Response to an article on artworks at UCT
In response to an article by Elisa Galgut and William Daniels, “The Art of Bull*** at UCT” (1 November 2018), we set the record straight for what should be the last time.
The Works of Art Committee, those who are facilitating the review of works of art on campus, comprises of much-respected historians, academics, scholars, artists and students. The implication that the opinions of these individuals amounts to expletives which cannot be dignified with being repeated here has to be taken with a pinch of salt. These are the experts, regardless of which reality one chooses to see.
In their article, Galgut and Daniels claim that the “narrative constantly changes” when related to the reasons for the review. Yes, the narrative does change, but that is the nature of a review – when new information comes to light the debate evolves just as in research.
A short review of the UCT situation is thus needed here. Following the 2016 protests, the immediate reaction of the executive was to move artworks on campus to safekeeping. Thereafter the executive realised that there was a need for spaces for engagement and discussion, hence the wider UCT community was asked to share their views on the matter. Finally based on these views it was understood that the issue was more complex than originally thought and thus the university has opened a dialogue regarding the place of artworks on campus.
A tangled web? We deeply disagree. Rather a rational evolution of ideas and thoughts. A university is where discourse evolves. And a “dialogue” by nature is a conversation thus if the conversation is ongoing it would be disingenuous to return artworks to campus.