ABSTRACT Visual sovereignty refers to indigenous groups’ authority in the imagery, representation, conservation, and meaning-making of visual heritage belonging to them. While visual sovereignty is often discussed in terms of making, with a focus on art, photography, and filmmaking, this article will discuss it in terms of unmaking. Vandalism—the deliberate destruction of, or performative reconstitution of, public art, monuments, and/or statuary—may be used as a mode of visual sovereignty, where, with clear communication, marginalised indigenous groups are able to guide the representation and meaning-making around visual heritage belonging to them. Certain critical factors should be followed to ensure the success of the unmaking of prescribed representations. Still, vandalism as a mode of visual sovereignty is fraught with complications—as this article shows through the case of the destroyed Krotoa bench in Cape Town, South Africa. In as much as unmaking may be considered an important part of identity recovery, it can only have lasting positive effects if it is coupled with making, and since indigenous perspectives are rarely homogeneous, upholding the dignity of other members of the group should be paramount in decision-making surrounding the use of vandalism in meaning-making of visual heritage. The weakness of vandalism as a mode of visual sovereignty should thus be considered.
Read full abstract