The Spear (painting)

The Spear is a painting by Cape Town-based South African artist, Brett Murray. It depicts former South African President Jacob Zuma in a pose reminiscent of Lenin, with his genitals exposed.[2] The painting triggered a defamation lawsuit by Zuma's party, the African National Congress (ANC), and was vandalised on 22 May 2012.

The Spear
ArtistBrett Murray
Year2010[1]
TypeAcrylic on canvas
Dimensions185 cm × 140 cm (72.8 in × 55 in)
LocationGoodman Gallery, Johannesburg

Exhibition

Prior to its being vandalised, The Spear was shown at the Goodman Gallery in Johannesburg, South Africa. The painting featured as one of the pieces of artist Brett Murray's Hail to the Thief II exhibition, which commenced on 10 May 2012.[3] Inspiration is understood to have been drawn from the Viktor Semyonovich Ivanov's poster Lenin Lived, Lenin is Alive, Lenin Will Live.[4] The exhibition features various pieces that are critical of South Africa's ruling party, the ANC, showcasing sculptures and images that suggest corruption and bad governance.[3] Murray's works in the exhibition also include modifying ANC liberation struggle posters and flyers from the Apartheid era, some displaying the text "Amandla, we demand Chivas, BMWs and bribes".[5]

Public perception of Jacob Zuma

Zuma has often been the centre of scandal and ridicule, due to his polygamous lifestyle with many wives and girlfriends,[6] and a comment he made during his 2006 rape trial that showering after sex would minimise the risk of contracting HIV.[7] His lifestyle has made him the target of well-known cartoonist Zapiro, who frequently depicts Zuma with a shower on his head, ridiculing the statements he made during his trial.[8] Zapiro was also sued for defamation by the ANC, with a hearing expected in October 2012.[9] These public perceptions of Zuma provided part of the basis for Brett Murray's painting.[9]

Zapiro added fuel to the fire by doing his own version of the painting, replacing the genitals with a showerhead.[10] Another appeared two days later, ridiculing Zuma.[11]

ANC response

Owner and director of the Goodman Gallery, Liza Essers, said that she received a telephone call on Sunday, 13 May 2012 from special advisor to the minister of arts and culture Mduduzi Mbata seeking to clarify her thoughts on the exhibition, after it had been reviewed in the newspaper City Press, along with a photograph of The Spear. During the brief conversation she invited him to visit the gallery the following Tuesday, but he never kept the appointment.[12]

The ANC issued a press release on 17 May 2012 expressing outrage about the painting and their intention to apply to the High Court to have it removed, this being reiterated by attorneys representing the ANC and Jacob Zuma in an email sent to Essers the same day.[12] The painting drew strong condemnation from ANC rulers and various religious groups, who found the painting 'obscene' and 'vulgar'.[13] A leader of the Nazareth Baptist Church called for the artist to be stoned to death.[12] The ANC also demanded that the image be taken down from the City Press' website. ANC spokesperson Jackson Mthembu said of the painting, "The African National Congress is extremely disturbed and outraged by the distasteful and indecent manner in which Brett Murray and the Goodman Gallery in Johannesburg is displaying the person of comrade President Jacob Zuma".[14] Zuma responded to the artwork by saying that it painted him as "a philanderer and a womaniser".[15]

In response to the impending legal action, gallery spokesperson Lara Koseff said its lawyers had responded that it would stay until the show was over, citing censorship concerns as central to the decision to allow the exhibition to continue.[13] The ANC Women's League has also demanded that the exhibition be halted, and all instances of the image be removed from the internet.[16][17] Brett Murray said that his painting had not been intended maliciously, but as "an attempt at humorous satire of political power and patriarchy within the context of other artworks in the exhibition and within the broader context of South African discourse".[18]

In the first day of legal proceedings, the representative for the ANC, Gcina Malindi, began sobbing and was unable to proceed, causing the process to be adjourned and postponed and the television coverage of the event was suppressed. Later, the ANC sought to drop proceedings.[19][20][21][22]

Consequences

The ANC's public condemnation of the painting brought widespread local and international attention to the painting, where otherwise it may have remained a relatively obscure piece of work. For this reason, the action and subsequent fall-out has been characterised as an example of the Streisand effect.[23][24] Subsequently, The Spear has been featured in editorials and news features in all forms of traditional and digital media.

Former ANC leader Oliver Tambo’s daughter Tselane Tambo was of the opinion that Zuma deserved Murray’s portrayal of him. She wrote on a social networking site, “Do the poor enjoy poverty? Do the unemployed enjoy hopelessness? Do those who can’t get housing enjoy homelessness? He must get over it. No one is having a good time. He should inspire the reverence he craves. This portrait is what he inspired. Shame neh!”.[25]

The media boycott of City Press by the ANC and various public figures led to the newspaper eventually removing the painting from its website on 28 May 2012.[26] The paper's editor-in-chief Ferial Haffajee cited several reasons for this decision, including violent threats made to her team by those supporting the boycott.

Media boycott

After City Press repeatedly refused to remove an image of the painting off their website, the ANC called upon its members and sympathisers to boycott placing advertising in, and buying of, the weekly paper. A statement released by the ANC said: "Their refusal to remove this portrait from their website and their controlled social media is a clear indication that this newspaper does not belong to our shared democratic dispensation and values." Responding to the boycott, City Press editor-in-chief Ferial Haffajee described Nzimande's call for a boycott of the paper as "deeply disturbing".[27]

The ANC was criticised by the South African National Editors' Forum (SANEF),[28] which said "While we recognise the right of the ANC to advise members on how to exercise their consumer decisions, the call for a boycott of a newspaper is tantamount to intimidation and abuse of power ... This kind of behaviour is unbecoming of a party that functions in an open democratic stage and especially one which leads the national government."[29] The boycott of City Press was further condemned by the International Press Institute (IPI),[30] and by 28 May, ten days after the newspaper printed the painting for the first time, opinions in the ANC had divided with several senior members opposing the boycott.[31]

Defacement

On the morning of 22 May 2012, two men entered the gallery during visiting hours, and defaced the painting - first by painting a red cross over the depiction of Zuma's face and genitals, and then by smearing black paint over the canvas. The two men — Barend la Grange and Lowie Mabokela[32] — were arrested by security officials. This defacement took place whilst court proceedings brought on by the ANC around the right to censor the image were underway.[18][33]

The way in which the two men were arrested also drew criticism: Barend la Grange was arrested without any apparent violence, while Lowie Mabokela was head-butted and thrown to the ground.[34][35][36]

Classification

On 22 May 2012, the Film and Publication Board (FPB) of South Africa announced that a team of five classifiers had been sent to assess The Spear,[37] following specific complaints to the FPB, which is the statutory body responsible for classifying, and applying age ratings and content advisories to, works published or distributed in South Africa,[38] including films, computer games, images of all kinds, and printed publications;[39]:1, 3 however, "Only pornographic publications need to be passed by the FPB before they are released on the market" while others are considered based on "complaints received from the public regarding specific publications",[40] and the FPB's jurisdiction specifically excludes newspapers[39]:3[41][42] and the broadcast media,[41][43] which are regulated by separate entities. For this reason, the FPB proceedings could only consider the painting itself, its display by the gallery, and its publication or possible publication on websites or in other venues subject to FPB jurisdiction; and could not address the publication of images of it by newspapers or broadcasters.[39]:3[41][42] During the classification proceedings, there were allegations that the FPB was acting outside its statutory remit,[44] and that specific members had made statements or asked questions implying that it was entitled to censor political opinions and restrict freedom of the press.[45]

On 1 June 2012, the FPB announced that the classifiers assigned to 'The Spear' had rejected a complainant's call for the painting to be rated X18[39]:5 (placing it within the category of legal pornographic works that must "be passed by the FPB before they are released on the market",[40] and that may be distributed only by licensed distributors, who are required to obtain proof of age[46]:19), but had decided on a 16N rating for the original, undefaced and uncensored, painting, meaning that measures should be put in place to prevent access to it and to images of it by those under the age of sixteen, and to advise "sensitive adult viewers" over sixteen that it contains nudity (but not explicit sexual content, which would have been designated by an S in the rating).[39]:5[42][47][48] In its press statement announcing the classification, the FPB referred at length to its statutory authority and responsibilities, in particular its role in "promoting the safety of children";[39]:1 and explicitly denied that it had been influenced by political figures or had acted beyond its jurisdiction, saying that "We believe that reports to the contrary have been specifically designed to defame the Film and Publication Board, question its integrity, competence, credibility as well as formulate as a reality the false notion that the state seeks to silence and censor the media by all means possible and with total disregard for accepted procedures and principles".[39]:3 In reply to questions, FPB chief operations officer Mmapula Fisha said that The Spear differed from other works of art containing nudity, and merited the 16N classification, because "The artwork has forced society to revisit its painful history".[42] After the classification was announced, the Goodman Gallery was reported to be seeking legal advice, but to have said they "felt it would have a significant impact on freedom of artistic expression",[49] a criticism also made by commentators not involved in the case,[50] while others expressed concern about political censorship.[51][52][53][54][55][56] The full report of the classification committee responsible for assessing The Spear was subsequently made available online.[57] The classification was open to appeal.[39]:2[58]

On 10 July 2012, the Goodman Gallery announced that it would be appealing the classification decision,[59][60] and the following day the FPB confirmed that an appeal had been lodged.[61][62] On 13 September 2012, the Goodman Gallery made written submissions to the Film and Publication Appeal Tribunal, and its written arguments were also made available to the press.[63] The tribunal heard oral argument and evidence on 17 September 2012.[63][64][65]

On 10 October 2012, the FPB announced that the Film and Publication Appeal Tribunal had upheld the Goodman Gallery's appeal, setting aside the classification and thereby removing all restrictions on publication of and access to the painting.[66][67][68] The tribunal's full ruling[69] was published on the same day.[70] The Appeal Tribunal approved the original Classification Committee's determination that The Spear should not be classed as pornography,[69]:5–7 but found against the committee, its procedure, and its classification on several grounds, including that the decision had been based on flawed arguments and interpretation of the relevant law;[69]:7–11 that the committee had relied on conclusions for which no evidence had been presented either during the original classification process or to the Appeal Tribunal;[69]:13 that the FPB should not have considered a complaint against the publication of The Spear in newspapers or on their websites, because the FPB has no jurisdiction over such publications, and should instead have passed complaints against them on to the appropriate regulator;[69]:3 that the committee had wrongly taken upon itself "responsibility for balancing conflicting rights" that properly belonged to the courts, and was beyond the "much narrower mandate [of] the Classification Committee";[69]:10–1 that the FPB had wrongly, and in violation both of the rights of their publishers and of legal principles of procedural fairness, "appeared to extend its ruling to all websites that contained electronic replications of the painting and to all other publications of the painting", rather than restricting its decision to the specific named respondents who had been accorded an opportunity to make representations during the classification process;[69]:3–4 that due weight had not been given to the painting's status as a work of agreed artistic merit enjoying greater statutory protection from both publication and age restrictions;[69]:11–3, 7 that the committee had wrongly deemed nudity per se to be grounds for considering a work of art "potentially disturbing, harmful, or inappropriate to children";[69]:13 and that the committee had used the system of "restrictive age classifications" designed solely to "protect children" (and not adults) from potentially "disturbing, harmful, or age-inappropriate material" and "from premature exposure to adult experiences"[69]:9–11 in a way that "was not legally permissible" for "the purposes of protecting sensitive viewers or assuaging the sense of indignity felt by some segments of the community"[69]:11 by effectively restricting adults' access to a published work that was neither illegal nor pornographic.[66][69]:7–11

Comparisons

The Spear portrait has invited comparison to other satirical pieces, including fellow South African artist Ayanda Mabulu's work, Ngcono ihlwempu kunesibhanxo sesityebi (Zulu: "Better poor than a rich puppet"), which depicts various regional and international political figures - including Jacob Zuma - in the nude. The painting received additional attention following the media focus on controversial satirical artworks.[71]

References
  1. "Why Zuma's Spear should stay up". Newzimbabwe.com. 23 May 2012. Retrieved 26 July 2012.
  2. Govender, Peroshni. "Presidential penis portrait riles S. Africa's ANC". Reuters. Retrieved 19 May 2012.
  3. "Goodman Gallery - Hail to the Thief II". Goodman Gallery. Retrieved 19 May 2012.
  4. "The painting of President Zuma". www.inside-politics.org. Retrieved 7 June 2012.
  5. Sameer Naik and Kashiefa Ajam (22 May 2012). "It's staying up!". The Saturday Star. Retrieved 22 May 2012.
  6. "Jacob Zuma - "Polygamy is part of my culture"". Radio Netherlands Worldwide. Retrieved 19 May 2012.
  7. "SA's Zuma 'showered to avoid HIV'". BBC News. Retrieved 19 May 2012.
  8. Nicolaides, Gia. "Zapiro revives showerhead". iafrica.com. Retrieved 19 May 2012.
  9. "Jacob Zuma painting: ANC to sue South Africa's Brett Murray". BBC News. 18 May 2012. Retrieved 22 May 2012.
  10. "Published in Sunday Times on 20 May 2012". Zapiro. 20 May 2012. Retrieved 24 May 2012.
  11. "120522tt - President Zuma outraged at Brett Murray's Painting - Spear of the Nation". Zapiro. 22 May 2012. Retrieved 24 May 2012.
  12. Dubin, Steven (5 June 2012). "Liza Essers, Gallery Owner, on the Show that Scandalized South Africa". Art in America. Art in America. Retrieved 7 June 2012.
  13. Mosomane, Phuti. "Zuma painting against Ubuntu, African morality, culture". The New Age. Archived from the original on 26 May 2015. Retrieved 19 May 2012.
  14. "ANC to go to court over Zuma painting". News24.com. Retrieved 19 May 2012.
  15. "Painting makes me a womaniser - Zuma". IOL.co.za. 20 May 2012. Retrieved 20 May 2012.
  16. "Painting violates president's integrity, says ANCWL". Times Live. 19 May 2012. Retrieved 19 May 2012.
  17. Stephen, Grootes (19 May 2012). "Zuma portrait saga goes to court". Eyewitness News. Archived from the original on 2 June 2013. Retrieved 19 May 2012.
  18. Pasley-Banks, Carrin (22 May 2012). "Zuma painting defaced at Goodman Gallery". News24. Retrieved 22 May 2012. The controversial painting depicting President Jacob Zuma with his genitals exposed was defaced by two men at the Goodman Gallery in Johannesburg on Tuesday.
  19. "Zuma lawyers tears as court hears rude painting case". BBC News with video. 24 May 2012. Retrieved 7 June 2012.
  20. "ANC advocate sobs in court". News24. 24 May 2012. Retrieved 7 June 2012.
  21. "'South Africa court hears Jacob Zuma obscene painting case". BBC News. 24 May 2012. Retrieved 7 June 2012.
  22. Conway-Smith, Erin (24 May 2012). "Jacob Zuma The Spear painting case postponed indefinitely". GlobalPost. Retrieved 7 June 2012.
  23. "Just Hanging Out". 6000 Miles from Civilization. Retrieved 19 May 2012.
  24. Mahere, Fadzayi (23 May 2012). "Why Zuma's Spear should stay up". New Zimbabwe. Retrieved 7 June 2012.
  25. "Video: Zuma's Spear painting sabotage". The South African .com. 22 May 2012. Retrieved 7 June 2012.
  26. de Waal, Mandy (28 May 2012). "City Press buckles to ANC demands - and threats". Daily Maverick. Retrieved 7 June 2012.
  27. "Boycott 'immoral' City Press, ANC urges". News24.co.za. 25 May 2012. Retrieved 25 May 2012.
  28. Smith, David (25 May 2012). "Zuma genitals row escalates as ANC calls for boycott of newspaper". The Guardian. Retrieved 7 June 2012.
  29. "Sanef alarmed at call by the ANC to boycott City Press Newspaper (Press release)". South African National Editors' Forum website. 24 May 2012. Retrieved 7 June 2012.
  30. South African newspaper defies ANC boycott call
  31. Greenslade, Roy (28 May 2012). "South African newspaper defies ANC boycott call". Greenslade Blog - The Guardian. Retrieved 7 June 2012.
  32. Adam Martin (23 May 2012). "Painting of South African President's Penis Defaced". The Atlantic. Retrieved 24 May 2012.
  33. "Zuma 'penis painting' defaced". iafrica.com. 22 May 2012. Retrieved 22 May 2012.
  34. Herskovitz, Jon (24 May 2012). "South Africa painting debate exposes racial rifts". Reuters. Retrieved 7 June 2012.
  35. "Gallery security guard arrested over Zuma painting incident". Sowetan Live. 23 May 2012. Retrieved 7 June 2012.
  36. Smith, David (24 May 2012). "Zuma portrait court case reopens South Africa's wounds from apartheid era". The Guardian. Retrieved 7 June 2012.
  37. Film and Publication Board (South Africa) (22 May 2012). "FPB Classification of 'The Spear' Artwork as Displayed at the Goodman Gallery (PDF document)". FPB.gov.za. Centurion, Gauteng, South Africa: Film and Publication Board. Retrieved 1 June 2012.
  38. Film and Publication Board (South Africa). "Film and Publication Board Profile". FPB.org.za. Centurion, Gauteng, South Africa: Film and Publication Board. Retrieved 12 October 2012.
  39. Film and Publication Board (South Africa) (1 June 2012). "FPB Classification of 'The Spear' Artwork (PDF document)". FPB.gov.za. Centurion, Gauteng, South Africa: Film and Publication Board. Retrieved 1 June 2012.
  40. Film and Publication Board (South Africa). "Classification of Films, Games and Publications". FPB.org.za. Centurion, Gauteng, South Africa: Film and Publication Board. Retrieved 12 October 2012.
  41. South African Press Association (29 May 2012). "'We don't rule over City Press', says FPB". TimesLive.co.za. Johannesburg, South Africa: Times Live. Retrieved 1 June 2012.
  42. South African Press Association (1 June 2012). "Board explains Spear 16N rating". IOL.co.za. Cape Town, South Africa: Independent Online. Retrieved 1 June 2012.
  43. Film and Publication Board (South Africa). "Home". FPB.org.za. Centurion, Gauteng, South Africa: Film and Publication Board. Retrieved 12 October 2012.
  44. South African Press Association (29 May 2012). "Board has no right to classify "The Spear": lawyer". TimesLive.co.za. Johannesburg, South Africa: Times Live. Retrieved 3 June 2012.
  45. de Wet, Phillip (30 May 2012). "'The Spear': It's classified, and now up to the ombud". mg.co.za. Johannesburg, South Africa: Mail & Guardian. Retrieved 1 June 2012.
  46. Government of the Republic of South Africa (15 March 2010). "Regulations - Film and Publication Act 3 of 2009". Government Gazette, Republic of South Africa. Pretoria, South Africa: Government Printer. 537 (33026). Retrieved 12 October 2012.
  47. South African Press Association (1 June 2012). "'The Spear' gets 16N rating". mg.co.za. Johannesburg, South Africa: Mail & Guardian. Retrieved 1 June 2012.
  48. South African Press Association (1 June 2012). "Censors rate Spear 16N for nudity". TimesLive.co.za. Johannesburg, South Africa: Times Live. Retrieved 1 June 2012.
  49. South African Press Association (1 June 2012). "Gallery studying 'Spear' classification". IOL.co.za. Johannesburg, South Africa: Independent Online. Retrieved 3 June 2012.
  50. South African Broadcasting Corporation (5 June 2012). "Artists warned to exercise self-censorship following "The Spear" saga". SABC.co.za. Johannesburg, South Africa: SABC. Retrieved 12 October 2012.
  51. Hamber, Brandon (8 June 2012). "Putting the Presidential pickle in perspective". Polity.org.za. Johannesburg, South Africa: Creamer Media. Retrieved 12 October 2012.
  52. City Press Editor (3 June 2012). "FPB decision smacks of censorship". Citypress.co.za. Johannesburg, South Africa: City Press. Retrieved 12 October 2012.
  53. Rousseau, Jacques (6 June 2012). "Censorship: The chilling effect". DailyMaverick.co.za. Johannesburg, South Africa: Daily Maverick. Retrieved 12 October 2012.
  54. Kruger, Johan (4 June 2012). "The FPB's classification of the Spear: The CFCR critique". Politicsweb.co.za. Johannesburg, South Africa: Politicsweb. Retrieved 12 October 2012.
  55. Smuts, Dene (1 June 2012). "Spear saga: FPB protecting the President, not children". DA.org.za. Cape Town, South Africa: Democratic Alliance. Retrieved 12 October 2012.
  56. Huisman, Biénne (3 June 2012). "Criticism over age limit on The Spear". TimesLive.co.za. Cape Town, South Africa: Times Live. Archived from the original on 12 April 2012. Retrieved 3 June 2012.
  57. Film and Publication Board (South Africa) (31 May 2012). "Recommendation for Classification of a Publication under Section 16(1) of the Film and Publication Act. Title: The Spear - Hail to the Thief II by Brett Murray (PDF document)". FPB.gov.za. Centurion, Gauteng, South Africa: Film and Publication Board. Retrieved 11 July 2012.
  58. Film and Publication Board (South Africa) (22 May 2012). "About the appeals tribunal". FPB.org.za. Centurion, Gauteng, South Africa: Film and Publication Board. Retrieved 12 October 2012.
  59. South African Press Association (10 July 2012). "Goodman appeals 'Spear' classification". Citypress.co.za. Johannesburg, South Africa: City Press. Retrieved 12 October 2012.
  60. South African Press Association (10 July 2012). "Gallery appeals 'Spear' classification". TimesLive.co.za. Johannesburg, South Africa: Times Live. Retrieved 12 October 2012.
  61. South African Press Association (11 July 2012). "'The Spear' appeal lodged". Citypress.co.za. Johannesburg, South Africa: City Press. Retrieved 12 October 2012.
  62. South African Press Association (11 July 2012). "'Spear' appeal lodged with censors". TimesLive.co.za. Johannesburg, South Africa: Times Live. Retrieved 11 July 2012.
  63. Tolsi, Niren (13 September 2012). "Goodman Gallery appeals 'Spear' rating". mg.co.za. Johannesburg, South Africa: Mail & Guardian. Retrieved 12 October 2012.
  64. South African Press Association (17 September 2012). "Gallery's 'Spear' appeal starts". IOL.co.za. Johannesburg, South Africa: Independent Online. Retrieved 12 October 2012.
  65. South African Press Association (11 October 2012). "Spear move sets 'crucial precedent'". News24.com. Cape Town, South Africa: News24. Retrieved 12 October 2012.
  66. City Press Staff Reporter (10 October 2012). "Appeal tribunal declassifies The Spear". Citypress.co.za. Johannesburg, South Africa: City Press. Archived from the original on 10 October 2012. Retrieved 11 October 2012.
  67. South African Press Association & Witness Reporter (11 October 2012). "The Spear: Classification of painting overturned on appeal". Witness.co.za. Pietermaritzburg, South Africa: The Witness. Retrieved 11 October 2012.
  68. South African Press Association (10 October 2012). "'The Spear' declassified". TimesLive.co.za. Johannesburg, South Africa: Times Live. Retrieved 11 October 2012.
  69. Govender, Karthy (7 October 2012). "Award In re: Appeal against the classification of the painting known as The Spear and the electronic versions of it (Microsoft Word 2007 .docx document)". FPB.org.za. Durban, South Africa: Film and Publication Board. Retrieved 11 October 2012.
  70. Film and Publication Board (South Africa) (10 October 2012). "Press Statement on the award in respect of the appeal for the FPB Classification of 'The Spear' painting as displayed at the Goodman Gallery". FPB.org.za. Centurion, Gauteng, South Africa: Film and Publication Board. Retrieved 11 October 2012.
  71. Butana, Kwanele. "Cape artist despairs for 'illiterate' ANC". iol.co.za. Retrieved 25 May 2012.

See also



This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.