The Rugby World Cup haka Peep show in the Octagon. Photo by
Peter McIntosh.
If art is meant to be provocative the Haka Peep Show in
Dunedin's Octagon well and truly succeeds on that score. The
mayor, David Cull, might be supporting the installation but it
is a safe bet many Dunedin residents like neither the work nor
the council spending on it.
Serious questions are also being raised over the process of
approval and confidentiality. What were councillors and
council staff thinking when they put $50,000 towards what is
obviously a phallic work of art that would stand prominently
in central Dunedin?
Why, when the art in public places subcommittee looked at the
matter, did the money come out of marketing budgets? When did
the public ever get the opportunity to comment?
The best art through history often caused shock, was
sometimes thought disgusting and came to be appreciated many
years later. There are even some who, after initial dislike,
have come to appreciate the harbour molars, but many others
still consider Dunedin's harbourside bloated by $45,000
eyesores.
But, it is hard to see the Peep Show ever being seen as
highly significant art even if it does challenge on some
levels. Unfavourable reactions do not of themselves make the
art worthy. Art that appals frequently has no lasting impact.
Artist Rachael Rakena, from Massey University, has said the
work, which is in the shape of a deodorant brand advertised
by the All Blacks and houses 3-D video works of four haka
performed by prominent Maori, "considers the sexualisation
and commodification of Maori and indigenous sportsmen,
through the use and exploitation of their masculinity and
their culture".
Fair enough. Although many might consider such sentiments
ridiculous, these are the types of issues with which artists
might well wrestle. But placing what is obviously, in one
way, a giant penis in the Octagon is inappropriate.
Those, including the artist, who are surprised at the
vehemence of the anti reaction must live in a different world
from the wider public. Perhaps, and without all that public
funding, it could have been placed in an art gallery where
patrons have the choice to go. It is right in residents'
faces in the Octagon.
There are other matters worth questioning. The $50,000, with
part of another $80,000 coming from Ngai Tahu, is an
especially large amount of money for what is only a temporary
installation. And the ownership of the piece still remains
clouded, not a satisfactory state.
Cr Lee Vandervis, who resigned from the art subcommittee two
months ago when the committee supported spending $100,000 on
"renting" the Haka Peep Show - it has since been funded from
marketing budgets and with support from Ngai Tahu - surely
has the right to speak out about it.
The public has the right to know how the council came to
spend the money on the work. Elected members need to be
accountable for their spending, even if councillors and staff
too often seem to think $50,000 is small change.
There are times when matters must remain confidential,
notably when revealing contract negotiations could cost
ratepayers dearly. But too often subjects are confidential so
they can be controlled, because they might be embarrassing or
as a veil to cover individual councillor responsibility.
One wonders how much support for the Peep Show came because
of councillor and staff attempts to be sensitive to Maori
matters and their desire to go along with Ngai Tahu. However,
whatever the topic or issue or with whomever they are
dealing, they have to be clear and hard-headed.
As it is, they look foolish in agreeing to the placing of a
phallic sculpture in the middle of the city and to spending
on a project bound to antagonise ratepayers. The chairman of
the art subcommittee, Cr Bill Acklin, meanwhile, looks
ridiculous in accusing Cr Vandervis of breaching
confidentiality on a matter of such obvious public interest.
While how exactly funding for public art made its way into a
marketing budget is unclear, there is a certain irony in what
has happened. The Peep Show is causing such reactions that
publicity is beginning to extend well beyond Dunedin, making
it into the US-based Huffington Post website as well as New
Zealand newspapers. Whether that is good publicity, however,
is another question.
A name, residential address, and (preferably residential) telephone number is required from readers who comment on ODT Online. These details will not be visible to site visitors.