Achebe’s Statue and the Freedom of Artistic Expression
_By Sumaila Isah Umaisha_
Some readers of my recent piece, _Achebe’s Statue and the Real Meaning of Immortality_, asked why I did not address the trending controversy over the claim that the statue does not resemble Chinua Achebe. I have two simple answers. First, that was never the focus of my essay. My concern was to show that a person’s enduring works constitute the greatest monument to his memory. Second, I did not consider the controversy deserving of much attention. Every work of art is, after all, an artist’s interpretation rather than an exact reproduction of its subject.
I remember an experience from my days as a Fine Arts student. One day, our teacher challenged us to draw his portrait. He sat before the class in a fixed pose while we spent about twenty minutes sketching him. Afterwards, he gave us another twenty minutes to refine the works. Then he collected and graded them immediately. To our amazement, no one failed. In fact, everyone scored well – even those whose drawings made him look more like a monkey than a human being!
Curious, one of us asked why he had awarded such generous marks, even to obviously poor likenesses. His answer was simple: “You are individual artists, and each of you has your own impression of me.”
Only then did we understand the basis of the exercise. We were not being assessed on how faithfully we reproduced his physical features. Rather, we were being evaluated on our freedom to interpret and express the subject through our own artistic vision. Technical skill and aesthetic quality belonged to another aspect of the assessment.
Viewed from that perspective, the sculptor of Achebe’s statue can hardly be dismissed as a novice. The work successfully conveys the stature and dignity of a literary giant. If some people feel that the facial features do not closely resemble Achebe, that may simply reflect the sculptor’s personal interpretation of him. It is then left to viewers to engage with that interpretation.
It is worth noting that many of the paintings, busts and statues we admire today bear only an approximate resemblance to the people they represent. The familiar image of William Shakespeare, for example, is itself an artistic reconstruction. Since photography did not exist in his lifetime, every portrait attributed to him is based on earlier paintings, engravings and historical descriptions rather than photographic certainty. Likewise, many depictions of historical and religious figures are products of artists’ imaginations, informed by available descriptions and cultural traditions.
Even when an artist deliberately strives for photographic realism, absolute accuracy remains impossible. A closer look at any portrait or sculpture will reveal subtle choices shaped by the artist’s perception, style and interpretation. No two artists, however skilled, will produce identical representations of the same subject.
That is the nature of art. It is open to multiple interpretations. A sculpture should not be judged solely by whether it mirrors a photograph or replicates every physical detail of the person it portrays. Its deeper value lies in what it expresses beyond physical resemblance. Art is meant to be read, not just viewed; it invites us not merely to look, but to see.
