logo
In the Shadow of the Gallery: Art, power and the fight for Johannesburg's soul

In the Shadow of the Gallery: Art, power and the fight for Johannesburg's soul

Mail & Guardian27-04-2025
Hanging in the balance: Years of neglect and mismanagement have led to the decay of the Johannesburg Art Gallery building in Joubert Park, threatening its priceless collection. (Photo by Gallo Images/Fani Mahuntsi)
Earlier this year, the Mail & Guardian carried
Then, days ago, on April Fool's Day no less, Currency published an article headlined:
On 27 March, a 'JAG stakeholder engagement' meeting was held with artists, heritage organisations, and civic bodies. The Johannesburg Development Agency (JDA) presented its plan, led by Riaan Hollenbach of Lamela Consulting, in what felt more like a public perception management exercise than genuine consultation. The JDA will oversee the execution of urban development projects, including logistics, compliance and resources, and Lamela has reportedly been tasked with initiating renovations. The patchwork plan to revive the deteriorating gallery in crime-ridden Joubert Park included a temporary relocation of the JAG collection to Ditsong, the Standard Bank and Absa buildings, or Newtown, amid ongoing wrangling.
The timeline for this seems as wobbly as the building itself, with regulatory approvals and site preparation set for September, followed by infrastructure upgrades, and an operational launch in November next year.
The Johannesburg Development Agency detailed its planned process for relocating JAG's important collection and restoring the historic Joubert Park precinct. It outlined the roles of national and provincial bodies and its own team of heritage experts who are tasked with balancing preservation and innovation.
But achieving this balance is apparently easier said than done.
A century-old institution, JAG is facing an existential crisis. Protected under the National Heritage Act, and home to a priceless collection, it is a national treasure and cultural pillar — central to the city's artistic identity — yet also under constant threat from theft, neglect and decay, due to ongoing mismanagement.
Many institutions, including Friends of JAG and the Johannesburg Heritage Foundation, consider themselves stakeholders in its fate. But while parts of the proposed future seem promising, it is precisely because of the long-standing failures that the gallery's troubled past can't simply be brushed aside.
One afternoon, as Khwezi Gule, JAG's curator, drove me around the surrounding precinct, he shared his thoughts on the interconnectedness of the gallery's history with the city's ongoing struggles.
'The weight of history is a burden I carry every day when I step into these spaces,' Gule revealed, visibly wounded by his own words.
'How do you reconcile with these objects — some deeply offensive — and yet, I'm the one tasked with their care and preservation?' he pondered.
This, for Gule, isn't just a job, it's a daily negotiation with history.
For him, the challenge for institutions like JAG lies in undoing centuries of oppression embedded in both the architecture and the artifacts.
'To completely transform these spaces, to tear them down and rebuild them anew, is something people aren't ready to entertain,' he explains.
As we drove on, ducking taxis and swerving to avoid jaywalkers, Gule's frustration became palpable.
The Johannesburg Art Gallery building. (Photo by Gallo Images/Fani Mahuntsi)
'These spaces were not made for us, and yet we are made to occupy them,' he said, pointing out the fundamental contradiction of working in spaces designed to exclude the very people who are tasked with reshaping them.
As we spoke, it became clear that the true decolonisation of these spaces cannot simply be about representation or inclusion. It requires a complete rethinking of how art is produced, consumed and interpreted.
Many of the works in JAG's collection were acquired under colonial rule and they reflect a history of exploitation. 'These objects come from a time of violence,' Gule reflects, 'and yet, they remain with us.' For him, as curator, this presents a paradox: 'How do you reconcile with that, when these objects continue to represent a violent history, yet you're responsible for them?'
The dilemma of what to do with them is tangled up in the broader conversation on reparations, because this isn't just about restoring buildings or returning looted treasures, it's about confronting the economic and social injustices that still stem from colonial violence.
Step outside JAG, and you're hit with the raw, unvarnished reality of Johannesburg. Joubert Park, once a space for privileged white people, is a broken, neglected corner of the city.
It was never meant for black people, but after decades of disinvestment, it's a shadow of what it could have been — a stark reminder of the failures of urban planning and justice.
The city's plans for JAG's restoration might raise questions but the vision is clear — rejuvenation, not just for the building, but for the surrounding area too.
'This is an opportunity to redefine what it means to have a truly public cultural institution in Johannesburg,' said Lamela Consulting's Hollenbach, who was not afraid to admit the renovation team was working on gentrification.
As Gule warned, the true test will lie in whether these changes uplift local communities or simply maintain the status quo.
The restoration is an arduous and complex project that, despite the challenges, including frustrations over mismanagement and the slow progress, has managed to hold the public's interest and a mood of cautious optimism.
This is why it would have been great if there had been more transparency and inclusivity in the consultation process. As one participant at the meeting stated, 'We want a gallery that doesn't just exist but thrives — and that can only happen if everyone who lives and works in this city is genuinely part of its future.'
Throughout the meeting, participants kept stressing the need for a radical rethinking, not only of the gallery's physical structure but the value of its precious collection and its function within broader society.
'Each of these must be temporarily separated and reimagined independently before they can be brought together to serve future generations,' one speaker emphasised.
As Gule had similarly noted in our conversation days prior, 'We are not just curators of art; we are curators of histories, legacies and futures.'
The Johannesburg Art Gallery. (Photo by Gallo Images/Fani Mahuntsi)
Despite a rather impressive presentation, questions about the project's inclusivity, particularly regarding the involvement of younger artists in the process, were not fully addressed. The lack of younger voices at the meeting was palpable, with many of the attendees established figures in the arts.
A more transgenerational and transdisciplinary dialogue might be key to ensuring the success of the project, with one stakeholder remarking, 'We need to make sure we don't push out the very community we are trying to build this gallery for.'
Digital innovation, from a new archive to hybrid programming, was pitched as a way to extend JAG's reach beyond its physical walls.
While that felt timely, some ideas — like promoting gentrification — missed the mark. Even when the 'African Phoenix' idea emerged, it lacked the self-awareness that, to rise from the ashes, it first has to burn.
This is the weight of the work at hand. JAG's future, rooted in South Africa's history of urban erasure and systemic inequalities, lies at the intersection of reclamation and the persistent harshness of the present.
In Gule's words, 'Decolonisation isn't about undoing history, it's about constructing something that truly reflects and serves the people who've always been left behind.'
JAG's restoration is about more than just reviving a colonial building. It's about manifesting a vision for a future where African cultural production is reshaped to serve those whose voices have been silenced for too long.
The test is whether the leadership can transform lofty promises into something tangible or if it will remain another hollow hallucination.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Censorship for Citizenship
Censorship for Citizenship

Atlantic

time11 minutes ago

  • Atlantic

Censorship for Citizenship

This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Not that long ago, believe it or not, Donald Trump ran for president as the candidate who would defend the First Amendment. He warned that a 'sinister group of Deep State bureaucrats, Silicon Valley tyrants, left-wing activists, and depraved corporate news media' was 'conspiring to manipulate and silence the American people,' and promised that 'by restoring free speech, we will begin to reclaim our democracy, and save our nation.' On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order affirming the 'right of the American people to engage in constitutionally protected speech.' If anyone believed him at the time, they should be disabused by now. One of his most brazen attacks on freedom of speech thus far came this past weekend, when the president said that he was thinking about stripping a comedian of her citizenship—for no apparent reason other than that she regularly criticizes him. 'Because of the fact that Rosie O'Donnell is not in the best interests of our Great Country, I am giving serious consideration to taking away her Citizenship. She is a Threat to Humanity, and should remain in the wonderful Country of Ireland, if they want her,' he posted on Truth Social. This must have been exhilarating to O'Donnell, who received a brief new grant of relevance and told the Irish broadcaster RTE, 'I am very proud to be opposed to every single thing he says and does and represents.' But once the exhilaration subsides, the fundamental idea is very disturbing: Trump appears to view both free speech and U.S. citizenship as conditional, things he can revoke based on his own whims. Writing off the threat to O'Donnell as just another instance of Trumpian trolling—or an attempt to distract from fatal flooding in Texas, dozens of incomplete trade deals, or intramural MAGA battles over Jeffrey Epstein —is tempting. And the odds that Trump would actually successfully strip O'Donnell of her passport seem slim. But that doesn't mean the threat is irrelevant. What in particular set Trump off here is unclear—he and O'Donnell have been feuding for years—but by all indications, the answer is simply that she has exercised her freedom of speech to jab him. Perhaps this should go without saying, but native-born American citizens like O'Donnell generally cannot be stripped of their citizenship. (Citizens can, however, choose to relinquish their citizenship—something that has become a somewhat popular option for people wishing to avoid U.S. taxes, including former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, a New York native.) A president can't just decide that he wants to take it away. In other recent cases where the Trump administration has attempted to suppress speech, officials have at least claimed that they have evidence of criminality (though that's not to say even that was a legitimate standard; such accusations are also dangerous, and judges have dismissed them). With O'Donnell, Trump isn't even pretending she has crossed some sort of criminal line. He's also not (yet) taking action, but Trump often uses initially brash and outlandish threats as a way to acclimate the populace to his overreaching, as I wrote in the January 2024 issue of The Atlantic: 'When a second-term President Trump directs the Justice Department to lock up Democratic politicians or generals or reporters or activists on flimsy or no grounds at all, people will wring their hands, but they'll also shrug and wonder why he didn't do it sooner. After all, he's been promising to do it forever, right?' I wish this argument had aged worse. Trump has begun talking more frequently about revoking citizenship as a means of punishing political speech. He has mused about using the tool against political opponents, including the New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, alleging potential fraud, and his former buddy Elon Musk, who had the temerity to insult him. Both of these men are naturalized, which makes their citizenship marginally easier to remove—though, again, not for simple speech. The administration has also been pursuing denaturalizations of citizens whom it believes it can prove lied on their application, which is an established legal basis for stripping their legal status. Even if Trump doesn't normalize taking away citizenship, he is continuing to entrench the idea that the government—or, really, just the president on his own—can punish citizens who criticize it, or him. That's been one of the most prominent themes of his term so far: He has banished the Associated Press from some White House spaces simply for refusing to adopt his preferred terminology, extorted law firms that employed lawyers involved in the criminal cases against him, and demanded huge payouts from news organizations. He'll continue as long as he's successful. 'If we don't have free speech, then we just don't have a free country,' Trump said in a campaign video posted in 2022. 'It's as simple as that. If this most fundamental right is allowed to perish, then the rest of our rights and liberties will topple just like dominos one by one. They'll go down.' Here are three new stories from The Atlantic: Today's News President Donald Trump announced a new weapons-transfer plan for Ukraine and threatened to impose high tariffs on Russia if a peace deal is not reached in 50 days. The Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to move forward with dismantling the Education Department and firing nearly 1,400 workers. Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration for withholding more than $6.8 billion in education funding, which helps pay for free or low-cost after-school programs and assistance for students learning English. Dispatches Evening Read The AI Mirage By Ian Bogost 'I'm not going to respond to that,' Siri responded. I had just cursed at it, and this was my passive-aggressive chastisement. The cursing was, in my view, warranted. I was in my car, running errands, and had found myself in an unfamiliar part of town. I requested 'directions to Lowe's,' hoping to get routed to the big-box hardware store without taking my eyes off the road. But apparently Siri didn't understand. 'Which Lowe?' it asked, before displaying a list of people with the surname Lowe in my address book … The latest version of Siri has 'better conversational context'—the sort of thing that should help the software know when I'm asking to be guided to the home-improvement store rather than to a guy called Lowe. But my iPhone apparently isn't new enough for this update. I would need cutting-edge artificial intelligence to get directions to Lowe's. More From The Atlantic Read. Alert the incels! The rest of us love Pamela Anderson, and we will always love her, Caitlin Flanagan writes. Let go. And let your kid climb that tree, Henry Abbott writes. It could actually make them safer. Play our daily crossword.

BREAKING NEWS Mark Latham denies shocking abuse claims from former partner - including accusations he forced her into degrading sexual acts
BREAKING NEWS Mark Latham denies shocking abuse claims from former partner - including accusations he forced her into degrading sexual acts

Daily Mail​

time11 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

BREAKING NEWS Mark Latham denies shocking abuse claims from former partner - including accusations he forced her into degrading sexual acts

Explosive new court documents allege NSW independent MP Mark Latham pressured his former partner into 'degrading' sexual acts, including making her call him 'master', as well as driving his car at her and 'defecating on her before sex'. A domestic violence order filed in the NSW Local Court accuses Mr Latham of subjecting ex-partner Nathalie May Matthews to 'a sustained pattern' of psychological, financial, and emotional abuse over almost three years, according to details seen by The Australian. Mr Latham denied the claims on Monday. 'Nothing has been served on me nor has anyone contacted me,' he told The Australian. 'I haven't had anything to do with her (Ms Matthews) since 27 May, so nearly seven weeks ago. I ended the "situationship" that night for very good reason.' He followed up his statement with a post on social media. 'The Australian newspaper has published a story based on allegations from Nathalie Matthews which are comically false and ridiculous. 'I have scores of documents to show that and will rely upon them to defend myself. As the old saying goes, Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.' Ms Matthews has applied for an interim order barring Mr Latham from coming within 100m, citing 'ongoing, reasonable fear of harassment, intimidation, and potential harm'. Her application accuses the former Labor leader of throwing a dinner plate at her, forcing her to call him 'master', and pressuring her to have sex with others. Ms Matthews' filing also alleges Mr Latham prevented her from cleaning up after 'defecating on me before sex' and 'telling me I was his property, and repeatedly telling me that my only value to him was for sex to demean and control me'. Ms Matthews also alleged 'physical violence' incidents, including 'pushing me against walls, forcing me out the door, throwing a plate at me during an argument, and driving at me with his vehicle, hitting me with the side mirror and causing a bruise'. Mr Latham is further accused of 'systematically undermining' Ms Matthews to 'control and isolate' her by comparing her 'unfavourably to other women, acting as if he would harm himself to manipulate me'. Ms Matthews accuses Mr Latham of forcing her to cover the cost of holidays abroad 'under duress', making her purchase expensive goods, and coercing her about her father's will for his benefit. She claims 'constant fear and hypervigilance' since her arrival home from a June trip abroad, alleging all past break-ups with Mr Latham featured a repeated 'pattern of harassment and intimidation'. She alleges: 'The defendant has held intimate photos and videos of me, and I have been afraid he would expose them to shame and control me if I attempted to leave or resist his demands.' Ms Matthews made the application herself, with NSW Police neither charging Mr Latham or seeking an order on her behalf. The matter will be up at heard at Downing Centre Local Court on 30 July.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store