THE controversy over a statue for businessman Wicknell Chivayo is less about a single individual and more about how societies choose to memorialise power, wealth, and public influence. When that honour is extended to a figure, controversy is inevitable−and healthy in a democracy. At the heart of the dispute are three intertwined issues: legitimacy, process, and precedent.
Legitimacy asks whether Chivayo’s public contributions, philanthropy, and influence merit permanent commemoration. Critics counter that philanthropy, however generous, does not automatically translate into civic heroism. Chivayo, himself, has said he feels he hasn’t done enough to deserve a statue as an honour.
That’s commendable, coming from him, a man who seemingly thrives by being under the public spotlight. The businessman says he is not happy with the way that the three sculptors crafted his face. He says the face of the statue doesn’t do justice to his facial features and, jokingly, he says the artists failed to capture, deliberate or otherwise, his good looks.
[paywall]
That’s very clear. A statue should try, as much as possible, to portray the features of the person who is being honoured. There is no way that the statue, which was crafted by those three artists is a reflection, especially in terms of the facial features, of Chivayo.
To their credit, the three artists have conceded that they did not do a fine job in coming up with this statue. They said that this is part of a learning process for them and they believe that they will do a better job, or better jobs, in the future. They are not the first artists to come up with a statue which has been heavily criticised. As we reported in this newspaper yesterday, even the likes of Michael Jackson, Cristiano Ronaldo, Mohamed Salah and Shakira−heavyweights with bigger names around the world than Chivayo−found themselves in the same situation like the local businessman.
[/paywall]
