The decision to move the Johannesburg Art Gallery is a coup for the Newtown development, but it raises the question of what happens with the current Joubert Park precinct?
Neil Fraser
March 24, 2005
THE story in the Sunday Times Metro section last week "Art Gallery may move to get away from crime - Council proposes R110 million relocation project" probably raised a number of eyebrows and, maybe some ire!
According to the report, the Council meeting of the previous week had 'accepted a proposal in principle' to move the city's major artwork collection to Newtown's Turbine Hall - aha, our own Tate Modern! Tucked away in the newspaper report was the fact that the Turbine Hall redevelopment would also provide a corporate head office facility for AngloGold Ashanti. (This is one of the 'good news for the inner city' projects that I have been unable to mention previously.)
The two proposals, creating "A New African Museum for a New African City" and the AngloGold Ashanti corporate HQ - would at last deal with the derelict buildings that for so long have been a visual blot on the Newtown landscape.
Two interesting aspects of the proposal were voiced in the newspaper report. Why the move is being contemplated and what JAG (the Johannesburg Art Gallery) would then be used for. The former appears to be because the area is in such a bad shape "due to the high crime rate, vandalism, hawkers blocking the pavements and taxis blocking the entrance to and the exit from the gallery" that "it is not conducive for visitors and tourists".
Is this because Council sees the future of the area as an unmanageable centre for informal business - taxis and hawking? The second aspect, that of the future use for the building, was stated in the report as being "a wing to be retained for historical collections as well as a migration museum and a visitors centre on the history of the Joburg Art Gallery". If we cannot draw visitors and tourists to see one of the finest collections of African Art on the Continent and probably in the world, who is going to go to see these?
One of the most fascinating papers I've read on JAG is by Jillian Carman, "Johannesburg Art Gallery and the Urban Future" as published in "Emerging Johannesburg - Perspectives on the Postapartheid City" which publication arose from the Urban Futures conference held in 2000 (the book is published by Routledge and not generally available locally).
Jillian pulls no punches and sets the scene up-front stating: "Johannesburg and its art gallery have always had a love-hate relationship. Public and city council attitudes have been characterized by praise, damnation and sheer indifference in equal measure and often simultaneously."
She acknowledges that the crisis that the art gallery has experienced over the past few decades is particularly acute for the reasons that are referred to in the newspaper report but also points out that "the concept of western-type museums is not so much challenged and debated by the wider public, as it is elsewhere in postcolonial societies, as treated with monumental indifference".
She points out that the gallery would have in fact been in danger of dying through sheer apathy if it wasn't "for a recent development that ironically, has emerged from the very environment that has been aggravating the gallery's survival: the Joubert Park Project". This is "a collaborative public art initiative that aims to promote and activate the social and cultural climate of the Joubert Park precinct and to specifically engage with the conditions, the changes and possibilities of inner city living in Johannesburg - particularly in view of the inner city plans for urban renewal and residential rehabilitation".
Carman is an art historian and museologist and, in her paper, argued for the gallery's survival: "The gallery can survive only if it inspires popular ownership but I would also argue for its survival on the grounds of historical importance. The Johannesburg Art Gallery is a unique witness both to the period of its foundation in 1910 and the cultural growth of Johannesburg from 1910 to 2000. Furthermore it has the unusual distinction of being the only municipal museum or library in Johannesburg that was open to all races during the years of segregation. It is an essential part of Johannesburg."
She provides her compelling argument in three parts: the foundation collection and its building; the development of its collection as a record of Johannesburg's cultural history; and the phenomenon of a cultural institution in Johannesburg being accessible to all races during the apartheid years.
The paper makes fascinating reading and in her conclusion Jillian says the following: "The Johannesburg Art Gallery is both cultural recorder and resource. It is a unique witness to colonial imperialism of the early twentieth century, the developing cultural life of an urban community, the dynamics of urban participation, and the role that art and museums played under apartheid and can play today in a democratic South Africa. In adapting to the situation in Joubert Park and to wider concerns - or, more accurately, in the appropriation of the gallery by its environment - the Johannesburg Art Gallery reveals its potential as a major community resource."
However compelling her argument and however we might agree with her emotionally, for a variety of reasons I think that the proposal that has evidently been agreed to in principle by the Council will ultimately win. That means that there needs to be some serious thinking regarding the future role of the JAG buildings. And, on a totally pragmatic basis, I think that revolves around one word - 'maintenance'.
The indifference to the building in its current role has manifested itself in gross neglect. There can be no doubt that the current City Council is picking up both the flack and the tab for decades of neglect in maintaining our infrastructure! Had previous administrations budgeted for adequate maintenance and particularly preventative maintenance, we wouldn't be in the parlous state we are in regarding electrical outages, traffic light failure, road, water and sewage problems AND extreme building deterioration.
The maintenance line item in budget submissions is always a magnet for politicians to attack - 'we'll do it next year' and next year never comes! In fairness, private citizens or business organisations have probably also been vociferous in their demands that such big budget line items be reduced, it is the nature of the beast, so it is probably a no win situation.
The problem of course isn't confined to local government. I recently read a report of the director general of the National Department of Works telling Parliament that his maintenance budget spread over thousands of state owned buildings allowed an average spend of about R150 per building per year!
The answer from Parliament was 'sell more buildings'. I know from discussions with a judge at the High Court that practically nothing is spent on maintaining that fine building leading to all kinds of difficulties for the people who work in the building.
The Drill Hall was another prime example of decades of absolutely no maintenance when it was the responsibility of central government and this led to 'part destruction through neglect'.
The Rissik Street Post Office, owned by the City, was supposed to be maintained in terms of their lease by the tenant, the central government department responsible for post offices. Nothing was done for years and years which led to a settlement of a couple of million rand when their lease ended but it was a pittance in relationship to the cost of repairs and, anyway, was spent on something else. A decade ago it would have cost about R10-million to repair the exterior façade, today it is more likely to be R30-million.
The City Hall was bought last year by the provincial legislature more in self- defence than anything else. It had been a tenant of the building for some years but absolutely no maintenance had been provided by the City so the legislature bought the building together with the poorly maintained (and abominably designed) Beyers Naude Square and the Harry Hofmeyer Parking Garage which alternates between being awash with rain or urine!
At least provincial government now appear to have the bit between their teeth and are preparing to repair and maintain the building (plus the Rissik Street Post Office, hopefully) as they create their government precinct including an extended Beyers Naude Square which no one but the politicians and professionals appear to want.
But the outcome of moving the JAG treasures is that we are going to be left with a building that hasn't been maintained for years with little likelihood of future maintenance and it will add to the general degradation of the area. So, if the plan to move the art treasures goes ahead, we must ensure that the use the building is put to automatically will ensure repairs and future maintenance AND require that the area is properly managed.
For example, why not give JAG to provincial government who seem to have funds for both capital expenditure and maintenance? It would be a great opportunity for the premier to establish a 'Jozi White House' - his presence would demand a massive clean up of the area, loads of security and ongoing maintenance and we might just actually end up with this magnificent building restored and maintained as one of our inner city icons once again AND in a regenerated area.
Of course it could alternatively be used by the mayor as the equivalent of New York's Gracie Mansions and his use of the building for special occasions and entertaining VIPs would also demand a massive intervention in the area. But this option brings with it the likelihood of lack of maintenance again. Imagine our mayor entertaining Prince Charles and what's her name and asking them to don Wellingtons to avoid getting their shoes soaked?
Whatever the outcome, I hope the Council's decision will promote much debate - the history of JAG is sadly one of great indifference and I for one would be more interested in the results of a poll on the Council proposals than in whether Charles should marry what's her name!
