I went to a talk between Lubaina Himid and Paul Goodwin at the Whitechapel Gallery last week. They discussed three exhibitions she had worked with in the 1980s: Five Black Women at the Africa Centre (1983), Black Women Time Now at Battersea Arts Centre (1983-4) and The Thin Black Line at the Institute of Contemporary Arts (1985). It was illuminating and more than a little depressing. One thing that got wedged in my head was how the exhibition at the ICA, deeply symbolic in a conduit between the big art stuff (ironically very small artworks by Richard Tuttle) and the bookshop, had been reviewed by Waldemar Januszczak who dismissed the exhibit as ‘angry’. That is the same Waldemar Januszczak who I recently had a short Twitter exchange with on the subject of the Oriel College Rhodes Must Fall campaign. He saw the idea of taking down the statue as censoring the past and likened the people who wanted to remove the object to the Taliban. He called me idiotic for saying the comparison is idiotic but, regrettably, he didn’t answer my question as to whether it was also censorship for some post communist countries to have taken down their images of communist leaders and other socialist inspirational types. I guess he was busy.
Anyway, at the moment, the admittedly entertaining Januszczak, is striding about various locations for his programme The Renaissance Unchained with what frequently looks like an empty suitcase (ha!) banging on about the marvels of northern european painting sculpture and architecture that has been buried under the italian big beasts when it comes to discussing the art of the Renaissance. He has a point. I too love the intricacies of Durer’s Roller’s Wing and Cranach’s Adam and Eve, I’m glad he gets to push the viewer in their direction. The thing is he is a determined revisionist and that rankles because of his obdurate approach to Rhodes’ statue which as far as I’m concerned has no aesthetic value whatsoever as it’s main purpose seems to be to make people walk beneath the feet of the person who funded an important scholarship, placing no emphasis at all on the fact that this is a statue of someone who could be described as a founding father of apartheid.