I think Brett Murray's portrayal is completely inaccurate, it's has been shown time and time again that JZ has no balls to speak of
I think Brett Murray's portrayal is completely inaccurate, it's has been shown time and time again that JZ has no balls to speak of
Lol. Just..... Lol at the above pic
@Flan
lol, now we know who's Wisler's father. :)
His mother is another story. Now its a one in nine chance that it's the right one.
What gets to me about this whole thing is that Zuma himself has not commented on the painting at all. You know, considering it is a depiction of him and all... He could end the entire controvosy with a few words.
It saddens me that people take offence to the painting rather than seeing what it's saying. If art holds up a mirror to reality then what is it showing us of Zumas legacy? That he's South Africas Bill Clinton perhaps? Perhaps saying to the man that he best step up his game or else his shower head will become a standard addition to any "incompetent" south african leader in the future
Granted I do understand Zumas supporters desire to destroy the painting but at the end of the day it denies Zuma a chance to be the good guy in all this as now he's going to be associated with the destruction of art.
Also: racists...
Anywho I've said enough
I've got a question: Do you think this is in violation to Zuma's human rights (To dignity)? I've been bedating it with a friend of mine who believes that it is.
This.
If the artist painted from Zuma himself, as in, what he really looks like by either Zuma posing for the artist nude or by photographs taken of him live, then yes, I'd say his dignity has been violated. However, he was painted from a mind's eye, the painting isn't true to life and the **** is purely from the mind of the artist. It's not Zuma. In the same breath then you can ask if Zapiro threatens the dignity of the people he draws in his mockeries. JuJu with a diaper, Zuma with the shower head, etc. etc.
Let's also not forget that dignity is not something we only bestow upon others, it is just as equally an innate sense of self worth. And that's why the constitution makes an allowance for the right to self worth. If you are arguably the most powerful man in SA, loved by millions and granted access to anything your heart desires, I highly doubt a satirical painting is somehow going to rob you of that dignity. When you find yourself within an environment that seems designed for the express purpose of stripping your sense of self worth, that is when you have the right to complain, as millions of South Africans justly do. And the right to expect that your President will hold your self-worth in higher regard than his own.
As a politician he opens himself to criticism; it's very much part and parcel of what his job is as president. He is not.the only president to be depicted in the nude as political commentary. That is not his actual penis. It is a metaphor... nothing more. If you are offended by it because you are a prude then you're missing the point.
www.iol.co.za/capetimes/mike-van-graan-on-the-spear-1.1301114
^I would like to suggest this work needs to be understood not simply as a work in its own right (although it stands its own on that basis too), but in a range of “contexts” to show it is not as unique or outrageous as its critics are claiming.
Thanks for the response. I'm in the camp of it's art and every person can decide if this is offensive or not.
You just can't tell someone else what they can or can't say (be it through art or otherwise).
So the City Press has elected to remove the image of The Spear from its website. Editor Ferial Haffajee pens the unfortunate but understandable reasons here.