Ruth Rosengarten, The Pot Calling the Kettle Black

7/16/2019 Ruth Rosengarten, The Pot Calling the Kettle Black

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ruth-rosengarten-the-pot-calling-the-kettle-black 1/8

1

ThePotCallingtheKettleBlack

Inthefirstinstance,IwanttocontextualisewhatIamabouttosayhere.InMarchthisyear,thespringnumber(nº25)oftheGermanmagazineTextezurKunstpublishedanarticlebyOlu

Oguibeenititled'BringingtheNativestoGraz',aratheracerbiccriticismofPeterWeibel'sshow

'Inclusion/Exclusion'heldinGrazlastyear.ThearrowofOguibe'scriticismfinallytouchedmetoo,

forOguibeendedhispiecewithanattackonaround-tablediscussionheldduringtheexhibition

'Don'tMesswithMisterInbetween:FifteenArtistsfromSouthAfrica',whichIcuratedat

CulturgestinLisbonin1996.Oguibe'scriticismwasparticularlyoffensivetomebecausehe

neitherattendedtheshow,norwashepresentattheround-tablediscussion:hisattitudewas

informedbywordofmouth,andseemedtoindicatethecamaraderieofanetworkoraclub,with

alltheinclusion/exclusionthatthatimplies.

Ataroundthesametime,IbegantoreceivethefirstE-mailsinthepolemicthathasragedinthe

SouthAfricanartworldoverthelastfewmonths,towhich'GreyAreas'isaresponse.Ithasbeen

difficultforme,overthistime,toteaseouttheprecisechronology(thoughperhapsincybertime,

chronologyisnotreallyimportant!)ofevents/attacks/responses,butearlyon,IwrotetoCandice

Breitzinsomewayofferingmysupporttoher.InthisfirstlettertoBreitz,Isentheracopyofmy

ownresponsetoOguibe'simplicitattackonme.ThisresponsehasnowbeenpublishedinTexte

zurKunstnº26,andIwouldliketoincludeithereasanappendix,becauseIthinkittangentially

touchesonsomeofthetopicsraisedbythecurrentdebate.MyinitialresponsetoBreitzwas

fuelledbythefactthatIfeltincensedbytheextremelynarrownotionof'representation'that

wasbeingofferedasthepoliticallycorrectstanceforSouthAfricanartiststoday,andthehidden

agendasimplicitinthelegitimatingsystemsthatpolicedtheboundariesdividingthe'acceptable'

fromthe'unacceptable'.

In'Breitz/GeersintheWeeklyMail'(E-mailof29March1997),Breitzquestionstheconflationof

theideaof'representation'withthatof'speakingonbehalfof'—apertinentdistinction.It

seemedtomeimportanttosupportthisdistinction,asitsoppositeimpliedakindofethnicand

genderauthoritarianismthatnarroweddownthepossibilitiesof'representation'toarisible

paucity.Wherewerethelimitsofthekindofpurism—orfundamentalism—thatstipulatedthat

theonlylegitimatevoiceswerethoseofcard-carryingmembersofagivengender/racial/class

group?Thiswhittleddownthepossiblerangeofrepresentationaloptionstoanabsurdly

impoverishedminimum,anactofaesthetic,intellectualandevenpoliticalreductionism.

Contrariwise,Iwaswellawareofthecautionthathad/hastobeexercisedintherepresentation

—andpotentialreification—ofanygiven'Other'.Thisisafraughtarea,andtoitthereareno



2

easysolutionsorquickstep-by-steprecipes.Itisaproblemthatmustbeaddressedaneweach

andeverytime,ineachandeveryrepresentation.

IntheE-mailsthatfollowed,thefactthattheintersectionofvariousvectorsandlinesofforcebetweengenderpoliticsandracialpoliticswasbeingthrownupforgrabsseemedtometostake

outaninterestingandindeedcrucialareaofdebate.ItwasparticularlysuccinctlyputinOlu

Oguibe'scritiqueofMinnetteVari'swork,whereheunderlinesthe'continuedwhitelicenceto

theblackbody',andparticularlytotheblackfemalebody,askingpertinentlywhetherwemust

'genderize,asitwere,inordertopolemicize'.Myown'allegiances'emerged—andindeedkeep

emergingandbeingtransformed—asincreasinglycomplex,'greyareas'indeed.

Moreconcretely,however,inresponsetothecrossfireofcommunicationsbetweenthevarious

actorsinthis'drama',Iwasstruckbytheself-righteousness,abreast-beating,attention-seeking

petulencewherebyallplayerswerethumpingforattention.Power-linesdrawnandre-drawn.A

bunchofmalecuratorsdictatingthenorms,andmanypersonalrivalries—andambitions—

wrappedupinapparentlypoliticaltalk.

ItwasonlyfairlylateinthedaythatIactuallygottoreadOkwuiEnwezor'spiece'Reframingthe

blacksubject:IdeologyandfantasyinContemporarySouthAfricanArt'whichhadignitedthe

polemic.ThepiecethrewmepreciselybecauseEnwezor'sresponsewas,forthemostpart,so

cogent,socoherent,andbecausehewasjustifiedinsomuchofwhathesaid.Uponreadingthis,

itseemedtomethatineffect,manyoftheartistsweresimplygettinghotunderthecollar

becausetheirownworkwasunderattack.Andmore:thatgettingindignantinthiswaywasan

attention-seekingstrategy,awayofelbowingintothelimelightatatimewhen,letusnotforget,

selectionsforthenextJohannesburgBiennalewerebeingmade.

Inhisanalysisofthe'controloftheblackbody'inSouthAfricanart,Enwezorquitecorrectly

pointstothewaysinwhichthecolonialrelationshipsetsuptherepressedsubjectasmuteand

unabletorepresenthim/herself.Thisisparticularlyordoublytruewithregardtothe

representationoftheblackfemalebody.ItiswhatRobertJ.C.Youngsuccinctlyterms'white

power:whitedesire.'GayatriChakravortySpivak(1)hastheorisedthisareaatlength,arguing

thatthesubalternwoman,takenalwaysasanobjectofknowledgebybothcolonialand

indigenousrulerswhoare'masculinist',isarguedaboutandlegislatedfor,butallowedno

discursivepositionfromwhichtospeakforherself.

ThethreeartistswhoaresubjectedtothemoststringentscrutinybyEnwezorarePippaSkotnes,

LienBothaandCandiceBreitz—artistswhoseworkotherwisehasnoaffinityorsimilarity



3

whatsoever.Othersarementioned:WayneBarker,PennySiopis,GuntherHerbst.MinnetteVari

isimplicated,thoughsheisn'tpersonallymentioned.PietPienaaris(correctly)letoffthehook,

asisWillieBester,who—inwhatseemstobeacompletelackofaestheticorpoliticaljudgement

—isheldupassomesortofparagonofexcellenceandmoralcorrectness.(AmIinsomewaymisreadingEnwezor?).Iamlessconcernedwithsplittinghairsherethanwithgeneralpoints.

Indeed,Miscast,curatedbyPippaSkotnes,wasextremelyambitious,notuninteresting,butalso

highlyproblematicinwaysunderlinedbyEnwezor.Likewise,CandiceBreitz'scollagedgraftsof

whiteandblackfemalebodiesaredoubtlesslywellintentioned,but'friezedbyboth

pornographicandethnographicdesire'theyinvokeproblemsofspectaclewithoutinanyway

problematisingthem;thearedescriptiveandsimplistic,especiallywhencomparedtoHannah

Höch'sphotomontagesof1919,whichtheyquiteobviouslyformallyevoke.Theyarecallowmore

thananythingelse.Bethatasitmay,herverbalargumentsmakeafinerpoint.MinetteVari's

splicingofimagesusesthenotionofgraftingsosimplisticallyastohardlyregisterasacritiqueat

all.LienBotha'sworkisacaseapart:sheisobviouslyusingimagesinthepublicdomaininorder

toworkthrough—verybravely,Imightadd—anextremelypainfulpersonal/collectivehistory.

WayneBarker'sironycannotbeoverlooked:hisworkdealswithakindofwhite'tourism'andthe

consumptionof'curios':withouthissnatchedimagesofthespectacleofblackethnicity,his

wholeenterprisewouldmakenosenseatall.Thenthereareothers,likeWilliamKentridge,who

brilliantlyfilterstheexperienceofbothlandscapeandtheurbanenvironmentasthegraph/map

ofhistory(andhenceofcolonialhistory)throughlayerednarrativesandpersonalexperience.I

amtalkinghereaboutwhiteartistswhoaretryinginsomewaytoworkthroughtheirpersonal

(andoftencollective)historiesinrelationtothecomplexitiesofSouthAfricanpoliticsandpost-

colonialdiscourse.Whoareobviouslyconstantlyfacedwiththequestions:whatcanIrepresent?

AndwhatlanguagemightIuse?Doesbeingwhitenecessarilynowmeannothavingamandateto

speakatall?

Myobjections,then,withregardtobothEnwezorandOguibe,lienotwiththeirargumentsper

se,butmorewiththeimplicitessentialism(racialandgender)thatrendersonlymembersof

givengroups(class,racial,gender)aslegitimatevoices—thereasonsforwhichEnwezor

championsWillieBesterorLornaSimpson(notthatSimpsonisn'taninterestingartist…),ormore

problematicallystill,thereasonswhyOguibechampionsanartistlikeElAnatsui,simply,one

imagines,forbeingan'African',forhisworklookslikeasecond-gradeimitationofearlywestern

modernistslikeJacobEpsteinor,atapush,HenryMoore.

InarecentarticleinthemagazineThirdText(2),SionaWilsonforgesananalysisaroundthework

oftheEnglishteamJoSpenceandTerryDennett,focussingparticularlyonthephotograph

entitled'Colonization',whichworksironicallyaroundquestionsofclass,raceandgender.Wilson



4

clearlyunderlinesthecomplexmeaningsandmis-understandingsgeneratedbytheterm

'representation',focussingonanargumentcogentlyputforthbyGayatriChakravortySpivakin

heressay'CantheSubalternSpeak?'(seefootnote1).Thetwoconceptionsoftheterm

'represent'aremappedoutbySpivak/Wilsonas'speakingfor'(forwhichtheGermanword'vertreten'isused—asinpolitics,whenaleader'speaksfor'thepeople)and're-presentation'

(forwhichtheGermanword'darstellen'isused,asinartandphilosophy.Spivak'sargument,in

turn,isaimedatFoucaultand,specifically,atDeleuze,whose"dismissaloftheissueispredicated

onhissuppositionthatthetheoristwho'speaksandacts'(' darstellen')cannotbethe

representativeof('vertreten')"thosewhoactandstruggle"(3).AsIunderstandit,Spivak

criticizesDeleuzeforreinstatinghimselfasthe'representative'asatheorist,andhenceinthe

politicalsense,byestablishingacomplicitybetweenpoliticalrepresentation(' vertreten')andre-

presentation('darstellen')inthephilosophic/

aestheticsenseoftheterm.

Thereisnodoubtthatthesetwoformsof'representation'areeasilyconflatable,easily

confounded.Thisisparticularly,thoughnotexclusivelythecasewhentheimageisproducedin

andforthesamesystem/regimethatengenderstheconditionsitalsorepresents(which,in

effect,isNOTthecaseintheworkofBreitz,BothaorVari,forexample).Itneverthelessseemsto

meessentialtoteaseoutthesetwostrandsoftheterms'representation'.Tothinkof

representationasmerely'speakingfor'istoreduceanyformofartisticorliteraryexpressiontoa

univocitythatdiminishestheevocativeandcriticalpotentialofanygivenwork.Itistoconflate

artwithideologyorwithpoliticsinthemostbruteandsimplisticway.Topolicerepresentation,

stipulatingrulesastowhoispermittedto'represent'(' darstellen')whatistoremovefromawork

ofartallbutitsmanifestcontent.Surelyifpost-modernismasadiscoursehastaughtusanything,

itisthattograftanimageisnotnecessarilyto'speakfor'thatwhichisrepresented,butsimply

tore-contextualiseitinwayswhicharemoreorlesscritical,moreorlessinteresting.Thefactof

suchgraftingisinitselfirrelevant,unlesstakenholistically,inconjunctionwiththemannerin

whichthisisdone.

Inshort,manyofEnwezor'scriticismsarejustified,asindeedareOguibe's.Butthefactthatthese

criticsfallpreytoakindoffundamentalismthateradicatestherighttoalldifferenceotherthan

thatcondonedorratifiedbythemselves—self-promotedasexpertsandlegislators—landsup

flatteningouttherelevanceoftheirargumentsandlookingincreasinglyliketheyaresimply

stakingoutareasinsomekindofMonopolygame.Nodoubt,theproductionofimagestreadsa

narrowanddangerouspathbetweentwoformsof'representation',andthatthesetwoforms

haveconstantlytobere-examined,re-negotiated.Butisn'tthatwheretheinterestlies?We



5

don't,surely,wanttoseeabland,uniformandboringlysanctionedformofStateArtinSouth

Africa—dowe?

Here,then,asanappendix,ismyresponsetoOluOguibe's'BringingtheNativestoGraz'(Texte

zurKunst,nº25,1997)

IreadwithgreatinterestOluOguibe'sarticle'BringingtheNativestoGraz'intheMarchissueof

TextezurKunst(nº25).Nothavingattendedtheexhibition'Inclusion/Exclusion'curatedbyPeter

WeibelinGrazlastyear,IaminnopositiontocommentonhowMr.Oguibe'sargumentrelatesto

thatexhibitionitself.However,hisarticleastutelybroughtupsomeoftheimportantcritical

issuesaroundthequestionsofpost-colonialism,migration,ethnicityandracialidentitythat

Weibel'sshow—andmanyothersaroundtheglobeoverthepastdecade—purportedly

address.Mr.Oguibe'scommentthat'post-colonialismandmigrationareinforWeibelinthe

samemannerthatelectronicartwasforhimashortwhileago.Andheisnotalone'pointstothe

unfortunatefactthatwhatforsomepeopleisapressingissue(alife-issueaswellasan

intellectualone)forothersbecomesafashion.Andthatwhenitcomestobeingafashionvictim,

well,no-oneisimmune.Theunprecedentedpowerinvestedinthefigureofthecurator

nowadays,allowsformanyofusintheartbusinesstojumponthetrendybandwagon,andthat

doesn'texcludeMr.Oguibehimself.

AlsoimplicitinMr.Oguibe'sattackonthosewhousepoliticalissuestoshapeuptheirownCV's,

isthemoredubiousnotionthatonlyaclosedcircleofinitiates,gainingcredibilitythroughaself-

regulating,self-approvingandhencetautologicalsystemoflegitimation(aclub,inotherwords)is

entitledtoaddresssuchissuesaspost-colonialism,migration,andthe'Other'question.Following

onhiscriticismofPeterWeibel,Mr.OguibenotesthatinthesameweekthatWeibelgathered

'hisnatives'inGraz,'anothercuratorhadassembledapanelinLisboninconnectionwithashow

ofSouthAfricanart,andthetopicofthepaneldiscussionwas—youguessedit—colonialism

andpost-colonialism'.

TheexhibitionIcuratedatCulturgestinLisbonwasentitled'Don'tMesswithMisterInbetween',

anditgatheredfifteenartistsfromSouthAfricaworkingaroundissuesthatinsomewaybridged

agapbetweenthebinarypolesofrationalist(Cartesian)thinking.Notbeingoftheschoolof

believersthatartisanillustrationofideology,Iusedthisnotiontoprovideaflexibleframework

fortheshow,ratherthanarigidprogramme.Itwas,forme,apointofpersonalandintellectual



6

honestynottotakeintoaccountratiosystemsoranyformofethnicorracialclassificationofthe

artistsincludedintheexhibition.Iamnotsurewhatpedigreeis,intermsofcurrentlyfashionalbe

P.C.codes,requiredofacuratorinorderforhim/hertobelegitimisedtoinclude/excludeartists

fromanexhibition.IhappentobeCaucasian,justasIhappentobefemaleandJewish:thesethingsIcannothelp.Myassistant,AngelaFerreira,isaPortuguese/SouthAfricanartist.I

consideredthefactIlivedinSouthAfricaforwelloveradecade,sufficientlegitimationforan

investmentandinvolvementinsuchaproject.

ThepaneldiscussionthatMr.Oguiberefersto,wasorganisedaroundapaperdeliveredbyPenny

Siopis,oneoftheartistsintheexhibition,and,wellyouguessedit,thetopicofthepaperhad

nothingtodowithpost-colonialism.Itstitlewas'DomesticAffairs:RaceandGenderin

ContemporarySouthAfricanArt'.Theissuesaddressedwerepreciselythosedealingwith'the

persistenceofracialviolenceagainstblacksinSouthAfricanvisualrepresentation,issuesof

censorshipandlicensetotheblackbody'thatMr.Oguibesoauthoritativelyandcondesendingly

noteswerenotraised.Ofcourseissuesaroundpost-colonialismcameup:thiswasbecausethe

paneldiscussionwasorganisednotonlyinorderfurthertoarticulateissuesrelatedtoSouth

Africa(those'crucialculturalandpoliticalquestionsnowplaguingSouthAfrica'which,through

'sheerpoliticalopportunism'Iapparentlyfailedtoaddress)butratheralsoinordertoraise

questionsrelevanttoPortugal'sownpost-colonialpositioninthelightoftheexhibitionofthe

workofSouthAfricanartists,andhencetogeneratesomesortofdiscursiveencounterbetween

thetwohistoricalsituations,thatofSouthAfricaandthatofPortugal.This—ifitneedsspelling

out—becauseitseemedimportanttoremindourselvesofthepoliticsofhostingcertaintypesof

exhibitions.

ButofcourseMr.Oguibecouldnotbeexpectedtoknowallthis:hewas,afterall,notpresentat

thepaneldiscussion,nordidheattendtheexhibition,andanyinformationhehadaboutthe

discussioncouldonlyhavebeenrelayedbypersonalsources,viawordofmouth(presumably

thatofthe'Spaniard'hereferstoinhisarticle:andtosettherecordstraight,Iamnot'a

Portuguese',Iamamigrantinthiscountry.Andyes,thereweretwoPortuguesepeopleinthe

panel—theytoohaveopinions).Anyhow,ifhehadgivenhimselfthetroubletoreadthetextin

thecataloguetotheexhibition,Mr.Oguibewouldhavenotedthatthe'post'ofpost-colonialism

waspositedasavexedprefix,notwithintheclosureofthesagitallogicofa'progress'myth,but

ratherasaproblematisedterm,inrelationtotheequallyproblematic'post'of'post-modernism'.

Mr.Oguibe'sargumentthat'SouthAfrica,asweknow,isnotapost-colonialcountryanymore

thantheUnitedStatesis,andSouthAfricanartistshavenopost-colonialexperience'is

predicatedonanotionthatthe'post'of'post-colonial'isaprefixwhichsimplydenotesa



7

historicalpositioningwithinatemporalcontinuum.Inthefirstinstance,anyoneremotelyfamiliar

withSouthAfricawillknowthattheauthoritarianregimewhichheldSouthAfricawithinthe

strangleholdofapartheid,wasalwaysconsideredbythemajorityofthepopulationtobeoneof

'settlers'.Tosplithairsandtryandfinddistinctionbetween'settlers'andacolonialpower(suchasFranceorEngland,orindeedPortugal)mightbeanentertainingintellectualpastime;itseems

tome,however,morefruitfultoaddresscolonialismbothhistoricallyand,morebroadly,asan

attitudeofmind.(Whatothermeaningcouldtheexhortationto'decolonizeourminds'have?)It

isonlythenewnessconstantlyandcontinuouslyclaimedbytheideologyofprogressitself

(implicitinalinearconstructionofhistory)thatposits'post-colonial'withinthestraitconfines

suggestedbyMr.Oguibe—ie.asthatwhichcomes'after'colonialism.

FromtheperspectiveofaPortuguesevenueandaPortuguesepublic,addressingissuesof'post-

colonialism'wasofprimordialinterest.Giventhegeneralisedamnesiainthiscountrytoitsown

recentpastinAfrica,itseemedcrucialtoexaminehowtheissuesaddressedbytheexhibition

'Don'tMesswithInbetween'overlappedwithunstatedconflictsinPortugueseculture.Whether

ornotwesucceededisnotformetosay;however,Mr.Oguibe'sownabsencefromtheevent

removesfromhimanymandatetocommentuponitwithanyauthority.Theassertionthatsuch

debatesareopportunisticappropriationsand'trivialisationsofserioushistorialexperience'must,

ofcourse,begivenseriousconsideration.However,theclaimingforthemselvesofsuchareasof

debatebyaself-promoting,self-congratulatinggroupofbuddies,isanattitudeofarrogancethat

isincompatiblewithintellectualhonesty.What'personalgain'couldIpossiblehaveachieved

from'exhibitingthenatives'when,inMr.Oguibe'srathernarrowterms,manyofthoseexhibited

werenotproperlyspeaking'natives'?

1)GayatriC.Spivak,'CantheSubalternSpeak?',inC.NelsonandL.Grossberg,(eds), Marxism

andtheInterpretationofCulture ,Macmillan,1988;also'|TheProblemofCulturalSelf-

Representation',interviewbetweenGayatriC.SpivakandWalterAdamsonin ThePostColonial

Critic:Interviews,Strategies,Dialogues ,ed.bySarahHarasym,Routledge,1990.

2)SionaWilson,'WhiteMetonymy',ThirdText ,nº37,Winter1996-7,pp3-16

3)Ibid.,p7



8

RuthRosengaten

Documents

Ruth Rosengarten, The Pot Calling the Kettle Black