Pan-demonium in Stellenbosch: reason vs wild instinct

This is a response, or rather a continuation, of a previous post of mine, in which I also discussed the Art on the Rooiplein.

The 20Stellenbosch - Two Decades of South African Sculpture – outdoor art exhibition was launched in the historic town of Stellenbosch during October 2011. The idea behind it was to celebrate some of South Africa's most influential and recognised artists by erecting twenty of their sculptures all across town and in the process provide the public with the opportunity to view them all in one go. One of these sculptures was also placed right in the centre of the Stellenbosch University campus and as it turned out, currently is the one which receives the most media attention. This is because since day one it received strong criticism from members of the public which eventually lead to a petition being drawn up to ask for its removal and to be placed in an indoor art gallery in stead. These dissatisfied members of public then became the objects of criticism of many others who thought this sculpture ought to be welcomed in town and on campus.

So, what does this sculpture look like? What is its story, what does it represent, what is it communicating? Why are the people fine with the other sculptures but not with this one? Should art pieces not be allowed on a university campus? Is it tainting the image and culture of the university or town?

These are the typical questions I guess you would be asking me right now (and I will answer these shortly). You would want to form an opinion on the matter but can only do so once you have more information available? You would want to critically assess the sculpture and the environment in which it was placed, together with the objections against it and approvals of it? It seems, unfortunately though, that very few of those commenting on the controversy properly engaged these questions. Some saw the sculpture and found it aesthetically displeasing and offensive which lead them to take up the matter with the authorities involved. Although it is fair to voice one's opinion and lodge complaints, it is in itself not reason enough to remove a sculpture. Others again said they loved the sculpture and that they found it beautiful and very professionally done. A third group – the most vocal one, judging from activity on online publication and social network sites – were not specifically for or against the sculpture but really struggled to make peace with the fact that there are people who found the work offensive and wanted it moved to an indoor location. Personally, I believe art ought not so much to be judged on what it looks like but rather on what it communicates when considering whether it is appropriate in any given setting – and no, I can see no reason why art should be allowed to communicate what ever where ever simply because it is categorised as 'art'.

Let us now consider the sculpture itself. It is a depiction of a naked, half-man half-wildebeest figure in a somewhat uncomfortable pose (see my previous post for a picture). I doubt there are many cultures in all the world who would consider such a creature as one that is 'good' or 'pure' but as I said, we should not look at the creature itself but rather at what it repesents, or communicates. When we consider the full series of sculptures of which this one forms part of, we find the description below as it appears on the Christie's website through which the work of Dylan Lewis (the artist involved) is promoted. I also read it myself when I visited the gallery in Stellenbosch in which the series of works were displayed during 2011:

Dylan Lewis turned his attention to the human figure in 2006, after over a decade of focusing on animal forms. The change in subject matter is not the radical shift it may appear to be, as Lewis's primary inspiration and motivation remains the same. However, the wilderness landscapes inhabited by the wild animal have been expanded now to incorporate the growing fascination of the artist with the notion of internal and external wilderness areas that he sees as vital to our humanity, and he has launched himself into a passionate exploration of movement in both male and female figures: a dynamic integration of human, animal and earth, held together by ancient animistic belief, myth and ritual.
Lewis's human forms conjure the shaman, the conveyor of disembodied truths, yet are firmly grounded in powerful physicality. They are in direct association with the animal spirit and life force embodied in the animal skull masks they wear, the enormous wings they carry, or the claws that replace human hands. A large number of the new figures wear masks adorned with animal horns, and are thus reminiscent of the archetypal horned god found in several ancient mythologies including Celtic and Hindu, the most well-known of which must be the Greek, where he is Pan. But that is not to say that Lewis is here faithfully recreating only mythical characters. Instead, he invests a mortal humankind with those qualities evoked by the horned god archetype: closely associated to wild animals, sexuality and virility.
Lewis's humans lose restrictive human identities in ritualised and exuberant bodily movements that demonstrate their subservience to the personage of their animal aspects, and in so doing, they temporarily become more than "human". In becoming one with their animal masks and features, Lewis's new figures fleetingly reconnect with that which humankind lost in expelling our wild nature from our essential selves in order to define ourselves as "human". The transformation is a connection with and celebration of the vital energy, life force and spirit of all that is truly "wild". There is, Lewis's work suggests, a great nobility and even joy to be found in striving to connect with our wild past and origins both internally and externally: to attempt to reconnect with the abandoned Pan within, even if that end remains forever elusive.
Lewis's human figures represent an interface between animal and human rather than simple humankind, and continue to speak of wilderness. They are an attempt to explore visually the integration of all that is wild and free and to reconcile the ideas of inner and outer wilderness, as well as being vehicles through which to probe the fundamental importance of wilderness to the human psyche. These are ideas that Lewis intends to continue exploring in the foreseeable future.

So, in short, the sculpture depicts a Pan-like character through which Lewis encourages us to embrace again our 'wild' nature at the cost of the 'human' (civilised, tamed) one we are currently defined by. Given that Lewis grew up in a culture molded by the Judeo-Christian worldview, I understand him to refer to the beings morally accountable to a sovereign God, which this culture consider themselves as, when he refers to the term "human". He suggests we reconnect with our wild nature, the abandoned Pan within, that part which lives for pleasure and fulfillment of personal desires, the hedonist if you will. Or once again, as seen from within his own culture: we ought to reconnect with our sinful nature, that which we laid down for the sake of walking according to the moral law. And who was Pan anyway? He was a Greek god (counterpart to Roman god Faunus) who dwelled the mountainside and woods as a playful, energetic wildman who danced and played the syrinx (Panpipe). Other than that he would spend his time chasing nymphs and virgins to satisfy his sexual desires, especially by means of rape. The very queer thing was that when the university first received complaints surrounding the statue they released an official statement through which Lewis himself assured those concerned that the sculpture was not meant as religious commentary. It was a sure cop out from Lewis' side which reminded me of the saying my dad often used when myself or my sister came to him with a story that seemed a bit far-fetched: Moenie aan my perdedrolle probeer verkoop as vye nie (Don't try and sell me horse droppings as figs). Many claim they fail to recognise Lewis' work as religious commentary but I am simply not buying what he is trying to sell.

And why did the university see it fit to erect this particular sculpture right in the middle of campus? According to the same statement released via email, they revealed that "in the same manner in which the University encourages courageous conversations on a great number of topics, the sculptures are seen as a point of discussion to stimulated debate which will inevitably elicit various points of view." Oh boy! The university must be most disappointed of all parties involved, for what this ongoing episode has revealed so far is that the most vocal of their students lack critical thinking and debating skills. These students also seem artisticly illiterate as many of them struggle, for instance, to comprehend that this sculpture by Lewis communicates a totally different message to that of Michelangelo's renowned David, as they mockingly suggest that should the Lewis sculpture be removed from public view, so must that of Michelangelo. They chose to not analyse and discuss the sculpture on display but to use the opportunity in stead to launch emotional attacks on those who, in a civil manner, asked the authorities who placed the statue on campus in the first place, to reconsider their decision. The prime target ended up being (surprise, surprise!) Stellenbosch local scapegoat: Shofar Christian Church. The reason being that leaders from this church initially drew up the petition which was eventually signed by both congregants of the church and also many others. As someone who has been privileged enough to reside in Stellenbosch for more than ten years now, I recognise this as simply another wave of ungrounded attacks against the church. What mostly upsets me though is that these 'anti-petitioners' have no real interest in constructive dialogue but are simply allowing themselves and their opinions to be tossed to and fro by whatever the mainstream media and current pop-cultural thinking dictates to them. How many of these anti-protestor protestors visited the Lewis exhibition while it was in town? How many of them make use of the opportunity to engage Shofar's monthly open-to-public talk series on what they believe and why?

But let's return our focus to the university itself now. As a former student of the university and current Stellenbosch resident I struggle to connect the HOPE project, which the university has lately been focussing on, with a sculpture of a mythical, raping, god-like figure. Was their idea to challenge members of a civilised, hope-filled institution by displaying a sculpture which encourages wild, immoral behaviour? If so, the result was that some members responded by opposing that message in a civil fashion while others seemed to welcome this call to chaos (not to mention those who responded by vandalising this and other sculptures displayed in the exhibition).

When I first enrolled in the university I learnt that 'Stellenbosch stands for an idea'. I am now slightly confused as to what exactly this idea is? I find it somewhat counter-productive and even irresponsible of a university, which tries to establish itself as a beacon of hope in a struggling country which has recently been named 'Rape Capital of the World', to shamelessly and without much explanation welcome such a sculpture onto their campus. Not even to mention the fact that young women walking around on campus have been victims of rape and are victims of a culture which objectifies them as sexual props used to grant social status to men. I suggest the university and also the residents of Stellenbosch carefully consider which ideals they so boldly defend in the name of progressiveness.

I mentioned in my initial post that "it is no more open-minded to be immediately in favour of every new and different thing entering your sphere of movement than it is to reject it out of hand. At times the more open-minded ones are those willing to consider history and learn from it and on those grounds oppose a seemingly new idea." I'll leave it to you, the reader, to decide which of the parties involved are the open-minded ones. Is it those rejecting or accepting the sculpture simply by the looks of it? Or the ones launching ad hominem attacks on those opposing, or otherwise welcoming, the presense of the sculpture on campus? Perhaps it is those considering the bigger picture and whether the sculpture is contributing to the vision and promoting the established values of the university and town of Stellenbosch?

"Our instincts are obviously in conflict. The satisfaction of one demands the denial of another." -CS Lewis

Serv.

The Equiano Moment

One thing the year 2012 will be remembered for twenty years from now – or at least when the topic is mentioned most people will have some opinion on it – is the (in)famous Kony video. It spread virally at an unprecedented rate reaching 50 million youtube views in 5 days since its release on the 5^th of March, and as I'm writing this article views have almost reached 88 million. The web film has been criticised by many and praised by some for various reasons but what I would like to draw attention to is the broader concept of awareness campaigns in general.

What is the point of awareness campaigns anyway? To make people aware of an issue obviously! Yes, but why? Will awareness necessarily lead to action and if it does, to what extent?

I am generally in favour of awareness campaigns for the simple reason that once someone is aware of something they can respond to it. You do not normally respond to things you're not aware of unless you're perhaps suffering from constant paranoia?

As members of the general public we are targeted by tons of organisations competing for our hearts (money) through creative, emotional campaigns on a daily basis. Certain issues will catch our attention more easily than others depending on our view of what is important in life, experiences we had relating to a specific cause or simply because of a marketing plan which was brilliantly executed. It is at the end of the day our own responsibility to see to it that the cause we decide to support does the work they claim to do and that they do so with integrity.

But then, what if we are the ones trying to get someone on board? You can be part of a an organisation or simply an individual who needs assistance or who wants to get someone more capable, or better positioned than yourself to bring about change, to buy into your vision.

What you're looking for is to create an 'Equiano Moment'.

I draw this phrase (and if I can trust google, just coined it!) from the must see film for everyone in the slightest bit involved in activism: Amazing Grace. Well, actually, it is a must see film whatever you do with your time. Every time I watch it again I recognise different challenges that Wilberforce faced as he stood for the abolition of slavery and how he dealt with them and that they are pretty much identical to the challenges anyone standing for justice will face today. But I'm going slightly off topic now.

The Equiano Moment is what awareness campaigns truly ought to aim for. Yes, it is always beneficial and often times ultimately necessary to have strength in numbers in order to feed the thousands or put pressure on government to pass a bill but I'm convinced that if you aim for 'the one', the others will get drawn in automatically. And, as a matter of a fact, if you don't get the attention of that 'one', the multitudes don't have anyone to speak through. One of the pastors at my local church told me a while back that throughout history it almost always took only one person to take a stand for change to happen, God has never been interested in numbers but only in willingness. Just the other day I heard a talk on radio where the guest speaker reminded listeners that many famous revolutions were started by one person who decided to stand, as he referred to Rosa Parks who stood her ground against racism on a bus by remaining seated actually, and also 'Tank Man' who stopped a column of army tanks as he stubbornly refused to move out of the way on that famous day on Tiananmen Square in 1989. The reality is simply this: one person wholeheartedly committed to a cause can bring down an army eventually. Imagine now ten or one hundred people functioning with such conviction?

So what exactly is this Equiano Moment? It is basically that moment when someone reaches tipping point and crosses the line of no return. It is not something someone can be conned into doing or stops doing once the hype of emotional hysteria has died down. It follows a clear understanding of the situation at hand and the consequences advancing a certain cause might hold for the individual in doing so. In the Amazing Grace film William Wilberforce has long been opposed to the slave trade, yet grew tired of fighting for a cause which simply seemed impossible to achieve. Up to this point the battle was fought on principle and although it was for a noble cause indeed, there remained a willingness to discontinue. While Wilberforce was passing through the valley of decision and still hesitant as to whether he should continue the fight or leave it to others, a meeting was arranged at his home. Among the guests was former slave, Olaudah Equiano, who presented Wilberforce with the real facts surrounding the slave trade and showed him the branding he bore on his body which signified that a slave 'no longer belonged to God but to a man'. Although Wilberforce understood for years that the slave trade was an immoral and unjust practise, he experienced that night at his dinner table his Equiano Moment. It was then he decided that he would see the slave trade abolished no matter what the personal cost to him would be. It is probably because of this moment that he closed one of his abolition speeches in the House of Commons saying, "You may choose to look the other way but you can never again say you did not know."

Actress Ashley Judd mentioned: "I allow my empathy to be engaged, and once it is - because my feelings help teach me what my values are - I'm on the path for which there is no return. I am inexorably an advocate when I allow my empathy to be engaged."

At times it is your duty to allow the empathy of others to be engaged, to wake the sleeping giants, to speak to the valley of dry bones, like the visiting party did when they identified and engaged Wilberforce as the one who must champion their cause. And on occasion, you will be the one chosen, the one who experience the Equiano Moment.

"From awareness comes action, from action comes change." - Conal McDevitt

"One man with courage is a majority." – some say Andrew Jackson ,some say Thomas Jefferson.

"When we take the risk of really witnessing another human being, when we validate their human experience, we risk becoming recruited to their welfare." - Robert Keegan

"When one comes close enough to death one only has one of two choices: you either run to it (to offer your help) or you run from it." - Bill Wilson paraphrased

Serv.

My STOPrunning experience

It does sound a bit like I went on a kind of fast from running or something but on the contrary, I put in more kms in a 24-hour period than ever before I think. Between 07h40 on Friday, 6 April 2012 (exactly 360 years after Jan van Riebeeck first set foot on South African soil!) and 07h48:36s on the 7^th I completed 43.1kms – the first 22km on rough terrain along and around Table Mountain while the second half-marathon stretch happened below on the tarred strips of Cape Town's southern suburbs.

You don't have to pay me in order to run in any of the anual Two Oceans Marathon events which is popularly referred to as 'the world's most beautiful marathon'. I will willingly pay to take part year after year and that is exactly what I do every year. This year of course I was greedy enough to enter myself, together with another friend, into two of these races. I used the classic excuse of 'I'm doing it for charity' in order to challenge myself to push my personal known limits somewhat.

It was however not for 'charity' at all but for freedom. In my physical state I probably feel most free when I'm running. It is the motion that comes most naturally to my lanky, long-legged body – after sinking into a couch and walking that is. Many people have their opinions on what the main cause of strife around the world through the ages have been (mine is that it is self-righteousness supported by pride flowing from sinful, deceived hearts) but what I have realised is that what many of the quarrels happening across the globe on a daily basis revolves around is perceived freedom and the infringement thereof. Everyone thinks someone else is busy stealing some (or lots) of their freedom. And then that whole self-righteous-pride-sinful heart thing sets in and we demand our individual freedom at the cost of many others' maybe.

But what if you were literally enslaved? As in the property of an owner – one human using another for their own personal gain while giving nothing unconditional in return? Basically, a parasite owning and manipulating the one it leaches on. As many as 30 million children, women and men find themselves in such dire circumstances as I'm typing out my thoughts on a fun run experience I had over the past weekend. It also happened to be Passover weekend – when traditionally Israelites remembered their freedom from captivity (slavery) in Egypt, the very same weekend Jesus of Nazareth publicly declared eternal freedom to all peoples of all nations. [I only realise the symbolic/prophetic significance of my run now!] All those people enslaved today make out the victims of what is known as human trafficking – the illegal trade of humans across and within national borders for sex, labour or body parts.

I cannot give an exact account of what change my running around and along a mountain have brought about to their situation but what I do know is that as long as I am free myself, I can celebrate my freedom by fighting for those who cannot.

My effort forms part of and contributes toward a further group of people who sound the alarms against human trafficking, who in turn partners with other organisations informing more people about and assisting victims away from their captors toward freedom. This battle will not be won overnight and not by the efforts of a single person. I received this revelation while running: as I was entering the last 6kms of my first day's race I realised I had to hold back a bit (after my running partner had to constantly keep down my pace during the race) in order to effectively move and complete the next day's 21.1km. I realised that although I was busy completing the 22km of the first race I was also busy with the full 43.1km race and had to stick to my own pace and not measure myself against runners who passed me on their way to finish their one race of 22km. 'It's not how you start but how you finish' became a reality to me together with the fact that each one must do and stick to what they were called to do regarding any given situation.

This is an invite to all others to join the cause in their own capacity and help free slaves in a time where there are more forced slaves than any other in history.

"Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance...I believe that in this generation those with the courage to enter the moral conflict will find themselves with companions in every corner of the world." - from Robert Kennedy's Day of Affirmation Address at the University of Cape Town (UCT) on 6 June 1966 - the finishing line for all Two Oceans races are on that Main campus of UCT.

Serv.

The reason behind my run.

He is risen! Or is he?

Not sure what your views on Jesus' resurrection are based on? Mine is on the fact that when I communicated my need for freedom from sin and death to God, my life was and is affected in the exact way the Biblical testimony described it would be and will continue to be affected.

I came to that place through the testimony of others who had a similar experience of the resurrection power on offer, while during it all demanding from whoever or whatever 'god' (creator/designer/force/architect/spirit/distant one) may be that he must show me truth and I will bow to it.

When we accept or reject any testimonial or historical account of any event, on the basis of what do we do that? Is it not a combination of the credibility of the source communicating it to us and the the co-operation of our personal experiences and logical reasoning? Yes, but we must be careful of not letting the dogma directing us and the beliefs it is grounded in unnecessarily interfere with the interpretation of the facts presented to us. We must remain honest sceptics, willing to change our opinion for the sake of fully experiencing the freedom that Truth brings.

All other theories and reasoning for what happened to me fail in comparison still, and all historical and legal insights into the event seems to be in favour of a resurrected Christ, so I would have to be an illogical, unreasonable and inconsistent man to not conclude that Christ is risen. If this is not so, the most significant demographic I would ever form part of is that out of all people that ever existed, I will fall under the segment: 'most pitiable of all men'. (1 Cor. 15:12-19)

 "In coming to understand anything we must reject the facts as they are for us, in favour of the facts as they are."       - CS Lewis

 Serv.

Mamihlapinatapai

I have just had the privilege of being made aware of the existence of a word from the Yaghan language of Tierra del Fuego which is listed in the Guinness book of records as the 'most succint word' (in the world I take it – how on earth do they determine that though? But let's give it to them), and its also considered the hardest word to translate.

This was brought to my attention through a facebook friend who shared it via her status – what would one do without facebook friends, I know. That word is Mamihlapinatapai and amongst a few definitions found I'll go with the wikipedia one, the one shared on facebook also: "a look shared by two people, each wishing that the other will offer something that they both desire but are unwilling to suggest or offer themselves."

So, the obvious thing which springs to mind for many is the age old predicament (or is it becoming more and more of a predicament as the centuries roll by?) of two souls fancying one another while both find themselves unable to make a pass at the other.