Balford Henry IT IS really pathetic that statues of Emancipation Park bearing a prominent penis and two bountiful breasts should stimulate so much excitement that nobody seems to remember what they were intended to portray, which is really freedom from social, political or legal restraints.
Personally, I wouldn't have a problem if the statues were at the entrance to the Edna Manley College of the Visual and Performing Arts, where they would benefit from the type of expert analysis they seem to deserve. but, when they are unloaded at the entrance to a park dedicated to the issue of emancipation from slavery, they become subjected to clumsy appraisers like myself, who wouldn't know the difference between abstract art and graffiti.
I know I may well be regarded as being guilty of simple 'bhuttuism' by all the well bred and discerning. But, I guess acquiring a taste for the arts is quite similar to acquiring a penchant for Japanese raw fish which only makes me sick.
However, in my favour, I guess, is the fact that I am numbered among a majority of our people who have this basic deficiency.
The problem with Laura Facey Cooper's statue is not that it has triggered controversy as an art work, but that it has created focus on the wrong subject - sex - instead of emancipation and, even worse, will continue to do so as long as it adorns the entrance to the park.
Sadly the responses to the criticisms raised against the statues have not addressed the basic issue. Instead those who have sought to defend them have taken refuge under placards about colour, ignorance, taste, and breeding.
But this is really a simple issue.
The monument at the entrance to Emancipation Park should encourage debate about slavery and emancipation. Fortunately, I covered the opening of the park by Prime Minister Patterson and remembered his words that it, "was a monument to the resilience of Jamaicans who successfully resisted slavery, endured protracted suffering and proved, against all odds, the invincibility of the human spirit."
I guess that, by modern aesthetic standards, statues of naked men and women showing off their sexuality could well represent the invincibility of the human spirit, but how does it represent resisting slavery and enduring protracted suffering?
Because of their failures to address those pertinent issues then statues end up dragging a red herring across the trail, creating discussions about sex, endowment, art and everything else but the subject that it should address.
It has divided Jamaicans on the issue of how we define art. Lining up we poor aesthetic bhuttus against the elite and, as usual, the conclusion is that it is because of our ignorance why we are unable to appreciate the artistic value of the works.
I have heard that the naked breasts represent innocence and that the fact that the figures are looking upward suggests some link with God. But to me the child that sucks the breast is far more innocent than the breasts from which the milk is sourced. And, in addition, I have had too many experiences of mad people running around the streets naked and looking up to heavens for no obvious reason to try to confirm that they are turning to God for inspiration.
But, believe me, the best response I've read so far was the writer in the Sunday Herald who claimed that, "the penis is unlike the ones depicted in carvings for sale in tourist areas I guess by now we have forgotten the speech made by Oliver Clarke at the opening ceremony, which was so highly praised for nine days. He said that the prime value of the symbol was to apply past experience to current and future problems and that the real job ahead of us was to emancipate Jamaica from the overwhelming challenges being faced, right now.
"The over two million Jamaicans who live here today want and need to feel that their glory days are ahead of them. To make our glory days ahead of us, we must get rid of the slave masters of today. These are the criminals and the drug dons who enslave entire communities all over Jamaica..."
What does this statue remind us of that challenge?
It was interesting to read that the NHT head, Kingsley Thomas, has said that the statue will not be removed, unless the minister says so.
Balford Henry is News Editor at the Gleaner.
