The art of attention seeking
Blurring the lines between artistic expression and insult: Ayanda Mabulu and the Zuma-Gupta painting
There is irrefutable evidence to buttress the view that South Africa is the victim of its liberal constitution. If those who died fighting for freedom of expression and other human rights were to be resurrected today, I am certain they would react with disbelief and disappointment to see how these rights are being abused by some.
People who never raised a finger to set this country free are making a mockery of the hard-fought freedoms, under the guise of “freedom of expression” and “human rights”.
Artist Ayanda Mabulu has made himself one of the culprits in the abuse of freedom of expression – wittingly or unwittingly so.
In his most recent episode, Mabulu has produced a highly controversial painting which was displayed at Constitutional Hill in Johannesburg. He titled it The Pornography of Power with the sub-title The situation that we are in in the country.
In it, Mabulu depicts President Zuma licking the behind of a naked Atul Gupta – performing a sexual act.
Mabulu sets the scene in an aircraft decked with the ANC flag. He creates the impression that there is a cocktail party going on.
But what do we make of this “artistic expression” from a common sense point of view? Surely, the piece could be looked at from different vantage points? To some, this could be an honest expression of the artist’s reading of the situation in the country, and therefore an articulation of how he feels about the way things are. From this point of view, Mabulu is merely demonstrating his professional skills in art, and his political awareness of the state of affairs in South Africa today.
Specifically, those who share such a view would argue that Mabulu uses art to present his succinct summary of his interpretation of the relationship between the Gupta family and President Zuma.
Looked at from this vantage point, there is nothing untoward in the manner in which Mabulu has captured the narrative about this relationship. The conclusion would be that there is nothing sinister about the artwork or the title or theme of his piece.
However, from where I am standing, I honestly find the artwork not only disgusting, insulting, and disrespectful but culturally misplaced.
As a norm, education and professional skills do not necessarily contravene cultural practices. In that sense, Mabulu could be able to use art and his artistic skills to convey his understanding of the situation in South Africa as well as President Zuma’s relationship with the Gupta family – both real and imagined – within the cultural ambit. In other words, there is nothing preventing him from doing so without necessarily insulting the President or denouncing his cultural convictions.
Before being the president, Zuma is a black African and a South African. Moreover, he is an adult with children and grandchildren, and members of society who hold him in high esteem.
Secondly, as president he is technically the father of the nation. As such, he deserves respect. Where constructive criticism is necessary, that could be done without vulgarity, disrespect or insult.
For me, what is projected as “artistic expression” is, in fact, “artistic negligence” and a sheer insult which is devoid of professionalism and common sense. In a way, it amounts to abuse of one’s right to demonstrate his or her professional skills.
Different meanings could be drawn from Mabulu’s artwork. First, those who applaud him would argue that he is “a hero” who is not shy to express his views and feelings artistically.
Secondly, they might espouse the view that he is a professional who does not allow his cultural upbringing or religious convictions to obstruct his views on academic freedom and the right of expression. In a way, such innuendo could not be summarily dismissed. Police officers arrest their own parents in line with their profession. Similarly, genuine lawyers build a case against those they love in compliance with their professional injunctions. Lastly, all professionals who take oath of office abide by it no matter what.
Be that as it may, to me what we see in Mabulu’s artwork is a disgrace, not just to him as an individual but also to other artists who applaud him. It portrays such artists as people who abuse their rights and freedom of expression.
To some the artwork portrays Mabulu as someone who is less of an artist than a person who is seeking public attention.
What gives credence to the latter point is that this is not the first time Mabulu has produced an artwork about President Zuma. His earlier attempt did not seem to have caught the public eye. On the other hand, the artist who showed President Zuma naked won the limelight.
Given this context, one would argue that Mabulu felt aggrieved and wanted to up his game so that he could receive attention. Little did he think about other people’s rights which could be trampled upon by his artwork. Moreover, he does not seem to have considered other people’s emotions other than his intended target – President Zuma.
In the final analysis, Mabulu’s Zuma-Gupta painting calls for introspection in a number of South Africans.
It implores professionals in general, and artists in particular, to know how to balance the scale between upholding their profession and grounding professionalism on humanity.
And it demonstrates the danger of using dubious means to seek public attention.
Ambition is only good when it is nurtured properly. Failure to do so changes “popularity” to “notoriety”.
I doubt that Mabulu has passed this challenge.