Forgive me for my tardiness in commenting on the Perceiving Freedom art installation, but I have only just stopped banging my head on my desk, which I started doing immediately after reading the press release.

I first heard of it when my partner gasped in horror as she looked at her phone, “Oh my word. Oh my word. Oh my WORD.” I thought someone had died. I was not far off. Something had died; this country’s dignity.

The installation, just so we get the facts over with, is entitled Perceiving Freedom and is an official World Design Capital 2014 project. It was initiated by Art54.

It is a giant pair of Ray-Bans facing Robben Island.

Yup, you heard me.

If I didn’t know better, I’d think artist Michael Elion was having us on. It’s like that moment in Bridget Jones where she goes to what she thinks is the toilet and realises a little late in the day that she just had a wee on the installation because somebody, somewhere, thought putting a toilet in a gallery was art.

There is simply no way this guy is for real when he gives us the ten-foot long spiel of meaning he’s attached to a pair of specs. Surely.

I don’t want to sound like a Philistine. I enjoy art, I really do – and I’ve even been known to have a genuine connection to some of the more obscure chaps in my time. But there’s also a line where I call laziness, pretension and bullshit. And in this case, there’s no prize for guessing where.

“Perceiving Freedom is a sculptural tribute to Nelson Mandela, the nation of South Africa and the concept of freedom itself on the eve of 20 years of South African democracy. This giant set of stainless steel spectacles looks out in contemplation towards Robben Island and sets up an axis and dialogue with our country’s history.

“It links us to the mind of a man whose incredible capacity to transcend enduring physical hardship, with unwavering mental fortitude and dignity, transformed the consciousness of an entire country and left a giant and lasting legacy to the world,” said Elion.

Really, Mr Elion? Does your big pair of specs really say all that? Because to me they just look like a big pair of specs that cost a whole lot of money while our country’s arts are in a funding crisis.

Apart from anything else, though, my problem is not primarily one of privilege (although there is that). It’s one of quality. If you’re an artist, your art should stand alone. You shouldn’t have to thumb-suck a foot-long essay to go alongside it to give it meaning. It should have its own power as it stands. The viewer – even if it takes them a few minutes – should be able to decode it on their own, and be moved. But this ‘sculpture’ has no meaning without the PR spin. It IS PR spin. It’s lazy. It’s just a giant pair of specs lying on the lawn, and as such it makes a mockery of the major artistic talent in our magnificent country – as well as of Mandela’s legacy.

Moreover, some of the themes Elion raises are downright problematic. Let’s take the concept of freedom first. There’s the freedom of other artists in this country to create, for instance. How much did this giant pair of specs cost, I wonder? How many artists in this country have the freedom that having that much money gave Elion? How many really talented, underprivileged artists could it have helped? I know a guy who works in Newlands in a shack. He’s incredible. He works himself to the bone to sell his artworks every day to tourists and others. Bet you he could have used some cash to buy himself some freedom to make more art. Wouldn’t it have done more for freedom to share some of the Ray-Ban budget amongst artists who really needed it? Elion – as a successful architect, designer and artist who is not previously disadvantaged – I’d venture to say, does not suffer for cash.

But we sadly live in a society where the grand gesture – the visible thing – is valued so much more than those small steps which, although unseen by the majority, maybe make the biggest difference in our community long-term. How different our country would be if every grand ceremony, rally or PR event were replaced by the equivalent effort in small, sincere gestures. Sadly, however, marketing rules. And it so happens that a giant pair of Ray-Bans with the name ‘Mandela’ conveniently thrown in is more marketable than the incredible narrative woodcarvings of the shack-dweller down the road.

How sad that this great, big, artificial marketing schtick now masquerades as representing art in our country. How sad that this is now the lens through which we are asked to ‘contemplate Mandela’. I’m only glad that the big guy isn’t here to see it.

Let’s take a look at that ‘axis and dialogue’, too. What axis and dialogue are you creating, Mr Elion, pray? If you’d wanted to create an effective dialogue, I venture to say you could have done a lot more than just made… a giant pair of spectacles. Even the Dadaists did more than that, and they were intending to be nonsensical. As a viewer, a member of the public, a writer, and someone with a keen interest in history of art, I venture to say that your work appears lazy. You could have gone further. There are a million other design elements you could have used; directions you could have gone. Your work on the whole is a damn sight better, so I can only conclude that in this case you did not put your back into it. Your theme is sentimental, your symbolism one-dimensional and your execution cheesy. Must try harder. But it’s hard to try harder, isn’t it, when you’re sponsored by Ray-Ban?

Then there’s the ‘transcending of physical hardship’. It’s deeply ironic that these are wayfarer-style Ray-Bans of the type reserved for the privileged few. Most South Africans will never afford them. Yes, there is a known photograph of Madiba wearing (maybe) a similar style, but it’s hardly something he was commonly associated with. You have to trawl through the archives to find the connection between Mandela and these glasses, which remain the property of the cool kids. Symbolically, representing him in this way is an act of exclusivity, not inclusivity.

Furthermore, he was far better known for suffering with his eyes from working for years in the quarry – a suffering that the press release tactfully neglects to mention. Think Mandela and you hardly think ‘poster guy for trendy, pretentious branded lenses’. Representing him with said trendy, branded lenses is tasteless and insensitive.

According to Elion, the sculpture asks the question: how did Nelson Mandela perceive the world? And, what does it mean for each of us to be truly free? “The lenses in the sculpture are clear, they symbolise the invisible barriers and prejudices that exist in our perceptions and shape the way we view the world. Do we see the island as a paradise that represents our hopes and dreams or is it actually a prison and place of banishment? Perceiving Freedom is a testament to the power of the mind,” says Elion.

Again I say: Does the sculpture really say all that, or does Elion just say that about his sculpture? The sculpture itself says nothing – it’s a giant pair of spectacles being sold to us with pages of empty PR spin. It’s a disgrace.

The cherry on top of the spin comes from World Design Capital, CEO Alayne Reesberg, who was present to officially unveil the sculpture. “In all, the designation created an opportunity to showcase local ingenuity and capability, firstly to ourselves, and secondly to the design community. This goes beyond Cape Town’s established credentials as a world-class tourism destination. Cape Town is still a deeply divided city, but all change starts with a dream. World Design Capital Cape Town 2014 has given us permission to imagine a different kind of city – one that celebrates achievements even as it strives to create even better outcomes for its citizens.

“Michael Elion’s gift to public art fits in with one of our themes of Bridging The Divide and the social cohesion we have strived to create this year through the various design projects and initiatives in the WDC 2014 programme. The Perceiving Freedom sculpture is also a fitting tribute to the late Madiba and our 20 year celebration of democracy, and it is a stark reminder that we have a long way to go when you look at the world through the eyes of another,” says Reesberg.

There is no divide being bridged here. If anything, for the reasons I have listed, the divisions are merely being highlighted – and not in a conscious, useful way, either. Simply in a sad, inauthentic way. A way that highlights that as far as we’ve come, progress is celebrated with the glossy sheen of plastic.

Sadly, it is not the first time this has happened. And regardless of where the funds come from, the same feeling of sadness comes over me: that it’s all just ego, ego, ego; that the good of art, and its people, maybe features tenth on the list of priorities if they feature at all. Every time, it’s somebody’s whim: and the real talent – the achingly talented creators – keep plugging away unnoticed in our midst, with none of the freedom or benefits Mandela fought so hard for. Perhaps we need a new set of lenses to see that. DM