Wunderkind of the DA also a narcissist
Ryan Coetzee is not so wonderful (“Baptism of fire for DA’s wunderkind”, July 15). He did little research before taking the job with the Liberal Democrats in the United Kingdom. Otherwise, he would have known they are a yo-yo party, coming out when the British electorate has lost its way. And yes, people at the centre of politics are supposed to be clever — at least in Britain.
His reference to people suffering from real narcissism should include himself. Only one who is “in admiration of himself” could make such comments.
Politicians and all those who claim they know how to pull the puppet strings exhibit narcissism, regardless of country. How else would South African Cabinet ministers and the president brush off accountability with such disdain?
Coetzee should realise that one African success does not an international career make. He has not matured enough to climb out of the mire that is the politics of race. It is totally unfitting for him to blame “skewed media coverage and disenchantment with the political elite” for what he sees as his failure.
Brexit leaders such as Bonking Johnson and Mirage Farage harped on about immigrants taking jobs and doing crime: plus, they argued, the “European Union cost money”. These views swayed the working class in the north of England and Wales, with a sprinkling in the southeast of England.
Coetzee will be familiar with the second. Of the first he may be ignorant. The vote for Brexit correlates well with the areas where jobs in the heavy industries were lost — the Labour heartland.
I bet that when Coetzee went to Britain he had a work permit in the twinkling of an eye. My wife’s naturalisation application is almost in its seventh year because she doesn’t know a narcissist in the political system. — Tom Morgan
Where do artists draw the line?
The latest painting by artist Ayanda Mabulu, depicting president Jacob Zuma about to lick a naked Atul Gupta’s backside, has caused an uproar — and rightly so (“Trace Zuma’s trajectory by muted reaction to ‘shock art’”, July 15).
Inasmuch as freedom of expression has been entrenched in our celebrated Constitution, I don’t understand how some people can say that there’s nothing wrong with the painting, irrespective of the offence it has likely caused its subjects, Zuma and Gupta. One critically needs to ask: Where does one draw the line when creating art?
A few years ago some decried then arts minister Lulu Xingwana’s labelling of photography depicting naked women in intimate embraces, by lesbian artist Zanele Muholi, as “immoral, offensive and going against nation-building”?
I was then, and remain, unoffended by Muholi’s beautiful work; she and her subjects were creating dialogue through the work.
Yet, in my view, there is a critical difference between these artists, Mabulu and Muholi. Muholi’s work featured willing participants, whereas Mabulu’s subjects weren’t willing participants in the work. That is where artists ought to draw the line.
Of course, art should create dialogue, but no artist should intentionally humiliate another person in the process. That is not art — that is someone with an axe to grind. — Sandile Ntuli, Johannesburg