Monumental
Mistake
published: Sunday
| August 24, 2003
By Narda Graham, Contributor
I BELIEVE THAT our point of departure in evaluating Laura Facey-Cooper's
Redemption Song can only be its function as a national monument,
for which purpose it was commissioned. I believe a national monument
can be judged on the basis of two criteria: aesthetic value, and
symbolic value.
Aesthetic value,
though essential, is merely a prerequisite, because, it practically
goes without saying that a national monument is to be artistically
well executed able to stand on its own purely as a work of
art. However, the symbolic value of the monument is the clincher
it is the make or break factor.
Now let us evaluate
Facey-Cooper's work against these two criteria.
AESTHETIC
VALUE
I will agree
with those who say that Redemption Song is a well-done piece of
art. Its aim of realistically representing the nude human form on
a monumental scale has been successfully realised. However, it would
be a stretch to eulogise it, as some have done, as a great work
of art, because great art has an essential characteristic that this
sculpture does not the energy of inspiration. Some have, misguidedly
I believe, compared Facey-Cooper with the great Italian Renaissance
artist, Michelangelo. Now I have problems with this comparison on
contextual grounds, which I will get to later. However, it is relevant
to point out that what made Michelangelo's work exceptional was
that he achieved not only formal beauty in his sculptures, but that
he also infused them with powerful expression and meaning, so that
they almost seemed to have a life force of their own. This "life
force" the "life force" of all great art
is what Redemption Song most clearly lacks. Great art palpably fulfils
the artist's intent in such a manner that anyone viewing it, even
if not able to verbally articulate its meaning, or even if repelled
by it, is struck by its "rightness". Many of those who
find Redemption Song tolerable, or even beautiful, are confused
about the artist's intent, or just have the feeling that the work
is unfinished, unfulfilled, not quite right. So, for aesthetic value,
Redemption Song gets a C+.
SYMBOLIC
VALUE
The acid test
of symbolic value is immediate gut reaction. What does the monument
say to you? I must admit that it says nothing to me. When one gets
past the first shock of the nudity (if one is of the so-called "prudish"
disposition), there seems to be nothing remaining except a large
blandness. Redemption Song inspires puzzlement, indifference, peripheral
anger (i.e. anger that has nothing to do with its intent), and admiration
as "great art", but I have yet to hear a heartfelt negative
or positive reaction to the monument's meaning, to what it's trying
say. It has stimulated little or no discussion on the meaning of
Emancipation in today's Jamaica.
Something has
clearly gone amiss when most Jamaicans cannot understand the symbolism
of a national monument celebrating our freedom, or when they bypass
the symbolism completely and discuss anatomical features instead.
Although we are told that the figures symbolise rebirth and reverence
(the telling of which should be unnecessary), the comments I have
heard from those around me are that the man seems blind, and that
both figures seem trapped and passive. The symbolism has missed
its mark.
To understand
why so much furore and discontent has been generated, we must consider
that with symbolic value, context is everything, and by context
I mean time, place, occasion. The year is 2003, the place is a national
park in Jamaica, the Caribbean, and the occasion is a celebration
of the Emancipation of our African ancestors from slavery. We must
ask ourselves, "How is this monument right for these times,
this place, this occasion?
It is my theory
that a work of art's symbolic value is dependent on the use it makes
of the symbolic vocabulary understood by the people for which it
is created. Being no art expert, I simply use the term "symbolic
vocabulary" to mean the associations we attach to certain symbols.
For example, simplistically speaking, red means "Stop!"
or "danger"; green means "go"; and a raised
fist signifies defiance and
rebellion.
The symbolic
vocabulary used in monumental art should be largely dependent on
national aesthetic traditions and socio-
cultural norms. Now, contrary to what those who brought Michelangelo
into the argument seem to believe, Jamaica does have its own aesthetic
tradition, in which Europe has not played the major role. We do
not need "our own Michelangelo". Why do we always need
to validate our own creations by pointing out their resemblance
to something European? Moreover, why should we attempt to recreate
something that already existed? The world already had a Michelangelo
Time: 1475 to 1564. Place: Italy, Europe. Occasion: the Italian
Renaissance. In that context he was the artist par excellence, but
he cannot be the model for a Jamaican artist of our times.
OUT OF CONTEXT
The Renaissance,
one will remember, was the rebirth of culture, science, and philosophy
in Europe, largely inspired by traditions in Ancient Greece and
Rome. Part of this rebirth involved the rise of humanism, a school
of thought which esteemed man and man's intellect as essentially
noble, rejecting the prevailing view of the Middle Ages that humankind
was naturally base and sinful. The presentation of the anatomically
correct nude in much of that period's art was evidence of this new
celebration of the beauty of man and the power of scientific inquiry.
At the risk
of being vehemently contradicted, I will say that the issue with
the nudity depicted in Redemption Song is not one of morality. There
is nothing innately sinful or evil about the naked human body. However,
I will repeat, context is everything. Nudity might work on the publicly
commissioned 'David' in Florence in 1501, but it is out of context
in 2003 Jamaica.
Whether or not
we are even conscious of it, we have inherited an Africanized aesthetic,
although of course there have been other influences. African art
generally seeks to depict the spirit or the essence of a being,
rather than the being itself. Thus, when the human form is presented
in traditional African art, the head is often the focus, and the
body is not depicted in a strictly representational, anatomical
manner. Rather, it is usually depicted symbolically, through the
use of distortion, exaggeration, and abstraction. We see this African
influence in the work of many Jamaican sculptors - from roadside
carvers to Edna Manley School graduates.
Additionally,
the Jamaican reality outside of the artistic sphere must be considered.
I have heard it said that since Jamaica has a highly sexualised
culture, Jamaicans should not be disturbed by nudity in public art.
In fact, the opposite is true. It is exactly because we are a highly
sexualised culture that nudity in art is shocking to many, since
for a large number, nudity equals sex, not purity, rebirth, freedom
or nobility. Deplorable as it may be, that is how nudity fits into
our symbolic vocabulary. Therefore, most Jamaicans do not expect
or wish to see anatomically precise nudity on a public piece of
art.
In fact, even
today's Europeans would not be highly receptive to nude public monuments,
except in the context of a deliberate attempt to evoke a particular
period in their history. That brand of art has been largely
relegated to the past, and modern European public monuments are
most likely to be angular and abstract in nature, as befits
post-modernist, industrialised countries. Jamaica has to strive
for art forms that suit our own heritage and current reality.
The bottom line
is, Redemption Song does not speak to most Jamaicans. It does not
speak a language we understand readily. It does not employ our symbolic
vocabulary. Race is not the issue (I never even thought to consider
the race of the artist before that issue began to be bandied about
in the media). The issue is the expression of the Jamaican experience
using symbols that Jamaicans will find understandable, approachable,
ours.
