By: Ismail Mahomed
If ART was an acronym it would stand for the following:
– ARTICULATE : the ability and the freedom to express one’s self in any of the myriad of ways that the human mind can imagine.
– RESONANCE: the ability, the courage and the wisdom to understand that any kind of free public expression will have a Reaction that may sometimes be in support of an artistic expression and at other times a Rejection of an artistic expression.
Since time immemorial the making of art has carried its own social Risks; and artists too have understood that freedom of expression is not limitless. It comes with a Responsibility to understand that art that undermines the dignity of others will hardly be tolerated.
The R in arts is indeed complex. It is about Reflecting a truth (art imitates life), a Re-imagination of new posssibilities (Renewal) and an answer to complex questions (Resolution) that allow us where we differ in our complexities to search for the threads that bind us in our common humanity (Re-envisionment).
In its complexity the R in ART reminds us that it holds the ultimate power in the three-lettered acronym. Not only does the R bind the two other letters in the acronym to it to give meaning to the word but it also reminds us that art is not a passive social player. It can be Revolutionary. It can stir Resistance. It can invoke a Rebellion.
TRUTH : all art speaks its own truth. Even when this truth is disguised through satire, parody or caricature, irony or blatant dishonesty and disingenuity its truth will be uncovered through the layers of meanings that it conveys and the various interpretations that it illucidates. Art can hardly ever be removed from social or political representation. Artists are not neutral beings. More than ever, artists consciously choose to be defenders of human rights and dignity.
Because the acronym ART is hardly passive any kind of artwork that is produced will be full of contestations. When an artwork does not represent a common held view it will upset and infuriate its viewers but does this mean that the artwork must be censored, removed from public viewing or be destroyed? It’s a complex question but it is what is at the heart of the outrage against the most recent ZARA representations except that though the ZARA campaign may have been created by a team of very talented artists and creatives the representation of the work has no merit as an artistic expression. The work’s primary mission is very simple. It is a marketing tool. It must generate profits regardless of any sensitivities, social obligations or consideration for the basic rules of what constitutes human dignity. Whilst art may be revolutionary marketing on the other hand is mercenary. The latter has no soul; and even when by chance a little soul does exist it sells it to the highest bidder.
In “The Jacket” the latest marketing campaign created by the Zara fashion house a model is surrounded by mannequins. Some have missing limbs and others are covered in white shrouds typical of Muslim burial shroud. The campaign has upset critics who argue that it is a statement about the fashion house’s deeply-rooted insensitivity to the brutality of violence and death in Palestine.
If the very same image generated by the Zara campaign existed as an artwork created by an independent artist in an independent art gallery or in a public space it might not have elucidated the same rage. The creation may have had several of its own meanings inspired by the artist’s own political persuasions. It could have read that from the chaos of the death and destruction a powerful woman arises. Each mannequin draped in calico could be a representation for the thousands of women who die at the hands of gender-based brutality. It could be that the modern woman forges ahead burying her past. The Zara work can never ever have any such noble meanings because the human mind draws on memory that this is not the first time that Zara or at least a representative of its marketing team has fallen foul of being anti-Palestine.
In 2011, Zara’s head designer, Vanessa Perilman, came under fire for her insensitive remarks to Palestinian model, Qaher Harshash. At the time, Zara distanced itself from Perilman’s comments and said that it “shall not tolerate discrimination of any kind”.
For Palestinian supporters the scars left from Perilman may have had a temporary plaster thrown on it but beneath the plaster the wound risked all chances of becoming septic. This toxic wound is what infuriates Palestinian supporters; and no matter how much boardroom executives at Zara may go through pains to explain that its marketing campaign for “The Jacket” is not in any way a commentary by its creatives about the Gaza-Israeli war its explanations are bound to fall on deaf ears.
With more than 70 000 white shrouded bodies that represent the brutality of war daily on our social media screens and television sets it is obvious that Zara’s “The Jacket” will take on a powerful meaning. In Zara’s case it is one of insensitivity and indignity. At the heart of any effective marketing campaign is timing and for Zara of course, it seems, that the timing of such a campaign given its history with Vanessa Perilman was not going to leave defenders of human rights numb. When marketing which is basically mercenary in its mission to drive profits parades itself as art it will inevitably evoke the kind of reaction that art does — a hardline reaction that speaks back to it with the same or even greater force!
Ismail Mahomed.
With more than thirty years of experience in the performing arts sector, Ismail Mahomed is an accomplished playwright, theatre director and arts administrator. His work has been staged in South Africa, Chile, Denmark, Germany and in the U.S. He is currently employed as a strategic and visonary leader of the Centre for Creative Arts, UKZN.
Article originally appeared on Mahomed’s Facebook page 18/12/2023