Media Flaws

If I approached a gallerist, let’s say friendly João Ferreira, and told him I wanted to exhibit a blanket I once wore during the Xhosa practice of umaluko (something some people call going to the bush), would there be any harm in that? Tell me? Would that blanket be considered an artwork? And if yes, an artwork by me? Because I hardly remember ever sowing a blanket together. I might have dirtied it and all, but never stitched the darn robe.

I’m getting to a point here.

Just make sure you keep the idea of my blanket in mind as I take you through the recently opened Dungamanzi/Stirring Waters exhibition at the Iziko National Gallery in Cape Town. Look, I could easily sum-up this entire review by saying: Dungamanzi is the usual stereotypical parade of native primitivism. But that would be non-patriotic of me. Dare I say such about fellow natives who’ve been given a platform in one of South Africa’s major galleries. Which is summed-up as: “In the past, the voices of artists who created traditional artworks were largely absent from museum and gallery displays.” Dare I say that most of the ‘artworks’ weren’t even artworks – they were, just like my blanket, normal objects. But of cause it’s the eyes of the beholder that redefine, give meaning and throw an entirely different light on our day-to-day African objects. A headrest? A walking stick? A Shangaan dancing dress? Please! Maybe the Jackson Hlungwane sculptures could be classified as art, as well as the bead work that was used to draw pictures of the not-so-pleasant past. But in terms of terming dresses and walking sticks as artworks – please!

The entire exhibition conjured memories of Thomas McEvilley’s Exhibition Strategies in the Postcolonial Era, where McEvilley raises the notion of “The West and the Rest” – I can’t really remember it word-for-word but it basically acknowledged the West’s obsession with exhibiting objects from other cultures – especially cultures they once tried to colonize. Such objects, now known as ‘artworks’, were usually relocated to curio rooms – yep, objects of curiosity.  (I’m trying my best to remember that article so forgive me if I don’t give it to you as it was).

So there I was in the midst of observers observing the objects of Tsonga and Shangaan art from Southern Africa. Today I won’t go into race politics and highlight that the majority of the observers were of this and that decent. Instead I’ll just resort to telling you that I left early. I just can’t take this laziness anymore. Lazy curators who are interested in showing South African artworks must do more than just google stuff and ask a ‘black’ friend to get them something authentically African so they can show it off. No. They must get off their arses and actually go and see what those people are doing. Simply getting a dress or a walking stick doesn’t cut it. You cannot limit African ‘artists’ to sculpture only – there’s more to just molding trees and stitching things up goddamnit! The refusal to see Africans as capable of doing anything conceptual and above beadwork and treework will always limit what we are shown in exhibitions such as Dungamanzi! Yes, curators of African ‘art’: your limit of thought should not be the yardstick measurement of African ‘artists’ and their capabilities.

Phew! I’m tired. Let me go back to McEvilley – where he states that these objects were not just objects of curiosity but rather also served the purpose of trophies – something which the Western explorers (who in this case are Iziko, Johannesburg Art Gallery, National Heritage Council, Natalie Knight Gallery, Ove Arup, CD Shipping and the Consulate General of Switzerland) use to show-off their ability to penetrate other cultures (Tsonga and Shangaan). Also interesting to note is that I did not meet a single Tsonga or Shangaan person at the exhibition. Did they even know their ‘work’ was being Saartjie-Baartmaned in Cape Town’s Iziko?

Hm, so I still wonder if a gallerist would actually take my blanket?