Articulating Cultural Pluralism through Public Art as Heritage in South Africa

Abstract

Public art in South Africa today often consists of commemorative art promoted as “heritage” and installed in pursuit of specific sociopolitical goals such as reconciliation and nation-building. Cultural artifacts in the public arena can be important transmission mechanisms for cultural policy and negotiate the representation of different societal groupings in multicultural settings. This article focuses on the case of Durban, a large coastal city with a high level of multicultural diversity. It investigates how city authorities and political officials utilize public art to adjust a monocultural artistic landscape and articulate the democratization of urban environments. The article engages with different concepts of multiculturalism and discusses the shift from the rainbow-nation model toward African nationalism, illustrated through selected examples. It is argued that an examination of the state-endorsed practice of installing works of public art sheds light on the interpretation of larger discourses on race, cultural diversity and nation-building. The article concludes by advocating the need for a broader and less prescribed understanding of public art.

Notes

In principle, the term multiculturalism must be distinguished from multiracialism, but in the South African context one can speak of a substantial overlap between the two. The term non-racialism refers to a “color-blind” society in which race is said to play no role.

In Johannesburg the city council adopted a 1% for public art policy a few years ago, which has provided a substantial budget for a variety of public art in conjunction with any publicly funded construction project above a total value of R10 million. Funds are largely channeled through the Johannesburg Development Agency (JDA). Johannesburg has developed both an official policy on Public Art and a separate policy for Heritage [Itzkin, interview 2008].

On the occasion of a conference on cultural tourism in South Africa in 1997, Lionel Mtshali, then minister of the Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology, gave the opening address, which succinctly encapsulated the new government's position on art in the “new” South Africa. While he acknowledged that the arts have value in their own right, Mtshali stressed that the context of the post-apartheid society with its overwhelming legacy of deprivation forces the government to adopt a more functionalist attitude toward art and culture. “Today it is necessary to justify the arts in terms of their economic impact, their ability to generate income and to create jobs, and their capacity to contribute to social reconstruction and development. We are pressed to argue for the arts in terms of its [sic] contribution to human rights culture and its role in nation-building” [Mtshali 1997: 5].

Andries Botha, who has personally been involved in a number of public art projects, suspects that government-funded public art in Cape Town and Johannesburg is likewise largely expected to fit the heritage mould whereas private-sector funded art can be more creative and non-political [pers. comm. 2008]. Eric Itzkin, Deputy Director of Immovable Heritage in the City of Johannesburg, however, clarifies that this is not the case there. Although his department is under pressure to develop a certain amount of political art, e.g., works that pay tribute to “struggle heroes,” the city is free also to promote non-political public art projects and has done so on many occasions [Itzkin, interview 2008].

Notably this includes statues of Isaiah Shembe, Nelson Mandela, John Dube and Dorothy Nyembe. Within the eThekwini Municipality, issues of public art and heritage fall under the oddly composed portfolio of Eric Apelgren, Head of International and Governance Relations. In a personal interview on 4 Dec. 2008, Apelgren had no further information on the city's plans with respect to these statues.

The Dinuzulu statue was finally unveiled on 20 Sept. 2008. Official reasons provided for the long delay point to the difficulty in finding a suitably symbolic date and securing the availability of officials and prominent leaders; but the media reported that ANC councilors in the eThekwini municipality had objected to the statue's inferior height compared to the nearby statue of the colonial leader, Louis Botha, whom Dinuzulu is meant to counter [Goldstone 2008].

The Sunday Times Heritage Project is a private-sector initiative which comprises over 30 public art/heritage projects in cities throughout South Africa, but mostly concentrated in Johannesburg and Cape Town. Apart from the Bruce Fordyce piece, two more works were earmarked for Durban, but they have not been installed due to various problems. Another work, focused on the writer Bessie Head, is installed at a school in a Durban suburb, and another one representing the internationally acclaimed music group Ladysmith Black Mabazo was installed in the township of KwaMashu. See project website at http://heritage.thetimes.co.za/ and Segal and Holden [2008].

See for instance the debate around South African playwright Bongeni Ngema's racist song AmaNdiya in 2002. For other incidences see Ramsamy [2006: 475–478].

In Aug. 2007 the KwaZulu-Natal Legislature noted the “sidelining of organisations which promote arts and culture within the Indian community in the allocation of funding by the Department of Arts, Culture and Tourism; the uproar within the Indian community and organisations that represent their interests, calling the allocations racist; [and] the negative impact that non-funding has had on their activities” [KZN Legislature 2007].

Ironically, although the monument today reflects what might be called a multicultural perspective, the City never provided enough funds to complete or even properly maintain the monument. It has since been fenced to prevent vandalism.

The statue of Chief Albert Luthuli in KwaDukuza and the associated Luthuli museum in Groutville, for instance, belong to the National Legacy Project, one of nine high-priority heritage developments of national significance. Not only is Luthuli championed as a model of identification for all South Africans, but being a Nobel Peace prize laureate, he is also considered of international significance.

For instance, the Mail & Guardian ran a seven-part series on transformation toward the end of 1998/beginning of 1999, in which various aspects of government performance and societal changes were analyzed [e.g., Matisonn 1998a, 1998b]. See also the special edition of the Mail & Guardian at the end of 1999 (The Year in Review), as well as similar editions in other newspapers.

For instance, in 1999 the South African Human Rights Commission (HRC) report on racism in schools found that the country's supposedly nonracial generation in the making appeared to be as racist as their grandparents. Similarly, a study on racial dynamics at integrated schools conducted by the Centre for the Study of Violence found violent outpourings of racism among learners and even teachers [Garson 1999]. Seven years later, a 2006 survey by the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation still found a low degree of receptiveness to the idea of social interaction with members of other racial groups among South Africans generally, in part due to a widespread lack of trust [Hofmeyr 2006].

“Now the ‘Rainbow Nation’ exists in name only…,” summed up the editor of Independent on Saturday, Kaizer Nyatsumba [1998], in his critical assessment of the post-apartheid era in Oct. 1998; and the controversial John Pilger [1998] suggested that the “rainbow nation” had become merely consumerist propaganda.

Public statements by some prominent African leader figures, such as Malegapuru Makgoba, vice-chancellor of the University of KwaZulu–Natal, about the need for the Africanization of South African society underscore this sentiment. Makgoba [2005] wrote in the Mail & Guardian in March 2005: “When the English were dominant we were anglicized, when the Afrikaners were dominant we were Europeanised, now that Africans are dominant we must Africanise and not apologise for our Africanness. The white male should instead be excited by the new prospects of imitating Africans. […] let there be no doubt that sooner or later African dominance and the imitation of most that is African shall permeate all spheres of South African society.” See also Makgoba [1998].

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Sabine Marschall

SABINE MARSCHALL is director of the Cultural and Heritage Tourism Programme at the University of KwaZulu–Natal. She has published articles on South African art, architecture and cultural heritage. Her current research, reported in this article, concerns post-apartheid monuments in South Africa.