Today I am thinking about ugly statues and the commercialisation of heritage. in particular, the statue of Hector Peterson at Maponya mall and the one of Nelson Mandela in the eponymous square in Sandton. Both designed and made by Kobus Hattingh and Jacob Maponyane.
Both are, I think, quite surpassingly ugly statues that don't justify the title of "art" but that's not the point I want to make here; regardless of their merit or lack thereof the question that I want to ask is is it ok to commercialise heritage in this manner? or is heritage always a commercial activity?
I question the motives of installing these statues - rather than to remember or celebrate, they are there as focal points, another attraction to bring the punters in, another place for the tourists to take a quick snap. Of course, you could argue that the motives are unimportant, and the outcome is what counts - if people see and remember, that's ok. I don't. I think motives ARE important in heritage, and need to be considered. I also don't think that people DO remember - rather, they become immune to the images: memory gets stored away in the bronze so it doesn't have to be in our minds [more of this in a later post I think]
Back to the question of why the statues are there.
From the Mandela square website:
"The statue was sculpted by Kobus Hattingh and Jacob Maponyane and weighs over 2.5 tons measuring 2.3 metres from elbow to elbow. The shoulders of the statue are 1.7 metres in width and the shoes are 1 metre in length.
The intention of this statue is not only to honour the former president’s vision of a free and just South Africa, but also to create a focal point where local and foreign tourists can reflect over the events that led to the creation of the Rainbow Nation. Here, you will always see tourists desperately trying to get a photo of themselves standing next to this tall statue."
What I find interesting about this little snippet is the obsession with the size (and on the Maponya website it also particularly points out that the sculpture weighs 300kg) as if BIG = GOOD or important or worthy. I guess that is the "mall" concept - show off the size, the vastness, the amount of money we can put into follies.
I also wonder how much tourists "reflect" when sitting sated and shopped-out over their R30 coffees in Sandton Square. Or peering longingly into the designer stores surrounding the statue in Maponya Mall. Is it not just a little sick to have these statues, that speak to poverty, pain and hardship, amongst naked greed and consumerism?
And to use this pain and our painful past to SELL?
Tear 'em down I say. Melt 'em and turn them into giant shoes and shopping bags - at least that would be honest! Lets have statues in malls that belong there. Keep history where it should be.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
When you sit in Sandton Square (something i will admit i have not done often). I find it interesting that the people that you are surrounded by are not only the white Sandton moms on their way to pick up Crawford kids as one might expect. Maybe it is because of the library or the theatre right there but the crowd seems more varied, both in age and race.
ReplyDeleteAlthough i agree with everything that you point out here Ma'am, i think that Sandton may be good place for a monument to the struggles of the past. Most of the people shopping at Sandton and sipping their R30 coffee in the shadow of our former president are young, black men and women. Men and women who have recently made it big and are CEO's and big company managers.
I dont know if this is an idealistic and romantic view on life but, maybe these people, the people who have subsequently benefitted from the struggle of Nelson Mandela - and others like him - are the ones who need to be reminded of the past. Poverty, pain and hardship are still such big elements of our society today, perhaps if the statue was placed where these are still part of everyday life, the success of Mandela's struggle and others like it would not be so greatly felt or appropriately appreciated.
I dont know if i am buying into the consumerism element of the statue or if i am looking too much into the sybolism behind it's placement?
"rather, they become immune to the images: memory gets stored away in the bronze so it doesn't have to be in our minds"
ReplyDeleteI found this very interesting as it made me wonder about the purpose of monuments... Can monuments not be seen as a coping mechanism to deal with the past? If we do not limit remembering our memories to when we are interacting with the monuments, then we cannot go through our daily existence without continuous disruptions of these harsh memories. (Maybe this continuous remembrance is a good thing for history)
I think what I'm trying to say is that when we visit a heritage site or create a heritage site we relive through the past and then leave it there. It allows us to "store" our memories there and move on with life. Although this is not ideal because storing our memories could mean forgetting and we shouldn't ever forget our past, it's necessary if we're going to deal with the pain of our past.
@ Becca: I like your point about placement - that this is exactly where monuments need to be. But if so, I still feel they need to evoke MORE, be more painful, FORCE the viewer to confront the past...
ReplyDelete@ Sam I: will post soon about this idea and explore it some more - it is something that particularly worries James Young - he sees it as a negative thing. At the same time, others (Nietsche for one) see it as being positive. Will try to direct you to some readings around the issue.