“GOSFORD City Council will close a controversial art exhibition a week early after police called photographs of a naked seven-year-old girl disturbing and complainants said the images were "child abuse and not art". (SMH)
Another day, another art exhibition closed due to public complaint.
It is surprising that so few examples of this come to attention. Curators and exhibition organisers sometimes walk a fine line between a conservative public’s sensibilities and the principle of an uncensored presentation of artists’ work and ideas.
Another day, another art exhibition closed due to public complaint.
It is surprising that so few examples of this come to attention. Curators and exhibition organisers sometimes walk a fine line between a conservative public’s sensibilities and the principle of an uncensored presentation of artists’ work and ideas.
Regional Gallery Curator (forground) and contentious photographs in Changeling: Childhood and the Uncanny, curated by Alasdair Foster for the Australian Centre for Photography.We do not live in a world where there is no control over what is said and done. In circumstances where it is reasonable to assume that an expression will give offence or could lead to harmful consequences, judgements are made with regard to the common benefit. It is the foundation of ethical practice.
Artists have no more right than another group of individuals to offend other people with impunity, but contemporary artists have inherited a practice of inquiry, interrogation, critiquing, questioning, and doing so with a freedom to be confronting and sometimes abrasive. It is a vital part of imagining new possibilities. The freedom also permits ill-considered, inadequately conceptualised and opportunistic works, with the appearance of art, to be shown.
Contemporary art is one of too few places in Australia 2007 where alternative views can be explored and presented in the world of politics, culture and values. If a work hints at, or explicitly depicts, aspects of society that are unspoken or dangerous, it is an opportunity to confront the issues. The photographs by Polixeni Papatetrou in the Changeling: Childhood and the Uncanny exhibition, being closed down at the Gosford Regional Gallery, were known to be controversial.
The following is from the Artlife blog from 20th December 2004. Artlife praised the exhibition as a whole, but went on to say:
"Polixeni Papapetrou is not, mercifully, represented by her simply appalling Alice in Wonderland pictures, but by a suite of works called Olympia Wearing Her Grandmother’s Jewellery from 2001. Featuring shots of her naked daughter in poses reminiscent of soft porn, these works are deeply troubling, not so much because of the disturbing way in which the artist depicts the child, but more because the artist seems unable to understand what the objection might be to the power relationship between the photographer and the subject. The artist contends that her daughter is completely complicit in the process, but to look upon these pictures is to imagine otherwise. We may be wrong, but we’ll be fascinated to know what Olympia will have to say about her childhood experiences with her mother when she's an adult."
It is also reasonable to ask questions about the “soft porn” aspects of the image and why most commentators prefer to talk about the mothers intentions, as if an artist necessarily can be trusted to know their motives anymore than the rest of us, rather than the more problematic issue of pornography.
The ACP curator of the exhibition Alasdair Foster wrote …. “The participating artists address the child-adult interface from a range of perspectives - adolescent fashion, infant sexuality…” acknowledging the disturbing undercurrents of pedophilia. In the photographs it is not explicit sexuality but the signs of acquiescent commodity that resonate in our consumer culture.
A student from Semiotics and Deconstruction 101 would be able to sort it out in no time.
We are all familiar with Serrano’s Piss Christ and Davila’s Stupid as a Painter, amongst a host of controversial and censored exhibitions. Most recently the “pornography” paintings of John Currin have been hotly discussed, but I think what is of issue here is that these other works do not extend beyond the adult world. Ann Elias discusses some of these issues for education in the linked pdf.
Perhaps with for-knowledge of the controversial nature of these few photographs, in an otherwise praised exhibition, an opportunity could have been managed to explore the issues rather than having the whole presentation closed. It might be that the perceived absence of a context for discussion was more relevant than the images themselves, which without it, were complicit in the precociously sexed portrayal of children that it is said they commented upon neutrally.
If we have art we will have controversy, thank goodness for that.
Walking the fine line is the job of the curator, and Gosford Council is right to put their trust in the people they employ to make informed decisions.
Artists have no more right than another group of individuals to offend other people with impunity, but contemporary artists have inherited a practice of inquiry, interrogation, critiquing, questioning, and doing so with a freedom to be confronting and sometimes abrasive. It is a vital part of imagining new possibilities. The freedom also permits ill-considered, inadequately conceptualised and opportunistic works, with the appearance of art, to be shown.
Contemporary art is one of too few places in Australia 2007 where alternative views can be explored and presented in the world of politics, culture and values. If a work hints at, or explicitly depicts, aspects of society that are unspoken or dangerous, it is an opportunity to confront the issues. The photographs by Polixeni Papatetrou in the Changeling: Childhood and the Uncanny exhibition, being closed down at the Gosford Regional Gallery, were known to be controversial.
The following is from the Artlife blog from 20th December 2004. Artlife praised the exhibition as a whole, but went on to say:
"Polixeni Papapetrou is not, mercifully, represented by her simply appalling Alice in Wonderland pictures, but by a suite of works called Olympia Wearing Her Grandmother’s Jewellery from 2001. Featuring shots of her naked daughter in poses reminiscent of soft porn, these works are deeply troubling, not so much because of the disturbing way in which the artist depicts the child, but more because the artist seems unable to understand what the objection might be to the power relationship between the photographer and the subject. The artist contends that her daughter is completely complicit in the process, but to look upon these pictures is to imagine otherwise. We may be wrong, but we’ll be fascinated to know what Olympia will have to say about her childhood experiences with her mother when she's an adult."
It is also reasonable to ask questions about the “soft porn” aspects of the image and why most commentators prefer to talk about the mothers intentions, as if an artist necessarily can be trusted to know their motives anymore than the rest of us, rather than the more problematic issue of pornography.
The ACP curator of the exhibition Alasdair Foster wrote …. “The participating artists address the child-adult interface from a range of perspectives - adolescent fashion, infant sexuality…” acknowledging the disturbing undercurrents of pedophilia. In the photographs it is not explicit sexuality but the signs of acquiescent commodity that resonate in our consumer culture.
A student from Semiotics and Deconstruction 101 would be able to sort it out in no time.
We are all familiar with Serrano’s Piss Christ and Davila’s Stupid as a Painter, amongst a host of controversial and censored exhibitions. Most recently the “pornography” paintings of John Currin have been hotly discussed, but I think what is of issue here is that these other works do not extend beyond the adult world. Ann Elias discusses some of these issues for education in the linked pdf.
Perhaps with for-knowledge of the controversial nature of these few photographs, in an otherwise praised exhibition, an opportunity could have been managed to explore the issues rather than having the whole presentation closed. It might be that the perceived absence of a context for discussion was more relevant than the images themselves, which without it, were complicit in the precociously sexed portrayal of children that it is said they commented upon neutrally.
If we have art we will have controversy, thank goodness for that.
Walking the fine line is the job of the curator, and Gosford Council is right to put their trust in the people they employ to make informed decisions.
7 comments:
We do live in conservative times - it is disturbing that artists, educators and curators feel paralysed to argue, discuss, and facilitate an artistic freedom of expression. This latest episode, regarding Changeling: Childhood and the Uncanny, has highlighted the insecurities and embedded distrust of a small minority. What happens to our communities when issues of child pornography and pedophilia are not discussed? We all know it happens, but sorry, we feel uncomfortable to publicly acknowledge, and to have works of art that may or may not resemble that theme- exhibited in our local gallery! ...... This series of photographs is a success because of the outrage it has generated. Whatever the artist’s original intention, it has now been overshadowed by a provincial public. What is an artist, if we cannot be controversial, politically correct, and generate awareness? Are we doomed to a practice of “art as wallpaper”?
Thank you for opening this opportunity to discuss the closure of “Changeling” and the public comments made.
I felt compelled to make my comments after having read the front-page coverage in the Express Advocate. I know that journalists are sometimes more interested in the story than substance, so perhaps allowances can be made, but to say that “ART experts have defended a controversial photographic exhibition”, then not name or quote any of them is not helpful in any way. The only external experts identifiable were the police, who were there to make a judgement on pornography.
Similarly, the number (reliable?) of viewers is not useful information. Many people subscribe to Telstra, but in my experience the service is second rate.
The opinions of Fred Nile do not advance anything very far.
In conversation with a group of artists recently, one question that arose was why did Gosford City close the exhibition with only one week to go, when its staff had judged the works to be suitable for the situation. Could they not have backed their employees, and taken the opportunity, as the original post suggests, to engage in serious discussion of issues raised.
In my opinion, freedom of artistic expression is not the issue here. As the original blog showed through the link, pornography presented with all the accoutrements of art (prestige galleries, critical acceptance) can be accommodated in the body of contemporary practice, even if denigrated in qualitative terms by some. The same can be said of Acconci’s masturbatory performance, Rainer’s blood and guts, Manzoni’s cans of shit etc. etc.
Some might find Papapetru’s images wanting in qualitative terms, if those terms include conceptual and intellectual rigour.
So if pornography (the definition of which opens another can of worms), like other socially and personally confronting depictions, can and has been allowable within the house of art, this leaves us with the issue of social responsibility with regard to sexualized images of children within a cultural context where exploitation is already imbedded.
The regional gallery curator made some baffling statements (as reported).
“The main difference is intent. If you want to come here and see naked children then that's all you'll see, but if you want to get something out of it and see what the artist is actually doing, you'll come away with something else.”
The problem is that “nakedness” is not the issue, and “what the artist is actually doing”, seems to be the crux of the issue.
“What we often sweep under the carpet are issues to do with children. I accept we should be up front with child protection but it's about how much stuff do you ban to maintain that.''
This statement seems to imply the photographs required assessment in terms of child protection, and that this had been done. Brief newspaper reports often do not do justice to those reported, and I would be very interested if the curator at the Region Gallery would present his ideas to these comments.
Of course very few (Nile excepted) would regard the photographs as pornographic, more as having soft-core reverberations. Which is why, as children are depicted, the images cause concern. Even hard-core aficionados prefer their porn with soft focus, interesting in view of the distancing needed in an image to allow identification (New York Times www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/business/media/22porn.html?_r=1&ref=technology&oref=slogin)
The effect of art on an audience is unclear. Artists and others make claim for art as an agent of social change, either through its challenging propositional content, its persuasive appeal through emotion or its presentation of desirable alternatives. Totalitarian regimes have been in no doubt about the effectiveness of the art as a tool of cognitive control.
We tend to think that art does not change the world directly, but that artists’ actions and work can cause reverberations in the zeitgeist that will result in actions by others. At the same time we argue that artists should have complete freedom of expression. The flux of tensions created lets us engage with the nature of our society and move forward. Or, as Ern Malley wrote, “friction as a social process”. Can we make a silk purse out of this sow’s ear?
An invitation to comment has been forwarded to Tim Braham.
I agree with david.
Art is about dialogue, culture is filtered through it as well as personal political and social. In europe in the streets of Vienna on the sides of buildings one sees naked children exerywere. There is none of this sensorship, due to the uncomfortable feelings one brings up as a result of looking, the viewer is implicit in the act they feel uncomfortable. Lets not blame the art or artist. There is the subjective and the objective we seem to get the two mixed up and consequently stop the discourse, shut the box and lock it. The fcat is children from a very early age are sexual why are we afraid of this when we see it presented as art. art immitates life so whats the problem.
NE
David, what an insightful response to the closure of the "Changeling". I remain firm, in regards to what is at stake with the demise of " Changeling". Artistic freedom of expression has been compromised, not only from the artist’s perspective, but that of the curator. I'll grant you, it is a loaded term, however, the public has gagged the gallery, who in turn, has removed contemporary works of art from being exhibited. The issue now, is whether The Regional Gallery gets cold feet when another controversial, contemporary exhibit comes to town. Where does that position local contemporary artists’ wishing to exhibit with the Regional Gallery? Wouldn’t you agree, there would be a level of censorship as a backlash? ……..upon anything naked, no less.
The naked truth with cold feet?
On this day in which we will have more than enough trumpeting of the idea of common values by politicians, I think that idea of diversity of opinion is increasingly important. Culture constantly changes. I heard on the radio this morning interviews with people in England (my country of origin) about being British. It was difficult to tell, but I think they were speaking English.
Jillian has rightly focussed the discussion on critical issues for artists working on the Central Coast. We need explanations. Who made the decision to close and on what grounds? Does Gosford have guidelines governing what can and cannot be shown? What is the procedure in Council for making judgements based on personal taste? Which art experts were consulted and what did they say?
We must also ask if the Regional Gallery, with its established clientele, will ever be able to accommodate uncompromised contemporary art as it exists in cities around the world today.
I think what has been established is, that for now, “controversial” art works are unlikely to find a welcome at the Regional Gallery, and that if they are exhibited, they could be closed down, with no discussion of the issues in advance.
One would think by now that the public would be aware that contemporary art is likely to be pushing the boundaries of the possible and questioning conventions in politics, aesthetic form, representations of sexuality, gender, economic ideology, etc. This is likely to cause offence to people whose thinking is too rigid to embrace conversation, but is a vital part of a living and strong culture.
With respect, we reserve the right to be rude when required.
I would like to add,in a post modern world the viewer of art is on their own viewing platform and that opinions and differing ART VALUES can co exist.
If I was them (those who feel uncomfortable)I would open up this box and have a really good dig around in there instead of shutting the door.
Post a Comment