We commissioned an independent public consultation to gather views from a range of people.
People see this sculpture very differently
Some see strength, beauty, and elemental human energy. Others see conquest, colonial violence, and the long reach of an empire whose consequences have not gone away.
‘To me, Physical Energy suggests strength and power, youth and youthful optimism for the future — while still searching for the way ahead.’
‘A magnificent, forward-thinking sculpture designed and worked on over many years in good faith. An inspirational piece to so many diverse people.’
‘It is a symbol of white supremacy due to its association with Rhodes…’
This was the question that generated most debate. Those who said they could explained:
‘I like it as a piece of work — the dynamism of it, the strength. I’m not engaged at all with where it’s been and what function it appears to have served. I’m just looking at it as a piece of art, and a very good piece of art at that.’
‘It doesn’t change my feeling about the actual quality of the work. That remains the same. It’s the appropriation of that into another idea, into another situation, that’s the problem.’
Some people said no, and explained why:
‘…he [G F Watts] thought Rhodes was the greatest Englishman of his time, which I think does have the whole white nationalist imperialistic view. So it’s not completely innocently created. I’m obviously representing a country that has been colonised, and seeing the statue I wouldn’t be able to put that apart… you wouldn’t want it to be commemorated and put on a plinth.’
‘I was highly impacted by imperial associations in my answer, because they are what make this particular sculpture controversial and war-like, rather than a simple classical ode or tribute.’
Academics and artists questioned whether separation was possible, or even desirable:
‘The artist and Rhodes can’t be disentangled from each other. It was during the artist’s lifetime, and it was a deliberate and conscious decision.’
‘We can appreciate the artwork. But we can’t separate the artist from their work. We have to be comfortable with that decision — I am actively deciding to enjoy this piece of work even though I know that person is problematic. That’s your personal decision.’
‘I am not sure you can separate the artist from their work. What you can do is try to understand and try to interpret that history with what is current and be able to use and to try to articulate that past with what is happening in the hope of redressing the known and hoping that what you’re looking at enables you to arrive at a better future.’
Most participants were unaware of the connection to Cecil Rhodes before the consultation. When they heard the full story, the majority said it made the sculpture more interesting.
‘I didn’t know half of that story to be honest, which I think is fascinating. The links to Cecil Rhodes, the artist, his links to colonialism and that period makes it really relevant at the moment and consequently it makes it a little bit more interesting.’
‘I feel like it’s changed my opinion. There’s a lot more back history to it. It’s a lot more interesting than “Oh, there’s a man on a horse”.’
Across all groups, people asked for the same thing — tell the full story, including the difficult parts.
‘I guess it just needs to be honest, like a timeline of events of how it came to be, what it is, how it was linked to all different points throughout history and everything.’
‘I think it is in the preparedness of the gallery to be ready to get into the various debates that displaying this sculpture will evoke. And be sure of the grounds on which it has made the choice to trigger a conversation that’s truthful, that doesn’t hide or play games with history, and that the gallery will be prepared to receive critiques it had not expected.’
For the full report: Ideas, not things (Morris Hargreaves McIntyre, 2022) Watts-Gallery-Physical-Energy-consultation-final.pdf