 |
| The rabbit has been sparking a good deal of controversy. |
On December 16th, 2013, one day after the funeral
of South African President Nelson Mandela, an approximately 30 foot tall statue
of the iconic leader was unveiled outside of the Union Buildings, the South
African government's central headquarters, outside of Pretoria (bbc.co.uk).
The artists of the piece, Andre Prinsloo and Ruhan Janse van
Vuuren, were allegedly not allowed by officials to engrave their names upon the
statue's trousers (guardian.com), so, in a brazen act of defiance, they
inserted their own trademark: a statue of a rabbit hidden in one of the ears.
The rabbit is said to have been placed there due to the tight time constraints for getting the project complete. The Afrikaans
language word "haas" means both rabbit and haste (bbc.co.uk).
South Africa's government wants the rabbit removed.
"That statue isn't just a statue of a man,” said Dali
Tambo, CEO of Koketso Growth, the heritage development company that managed the
statue project. “It's the statue of a struggle, and one of the most noble in
human history," Tambo said. "So it's belittling, in my opinion, if
you then take it in a jocular way and start adding rabbits in the ear"
(theguardian.com).
Nelson Mandela was elected president of South Africa in
1994, shortly after his 27 year imprisonment for his activism against South
African apartheid (independent.co.uk). Mandela was famously known for his
willingness to forgive his oppressors, and his openness and embrace of all
members of the South African community, both black and white.
While the artists have since apologized for any offense that
they may have caused (bbc.co.uk), there is the question of artistic integrity that must be
considered. Did these artists have any right to include this insignia?
At first, I was sympathetic towards the two artists. Although
the statue itself cost a cool 8,000,000 rand (over 700,000 dollars), being your own boss implies
that you have no guarantee of a steady paycheck. You have to do what it takes
to get your name out there in the world, so that you may generate more
business.
However, after discovering that the artists’ names were
going to be on a plaque right next to the statue, this seems like an act of
cockiness and arrogance (news.yahoo.com). The artists would have received credit
anyway, so it seems likely that they were a little too attached to their work and have a little too
big egos to be satisfied with that.
How could the government not see that coming? As an artist
myself, I can say with certainty that we are deeply attached to our work, and when
we don’t have creative control over how that work is presented, then we can
take it a little personally. I understand that Dali Tambo said that the
signatures “could be added on the statue in a discreet place, maybe on
Mandela's heel" (mydailynews.com). The problem is that that statue is Prinsloo’s and van
Vuuren’s baby, so they wanted to put their mark on it in whatever way they saw
fit.
Even with this disobedience to authority, I don’t think
there is really much of an offense. It was the most benign way that they could
have included their trademark. It wasn't like they included a giant rat on the
statue, which is probably something London street artist Banksy would have
done.
“You need a long lens or binoculars to see it,” Prinsloo
said (bbc.co.uk).
Either way, if the Prinsloo and van Vuuren weren't known by
the world before, then it certainly knows them now.
