Dear Editor,
Your indignant editorial on the maltreatment of Aubrey WIlliams’s murals at our airport (SN 11/02/07) will undoubtedly make the rounds of Guyanese emails world-wide (two have already come my way) and generate justified outrage in the process. In addition, it might result in some positive responses to the situation and, perhaps, ultimately to the proper treatment for the murals.
However, as much as we may be upset by this blatant disregard for art, we have to be aware of the reality at play here which is that, as Ken Corsbie is known to phrase it, “so it go.” While the airport example may be particularly egregious, it is a fact known to people involved in artistic work over the world, that lip service is often the treatment afforded the creative works of a people. In the Caribbean, where we continue to discount the value of our own, the disrespect is worse than in other regions, and change is not likely to come soon. The truth is that, while Castellani House curator Elfrieda Bissember is right to be “very angry” over the Aubrey Williams’ incident, voices such as hers, and, more importantly, attitudes such as hers, are few and far between.
Even a cursory look at the news in recent months will reveal that the criteria for commitment in most societies are towards turning the economic engine. As World Cup approaches, we put our mouths on the value of our culture as entertainment, but where we put our money is on feeding our economic engine in this or that structure or service. That is one reality; the further one is that, for purely practical reasons, those are the priorities at play. Individ-uals or institutions committed to the exploration or development of the arts must understand the rules of the game, and these are not new rules. It’s been that way, as the Jamaicans say, “from Noah was a bwoy”.
Indeed, the treatment of Aubrey’s works brings to mind my writing to Stabroek News, a few years ago, to complain of a similar situation with the Phillip Moore carving in the departure lounge at the airport. In that case the mounting of the piece had caused an inch-wide break in the wood, and three months after I saw the damage it had still not been repaired. After my letter, I was pleased to see the work had been restored, but the point buried in that exchange is that action often comes only when voices are raised.
Finally, in an otherwise lucid editorial, I must disagree on your point that such treatment of prestigious art “cannot be allowed to happen again.” In fact, dear editor, I can pretty well guarantee it will happen again. The priorities of our lives will cause it. It’s important that we know that. But it is also important that people who understand what is being lost take the time to say so, and to know that one outcry will not end matters. The alarm, whether in your editorial or in Elfrieda’s response, will be required again and again. Unfortunately, so it go.
Yours faithfully,
Dave Martins
