The infamous Jacob Zuma painting

[adrianh]

What's your take on this.

At first I thought it was quite funny but on reflection it does more harm than good. We speak of freedom of expression, but of course this freedom has boundaries. The problem with calling the painting art is that each and every person that has a gripe, be it with their boss or political party will then have free reign to paint this sort of stuff. Imagine the tit for tat art that political party supporters would produce; I can only imagine the art that a supporter of Cosatu would do of Helen Ziller.

All's fair in love and war but remember, if this is the case then the other side has the same rights.

[Just Gone]

I dont think anyone has the right to paint / depict someone else's private parts without their permission.

[tec0]

Well I never saw the painting; don’t think anyone will ever again. It is a shame really that people cannot see the lighter side of life anymore. But I suppose right is right wrong is wrong. Perhaps if it was done outside South Africa? I don’t know… The law will have to make a decision on it.

[Just Gone]

* Image relocated due to publications board age restriction. *

[Citizen X]

I am at a loss for words! I think Julius Malema articulates it quite effectively though:" You've got rubbish in your trousers, rubbish is what is in your trousers."

[Phil Cooper]

At least it is pointing down! With his relationships, I thought it would usually be standing to attention!

[IanF]

This shows a lack of respect for the Office of the President the First Citizen.
But doesn't JZ show the same lack of respect?

[gac]

I agree there has to be a moral boundary in everything although everyone has a different boundary I accept. Dont get me wrong I am absolutely no fan of the President at all, quite the contrary, however I thought it is pushing things too far regardless of the person it depicts or their behaviour and therefore feel its worthy of sanction.

[Citizen X]

Point taken Gac! You raise an interesting perspective!

[Dave A]

At the very least it's controversial art. But from a symbolism point of view, it's not that far off the mark - JZ is very much an alpha male.

Who's the artist?

[Nickolai Naydenov]

I must be honest, I'm not a JZ fan, but this painting is just wrong, I mean doesn't matter if you are the president or a beggar on the street, either way you wouldn't like that portrar to be you right?

[Justloadit]

I am a very open minded person, however I think this painting is in very bad taste, and quite frankly, this is not art, this was done to create the controversy that we are seeing, and to get free advertising, both for the artist and for the gallery.

I am not a JZ supporter at all, and feel that he has really let the country down. Even if it did not have the features of JZ, I still would have thought that the painting is in very bad taste, and quite frankly, I can not see the symbolism that is being portrait.

I will show my distaste with my feet, I will not visit the gallery, nor will I purchase any of his art. If I see his art on a friends wall, I will make sure that I will let him know my feelings towards the artist.

[Blurock]

Our president has let us down and embarrassed us so many times. His corruption case, rape case, association with and appointment of dubious characters as security and police chiefs.... The list goes on and on.

I have no respect for JC, but the office of our president demands respect. Just as one should salute the rank of an officer, regardless of your personal opinion of that officer (this is not happening in our SADF and that is the reason why it is in such a shambles).

I agree that the picture (is it art?) is in bad taste. The sensation was obviously created to draw feet to the exhibition.

However, can we trade in JC for Obama?

[Citizen X]

So the key question here, I think, is where does one draw the line with satire or satirical gestures?

[Dave A]

I believe an interdict application will be heard this coming Tuesday, and it will include an application that images on social media sites must be removed too.

Obviously TFSA will respect and abide by the decision of the court. (Now where have I heard a similar refrain before )