“Over to you Mdu”: VAR DBN report on meeting with the DAG, 31 July 2025
POSTED ON: August 14, 2025 IN Reviews & Reports, VAR DBNBy VAR DBN
Background: Concerned members of Durban’s visual arts community, having issued a ‘Declaration of Crisis in the Visual Arts in eThekwini’ statement, identified the Durban Art Gallery (DAG) as needing intervention. This led to the group embarking on an unofficial ‘stakeholders satisfaction survey’ of the DAG. The group, working under the banner of VAR DBN (Visual Arts Revolution Durban) presented the results of this survey at a public meeting at the ASAI Art Resource Centre at DUT on 31 July 2025. The meeting took the form of a panel discussion, featuring Mduduzi Xakaza (Director, DAG) and Mario Pissarra (representative of VAR DBN), moderated by Nise Malange (Director, BAT Centre).
Opening the meeting, Ms Malange provided a broad context for the meeting, highlighting the common interests of all parties in ensuring a functional arts sector in Durban.
For his presentation, Dr Pissarra provided the background to the survey and a summary of the profile of the 66 respondents, stating that it was a representative sample of the local visual arts community. He went on to highlight key findings of the survey, notably the low score for the overall performance of the DAG (28%) and for staff performance (32%), noting that the highest scores were for physical assets such as the quality of the DAG collection and its reference library (51% and 46% respectively). Pissarra further highlighted the frequency of ‘don’t know’ answers from the survey respondents, arguing that this represented both growing alienation from the DAG and a reflection of DAG’s poor communication and almost non-existent engagement with the public. The poor results attained by the DAG were contrasted with high scores for the prospect of reviving the defunct Friends of the DAG, which Pissarra argued reflected goodwill on the part of the community to be involved in reviving the DAG. In concluding, Pissarra noted that the process of making formal recommendations would be done by VAR pending further consultations. He did however go on to make some suggestions. These included the establishment of an advisory committee for the DAG, an idea already mooted by the City Auditor but not acted on by the DAG. Further that defunct or dysfunctional structures such as the Exhibitions and Acquisitions Committees be revived, and an advisory committee for Education be established. The revival of the Friends of the DAG was also mooted.
In his response, Dr Xakaza highlighted numerous challenges faced by the DAG. These included the closure of the gallery for maintenance, delays in filling key posts, over-worked staff, and lack of support from his superiors. He acknowledged a crisis, although it was unclear whether this referred to the visual arts in the city or to the DAG. He also acknowledged the need for staff training, citing one example of a gallery assistant studying art history. He informed the meeting that the one vacant post (exhibitions curator) had recently been filled by an incumbent previously employed as an educator at the DAG. He went on to express some discontent with the quality of curators, although it was unclear whether this referred to the quality of applicants for the post or to the incumbent. The current crop of curators, Xakaza argued, were not competent enough to address themes relevant for the new world order. He spoke of catalogues that would be produced for exhibitions, and for the need to reduce space allocated to travelling exhibitions to allow more space for the collection to be exhibited. Xakaza further expressed support for the revival of the Friends, provided that it expands membership and assist in procurement of artworks. He further recommended the establishment of an advisory committee, which he said should be created by the “public”, and that the participants (or VAR?) should create what he called an ‘Artist’s Forum’.
Most participants had questions for the DAG, with the meeting showing no sign of abating after two and a half hours, despite having been scheduled for one hour. Jenny Stretton, former Curator of Collections at the DAG, queried the absence of DAG staff. Niamh Walsh-Vorster, arts administrator, questioned why the qualifications for applicants for the curator’s post had been reduced, whereas the salary offered is high. Angela Shaw (outgoing director of the KZNSA) asked how the DAG sees itself as supporting local organisations. A DUT student, Lungelo Chamane, enquired whether the DAG has programmes for students. Mhlonishwa Chiliza, artist and DUT lecturer, queried why the DAG no longer offer services such as the Art Bus, which used to assist people in attending art events. Terence Sibiya, artist, suggested that the core problems stemmed from people with no passion for art being appointed. Nathi Gumede, curator, wanted to know what is being said in staff appraisals, what evidence was provided that showed whether staff were doing their jobs. Mr Gumede further queried why the DAG is allowing its brand to be defiled through pop-up shows in malls. Londiwe Mtshali, researcher, asked whether the DAG’s mandate has changed from that of a gallery to something else. Noting widespread concerns about the quality of appointments, artist Robin Moodley called for a moratorium on staff appointments. There were also suggestions from artist Skhanyiso Thusi for the DAG to create Extended Works Programme opportunities, as well as internships and learnerships. It was further suggested by Mr Gumede that the DAG take time to reflect on its mission and programmes.
In his responses, Dr Xakaza placed the responsibility for the absence of DAG staff in the meeting at the foot of the organisers (ASAI), saying it would have “been nice” if they had been invited. He argued that the DAG did not control the recruitment process that is managed by the City’s Human Resources department, adding that high qualifications “will deter applicants”. He deferred responsibility for Articulate Africa, which had been raised in VAR’s survey, to the Department of Parks, Recreation and Culture, and he distanced himself from the City’s inadequate financial support for the visual arts, stating that he was not involved in the Grant-in-Aid process. He claimed that “no one had told [him]’” about the Art Bus, and that this could easily be reintroduced. He defended the DAG’s recent practice of pop-up exhibitions (customarily held in commercial or social spaces such as malls, leisure expos and parks), which three participants had commented disparagingly on, as a creative response to both the DAG being closed and to the need to reach new audiences. He also argued that the DAG should be creating spaces for artists to market their work. Xakaza dismissed criticisms as coming from privileged quarters, insisting that the DAG was running workshops in townships and that “if people want to know, they will know”. He claimed that DAG was busy organizing exhibitions in township libraries, and that at the DAG. “we don’t have time to reflect”, as this is “not Europe.,” He further swiped at the “bad organization” of the event, as he did not have time to respond to all the criticisms, and undertook to provide a full response in writing.
Dr Pissarra tried to get a clear commitment from Dr Xakaza that he would fight for a suitable appointment for the Curator of Collections post, and that he would initiate the establishment of an advisory committee, as this could not be done alone by civil society. Ms Shaw argued that it was “unrealistic that people overstretched must capacitate a fully funded institution”, going on to state “Over to you Mdu, we are handing the problem over to you, you can tell us how you will take this forward.” Ismail Mohamed, director of the Centre for Creative Arts, noted that the participants “don’t acknowledge that Mdu is an ally,” and that VAR’s report did not go far enough. The report, Mr Mohamed argued, needed to consider the alignment between the DAG’s annual performance plan, the City’s Integrated Development Plan (IDP), and the DAG’s mission and organogram. Anything less would lead to recommendations falling on deaf ears.
In closing the meeting, Ms Malange affirmed the common interests of assembled role players, for a report on the meeting to be compiled for stakeholders, and for Dr Xakaza to provide a written response to the feedback and concerns expressed in the meeting.
Share
