildos and others couple forever, protecting their bond against intruders and adopting children.
Many primates craft sex toys from smooth stones and sticks – similar to dildos of ancient cultures.
“Scientist” WJ Tennant wrote in 1987: A Note on the Apparent Lowering of Moral Standards in the Lepidoptera Butterfly. (!) Immoral butterflies? One Christian denomination prohibited “sex crimes” by animals (1882)!
A biologist: “To state that bighorn rams have a homosexual society was emotionally beyond me… those magnificent beasts ‘queers’ – Oh God
Google it, or read read BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE by dr Bruce Bagemihl.
Does anyone still remember Mr Jacob Zuma’s statement in 2002 that oral sex is “unnatural”? Oops.
Apposite! It would really be a pleasure wouldn’t it? Especially as we have so many highly talented artists who should be showcased to the world as well as ourselves. Could someone please lock our Minister away during June and July so that we can show our visitors our amazing art works? Oh, and that other cultural vulture in KZN so the Elephants can run free?
I’ve wondered about this.
Taking the honourable minister out of the equation: what are homophobic people so afraid of? What are they finding so indignantly immoral? What are they hiding from themselves? Afraid a little bit of you would come leaping out of the closet in a tutu and rugby socks?
Gosh, what would the family say if they found out I *endorsed* this exhibition? Oh the shame, the shame! Afraid some of the stigma we are trying so hard to get rid of will cling to you and stink up the neighbourhood?
Ah… as a straight male I wonder why people find homosexuality so off-putting. A sense of rejection, maybe?
but yes – it would be nice to have a minister of arts and culture who knows a fraction about it.
i see mme xingwna is concerned about lust. she should also be concerned about greed, pride and gluttony; when she is, i will actually start to care about anything she has to say.
[and doesn't "shouldn't you go back to your own country" from the floor of parliament make her also guilty of the *real* sin of sodom?]
Beautiful pictures. I am a straight grandmother, but I see beauty in diversity of all kinds including sexual orientation. Philistines disturb me. The Minister, shows as do so many of the ruling elite, when push comes to shove how backward and reactionary they really are. Go Zanele Muholi you rock.
Devil’s advocate: In her individual capacity, her reaction to the photos was an honest one. And art is never universally accepted; if it is, then I question the reason for its existence. It’s unacceptable to say it’s tits & ass, there’s tits & ass in all the greatest works of art hence this here is art. Should she have censored herself? Gone with the mass acceptance? Should she have gritted her teeth and read her speech despite her conscious’ objections? Shouldn’t the bigger deal here not be her reaction but rather if she’s made any efforts to change funding policies to suit her art preferences? I am grateful that she’s brought the debate about what exactly constitutes art to the front pages. Buddha knows this event didn’t get THIS much publicity back in August.
I do not regard sarcasm in this particular case to be the way to go. I personally would not want my child to see such “art”. What is art anyway? Define it? Is it not supposed to be a tasteful and beautiful portrayal and expression of emosion and life? Is sexually-related “artistic” photography the only way women can be portrayed in art? Our ministers are not all perfect, but I think in this case she was right…
X cepting what a great idea….
Polygimme the art expo!
Love it!
Without commenting on the virtues or otherwise of this article, I have this quastion to pose.
Name one Government Minister who has the right credentials to do what their minsitry demands of them. This exclude those in finance.
ANC membership and ‘stuggle’ credentials do not qualify you to do anything other than sing, dance and wave your machine gun all about.
would love to see the pics before i comment. any one with a link?
Everytime I hear that we wouldn’t want children to be exposed to the images of the artist I cant help but think about how many kids actually went to the art show or how many are on their cell phones right now looking at porn, watching their mothers and sisters deal with being raped, etc, etc, stop using the children as an excuse, deal with you’re own prejudices and bigotry and realise that the world is complex, that their is enough room for everybody’s viewpoint, and art like culture, politics, religious beliefs, beauty, all depends on the person.
Who cares… Surely there are more important things to get uppety about?!
The fact that the models are black is IRRELEVANT. It was more about lesbians than specifically about BLACK lesbians. No need to racialise it.
halfhalf – you’re deeply repressed and not too bright, as your choice of words indicates. But to spell it out in terms even you can understand: child pornography, involving as it does people who cannot legally consent to sexual activity, is a crime. Nude photographs of consenting adults engaging in consensual sexual activity, on the other hand, can have artistic value or not, but they are not a crime and hence are not the same as child pornography.
Are we clear? Good. Now go rub one out to Leviticus or something and let the grown-ups talk, okay?
Of course there exists the possibility that black lesbianism is on the rise because black women are being marginalised in the love stakes.
And if this is the case, who can blame them? It is, after all, government policy that diversity should be fostered and encouraged through such things as mixed university residences.
The problem arises because diversified heterosexual couples display a pronounced bias in favour of the lighter female.
The joke is that she and her fellow supporters wrote the constitution. Did they not take fondness into account, when they put in ‘homosexual’ and ‘same-sex’?
On the other hand, I am often amazed at how many black girls and boys (underage) walk around holding hands and with their arms around each other. Getting past these chains of humanity in doorways or on pavements is invariably a difficulty. She’s only fooling herself if she thinks that NEVER goes further.
And as for all those public tits on the front pages of newspapers, dancing the reed dance… that’s okay. It’s cultural! Art she thinks, is not!
@Clay, there are some images of the works in the Times article (to which there is a link). But here is a link to a slideshow published by the M&G today:
http://www.mg.co.za/multimedia/2010-03-05-innovative-women-exhibition
@Lize Ri,
“…Is sexually-related “artistic” photography the only way women can be portrayed in art?”
No it isn’t, and women are portrayed in art in any number of ways if you would care to look.
@ Michael Lierman, in wishing to jump to conclusions you obviously skipped my later posting, in which I qualified the question as being a rhethorical one. A rhethorical question posed to provoke.
Does any depiction of nudes or nakedness become Pornography and/or inevitably imply sexual activity? Hows that for warped thinking. Plenty of family photo albums around with cute little kids around catching a body tan, and not all those from nudist sun worshippers.Pornography? Child molestation?….Some say the work of Balthus is child ponography because he preferred painting young girls. Some playing Musical instruments with very organic shapes. Or what about Georg Baselitz painting “Die grosse Nacht im Eimer” of 1962 , depicting a pickly faced adolescent youth stroking his huge penis . Baselitz was brought to court, public indecency etc. but the case petered out. By the way a painting which i would be able to place in a context, by means of which the difference between Art and pornography could well be elaborated on. This whole discussion a classical case of ‘in the eye of the beholder’. Your tasteless closing comment reveals what’s foremost on your mind.
“Michael Lierman, in wishing to jump to conclusions you obviously skipped my later posting, in which I qualified the question as being a rhethorical one. A rhethorical question posed to provoke.”
Oh, look. Someone on the internet is playing devil’s advocate, or claiming to do so. How very original. Never seen any of that before.
Seen the photos- minister was right-sexual congress not art.Bravo minister for walking away.Goodonya
Michael, get satisfied get a kleenex, wipe yourself. Check mate.
@haiwa tigere,
One man’s pornography is another man’s art. If you think “sexual congress” is pornography you are a sad case.
Well, having seen the images I have to ad that I have seen more sexually connotative images in You magazine of late. It is important to remember that in this case the Minister is not acting as an individual but rather as a representative of her Department, and of South African society on the whole.
I can respect her own preferences when it comes to art; she is entitled to her opinion. What she forgot, was that we have constitutional rights; freedom of expression and freedom of sexual orientation. As a representative for the South African government and therefore our constitution, it is her job to grin and bare it (pun intended).
Pornography is widely defined as, “the depiction of explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement.”
This series of photographs does not seek to illicit a sexually exited response from viewers. It exposes the real lives behind one of South Africa’s most disenfranchised and abused groups of people. It is powerful work and the Minister’s prejudice and inhibitions only prove that it is very necessary.