Review: Women’s Work Exhibition & Controversy at Iziko

THE SOUTH African National Gallery has some interesting exhibitions currently on display. Woman’s Work blurs the boundary between art and craft, an argument began decades ago at the gallery under Marilyn Martin, but was given further impetus in this creative showcase of traditional techniques such as knitting, crocheting, weaving and embroidery.

 The “Our Lady” exhibition brings to the fore contentious issues, in particular the question of the moral platitude of art, highlighted and complicated by the theme of revisiting and questioning artistic representations of woman. In brief, such representations perhaps denigrated woman as such images were steeped in mythology, objectification or puritanical conceptions, yet perhaps such visions are changing for the better.

 Then, also at the gallery, is Mohau Modisakeng’s photography, film, performance and installation work. As the recipient of the Standard Bank Young Artists award last year, it is quite an impressive and thought-provoking show in itself. The contested space of the Art of Disruptions highlights the politics of power mirrored in the politics of representation – or more accurately, the precarious position of art, such that it is at once reflective of society and is also an individual expression with no Archimedean neutrality or moral high ground.

 Rather than focus on the nuanced visual effects on offer – and there are numerous – from the warmth of the tapestries and carpets; the “womb experience” to the woven nylon ropes, beads and string of Igshan Adams, amongst others, I found the laminated four page letter of the “our lady” exhibition perhaps the strongest work – if indeed it could be named as such.

 However the event was not without controversy. Bridget Baker, Njideka Akunyili Crosby, Khanyisile Mbongwa, Deborah Poynton, Tracey Rose and Penny Siopis addressing Rooksana Omar (CEO of Iziko Museums), Ernestine White (Acting Director of Iziko South African National Gallery) and curators Kirsty Cockerill, Candice Allison and Andrea Lewis demanded that their work be withdrawn from the exhibition.

The reasons cited are the following: The stated aims of the exhibition, namely the empowering and celebration of female capacity and redressing “traditional moral attitudes and male-dominated stereotypes that surround the female form” do anything but.

The letter explains how the exhibition falls short. In brief - it does not reflect the demographics of the country, lacks black female artist representation, and in particular, the major point of contention is the inclusion of Zweletha Mthethwa’s work.

 Mthethwa stands accused of murdering a particularly vulnerable woman, a sex worker – and the case is still pending. The writers argue that such an inclusion undermines the dignity of Nokaphila Kumalo, the victim of this violent attack, and implicates “the broader erasure of the voices of black woman from our national narratives”. In solidarity with SWEAT – the Sex Workers Education And Advocacy Task Force – the statement penned by Ishtar Lakhani notes the “irony of promoting a work of a man accused of murdering a woman as part of an exhibition aimed at empowering woman, is not wasted on us” (The Citizen, 28 Nov, 2016) – a claim which is certainly difficult to rebut and is a riposte to the gallery’s claim of fair representation.

So the works were removed, including Mthethwa’s, but also other artists for less obvious reasons (just for being male?). One wonders if such a letter, now hanging on a wall, loses its “punch” as if it is almost a conceptual art piece, co-opted by the gallery itself. Could it be viewed aesthetically? Moreover, one wonders if the attention on who makes an artwork, rather than what is made, has been carried to the extreme.

Picasso was probably a misogynist, but does that discredit his art? I think the issues raised by the letter (now artwork) are, however relevant and perhaps highlights the fact that art is, first and foremost, about issues related to life proper, rather than simply beautiful objects to be venerated as art.

As such, the artists who have penned the letter show a high degree of intellectual and ethical savvy, rather than simply buy into the hype of being part of an exhibition and at the National Gallery to boot! In this respect, a high degree of humility is evident.

On the other hand, another artwork or object is created in the process, namely the aforementioned letter, laminated and pasted on the gallery wall. Impervious to the “aesthetic gaze”, they refuse to be “our ladies”.