Sasol runs for cover from controversial photograph

By Patrick Burnett

A photograph featuring a semi-naked couple has sparked a debate over how corporates should handle controversial art after Sasol distanced themselves from the work when it won the prestigious New Signatures award.

The photograph, Familieportret 2 by Potchefstroom photographic artist Richardt Strydom, features a penis, a hint of panties and a bit of bosom. Declared the winner of the Sasol New Signatures competition at an event at the Pretoria Art Museum two weeks ago, it netted Strydom R60,000.

But Sasol were not impressed with the rationale that the photograph depicted the “suffering middle classes” and announced they were distancing themselves from the work. The petrochemical giant did,however, confirm their support for the judging panel.

Artist and curator Clive van den Berg, quoted in Business Day, was scathing. “This is an extraordinary decision. If Sasol wants to sponsor an art competition they must accept that a function of art is to challenge and comment on society. If they want to support something tame, they should stick to rugby.”

Further questions have been raised elsewhere, with Sasol being seen as promoting itself as a patron of the arts, but only of work that it likes. And how could Sasol, as one blog posting asked, adopt a conservative approach when it’s own brand was concerned with innovation?

Strydom’s image is described by the judges of the competition as “a
picture of loss and the loss of human dignity depicting the extreme misery, pathos and dehumanisation of poverty.”

Francì Cronjé, Sasol New Signatures Competition Chairperson, explained: “The work depicts a controversial level of nudity. However, the judging panel felt the entry could be any South African family, or part of the global community of suffering middle-class.”

However, Sasol issued a statement on its website, accepting the decision of the judges, but stating that they had a right to express a view on any decision.

“We also recognise that some members of the Sasol staff as well as some members of the public may be challenged or even offended by the piece and we feel it is both responsible and appropriate, that we distance Sasol from the artwork.”

Contacted for comment, Strydom, a graphic design lecturer at North West University, defended his work. “I don’t think Sasol distancing themselves from my work diminishes the work and I put my faith in the panel.”

However, he said the controversy opened an “interesting debate” about the future of corporate-sponsored art competitions.

While corporate money was needed to develop the arts, corporates were also concerned about their brand image, which could be at odds with artists.

Commenting on the issue, Mike van Graan, a playwright and director of the Africa Centre, which organises the Spier Contemporary, points out that there is a tension between the interests of any funder and those of artists when it comes to freedom of expression.

This would inevitably lead to conflicts with society, politicians, funders and the public. “It’s the recognition of these inherent tensions that will help to manage these better,” he said.

In this sense, Van Graan said the funder was providing a space and in so doing gained mileage, rather than being associated with every form of freedom of expression in that space.

But Van Graan said that by bringing attention to one work, there was a move to censorship. The better way of handling the issue would be to inform stakeholders beforehand about providing a space for artistic expression rather than distancing or justifying works in retrospect.

Van Graan notes that corporates never distance themselves from sport. “And goodness knows there are sufficient examples of embarrassing things in sport,” he said.

In response to questions about only wanting to be associated with art it likes, Sasol Group Communications Manager Jacqui O’Sullivan said: “Art is in the eye of the beholder and while it is true that we believe in infinite boundaries, we also have to responsibly consider the sensitivities of our various shareholders.”

O’Sullivan said the issue was not about Sasol “disliking or labeling the winning piece” but being sensitive to different audiences, “particularly our diverse internal audience”.

She said Sasol would not censure or control the New Signatures judging process and were proud of their 19-year association with the competition.

“We respect freedom of expression and, with that, Sasol’s freedom to express an opinion. We also respect the many differing public views on what is perceived to be acceptable.”

Other corporates have faced similar challenges and dealt with them differently, however. Philippa Hobbs, curator of the MTN art collection, remembers a piece by artist Abrie Fourie on the Voortrekker monument that led to criticism both from those who thought it was glorifying apartheid and those who believed it was mocking Afrikaans culture. MTN hosted a debate on the company intranet inviting people to air their thoughts and then published the results in a company publication.

“It’s best to be able to predict controversy, but sometimes you can’t do that and then the best way is to acknowledge it and deal with it head on.”

But Hobbs believes that people are far more tolerant than they were 10 years ago, when there were heightened political, religious and racial sensitivities.

“When there is sensitivity then one has to be very prepared with a professional strategy that is acceptable to the corporate world and the art sector.”