Tom Sharpe’s comic novel Indecent Exposure mercilessly lampooning white racism in South Africa was predictably banned under the apartheid government. I managed to get my copy during a visit to Sun City, where such contraband was legally obtainable (since it fell within the boundaries of the ‘independent’ homeland of Bophuthatswana).
In one scene, a distraught white woman confides to psychologist Dr von Blimenstein her fears over the rampant sexual appetites of black men and, in particular, their penises. Of the latter, she babbles, “They’re eighteen inches long and three inches thick and they’ve got foreskins like umbrellas and – “, at which point she is interrupted.
Related to this is the critic David Rosen’s theory that the sexual theme of the film King Kong touches on “the standard racist myth of the black male’s exaggerated sexual potency, and the complementary notion of his insatiable desire for white women”. Of course, in this reading, the Empire State Building in the movie’s famous culminating scene is seen as “the world’s foremost phallic symbol”.
Not everyone will buy into this interpretation of the film, but so far as the “racist myth of the black male’s exaggerated sexual potency” goes, it can hardly be denied that we are dealing with an abiding reality. Thabo Mbeki’s bizarre theories on HIV/Aids are believed to have at least in part been motivated by sensitivities over the characterisation of Africans as being intrinsically promiscuous.
All this, as you may have guessed, is leading up to the day’s big issue, namely the rights and wrongs of the Brett Murray portrait depicting Jacob Zuma’s genitals. This is not to say that I believe Murray to have harboured the above-mentioned prejudices, even at a subliminal level. Nevertheless, he has, like it or not, strayed into this dangerous territory. In terms of the outrage it has sparked, it may be the proverbial elephant in the room.
This is one reason why I, albeit that I have never been exposed to this form of prejudice, feel deeply uncomfortable about the painting (as I did about Zapiro’s even more derisive caricature of the president’s much talked-about member). Another is that, for all his shortcomings, I do believe that the leader of our country should be accorded an appropriate degree of respect. He is, after all, the face not just of his party or his government, but of South Africa as a whole. Moreover, he has been entrusted with making innumerable crucial decisions that affect the lives of millions. Surely, by virtue of the dignity of his office alone, he deserves a little more respect?
It is true that Zuma’s exuberant fecundity has provoked no little embarrassment to South Africa, particularly when it has taken place outside the boundaries of his five marriages. At the end of the day, though, he is not the only world leader who has been criticised for his over-active sex life. Obvious examples of others include Bill Clinton and Silvio Berlusconi, and I am unaware of their private parts having ever featured in cartoons or artworks.
I have just heard that the Murray painting has been vandalised. If true, I suppose I ought to feel a sense of outrage over this crime against art and freedom of expression. Right now, I only feel that the artist and the host gallery have gotten what they asked for.
Clinton’s nose was caricatured as a penis post-Monicagate, and Berlusconi has been the subject of much below-the-belt satire in Italy and elsewhere in Europe. Just FYI.
Zuma has spent almost his entire time in office either playing internal power games or rocking out with his cock out; had he wanted to be depicted as a statesman instead of as a transport system for a phallus, he might have tried comporting himself with the dignity the office of the presidency demands.
First, with regard to the “dignity of the office”: It is the sovereign right of every free person to say, as another piece in Murray’s show is titled, [and pardon the language, moderator, but it *is* the title of the piece] “Fuck All Politicians.” There may be some few who enter politics solely to serve the people. They are very, *very* few, and it is the very essence of freedom to be able to say to our leaders, “Sod you, Jack.” Or, if you prefer, “the emperor has no clothes.”
Second, and really, this is the biggest problem here, it’s not Zuma’s penis.
How do I know that? Well, because in the piece, “Glory,” there’s another penis, and I don’t think it could be described as anatomically correct dropping out of an imperial eagle. Nor is the depiction of Zuma in “Spear” a portrait — he doesn’t look like that. President Zuma is a somewhat portly septuagenarian, not a New Soviet Man astride the globe. Any more than his depiction in “Cash is King” could be considered a “portrait.” He’s not that rotund.
It’s a symbol. Some may view it as crude, sure. But this isn’t some paparazzi “upskirt” taken while JZ was getting out of the tub, meant only to titillate and sell magazines. Or, for that matter, to denigrate the man himself. Undoubtedly, art critics far more literate in symobology than I could offer their thoughts on what that symbol means, exactly. And probably will.
But it doesn’t address the faux outrage.
And let’s be clear: it is faux outrage.
Clearly, it’s not just because there’s a penis — otherwise, why wasn’t “Glory” defaced? Where are the calls for the censorship of anyone who might like to look at Michelangelo’s David? Or Donatello’s blatantly homosexual one? Or, for that matter, bare breasted Marianne, or Liberty, or Justice? Or, heaven’s forfend, the many depictions of Mary with breast bared to feed the infant Jesus? Or any of the thousands of other depictions of the human body in art, from antiquity to today?
It would be awfully hard for an African to be terribly outraged by the appearance of a phallus in art — it’s was a staple of pre-colonial culture.
So it’s not just the “private parts”, is it? Nor, as the tepid reaction to Ayanda Mabulu’s “Un-mute my tongue” shows, is it even the depiction of Jacob Zuma with his penis. I don’t recall Mr. Mabulu’s piece being destroyed, do you? And Zuma’s depiction there was considerably more denigrating than anything in Mr. Murray’s pieces.
So, what is it exactly about the circumstances here that engenders outrage? That’s what needs addressing and answering.
Is it because Mr. Mabulu isn’t white? Is it because he was mocking pretty much everyone, and not just JZ and the ANC? I don’t have the answer, nor am I sure there’s just one. But *those* are the issues, not whether a few splashes of paint can undermine the “dignity of the office.”
If that’s all it takes, there’s not much dignity…
One person who would agree with you is Thabo Mbeki who went off on a total rant in parliament on just this topic quoting one of his many Racist Black American writers when Tony Leom suggested that the ANC should provide ARVs for raped women after Charlene Smith had that terrible experience.
Zuma’s lifesyle must be Mbeki’s worst nightmare!
Of course one may justly argue that Murray’s painting is rooted in racist mythology. However, the fact that Saks thinks that it’s OK to deface a work of art — basically, censoring a statement — because he doesn’t like what it says, shows rather painfully how little respect he has for anyone else’s freedom of expression.
Once you start silencing people because you don’t like what they say, there is really no reason to not to jail or kill them. Nor can you say “well, this is a special case”, because it’s actually a trivial case.
Totalitarianism is very tempting when you are in power.
The ANC’s reaction to the pic displays an immature, aggressive and intolerant attitude towards criticism and/or satire and that within itself is an unhealthy symptom reminiscent of dictators and totalitarian regimes elsewhere around the world.
We should worry about the stance of the Pres and not penis.
Private parts. With so many wives, so many probable wives in waiting and scores of girlfriends, private is not the right word as they are very much Public Parts now! A survey was done of 2,000 women who were asked if they would sleep with the president. 85% said “never again”.
Ho hum. I think this is all an over reaction. The real issue with David Saks’ usually impeccable writing is ‘gotten’. Eeeek. Would ‘got’ not have sufficed? I am drowning in this awful, modern form of the verb, to get.
” He is, after all, the face not just of his party or his government, but of South Africa as a whole.”.
Exactly! So let it be known that not all of SA’s citizens are happy with the image he projects to the rest of the world. Some of us feel deeply ashamed of our president sometimes. All Brett Murray did was expressing what a large part of SAffers think.
Ah well, it got our minds off JM good and proper, didn’t it?
It also made clear how deep are the rifts between the ANC, many of its voters and others. No wonder we all have to tread so warily all the time.
How his children can talk about his dignity is beyond me. Were I one of them, I would drown in humiliation simply due to the relationship. In fact, I’d probably beg to use my mother’s maiden name throughout my life.
We should have learnt something from this, if only that calling on parents to teach values at home could be calling on the devil to take over our kids.
I’d love to know whether his adult daughters would consider becoming someone’s third or fourth wife.
MLH
No ways! Zuma’s daughters are the new elite – they would only marry as first wives (Number 1 wives in Chinese polygamy), which is the only wife that counts, the junior wives being the equivalent of her servants.
How can one match the shifty face
of a man so unsuited to this place?
Though he’s no lion or swiftfoot hare
wherever he turns he finds a lair
to perform such pressing official engagements
as result in serial nuptial arrangements.
Bank clerk, farmer or staff nurse
lobola is met by the public purse
and earned him a reputation:
a Caliban to lead the nation.
Though for a guy who loves to score
Lothario might’ve pleased him more.
From ‘Letter to South Africa/Poets Calling the State to Order, Umuzi, 2011.