a
mothers art they called porn
A
friend of mine said recently, that the day that modern art gets accepted in this
country, is the day that art dies. So it's a relief then that it's still alive
and well, and lurking in a building near you. Over the last week or so, the tabloid
press, artists, the police, child protection agencies, newspaper editors, art
critics, paedophiles, D list celebs, pub-goers and dinner tables round the country
have all been debating 'the filth that they call art these days', inspired by
the brouhaha surrounding an exhibition called i am a camera at the Saatchi
Gallery. In the dock is Nan Goldin and Tierey Gearon, but particularly Gearon,
an American photographer, who has lived in London for the past 10 years. The police,
the News of the World, the Child Protection Agency, and other such establishments,
have ventured into the dark depths of an art gallery. Why? Cos there are pictures
of naked children in there, and if there's one thing that unite these bands of
men ... men, it's naked kids.
'CHILD PORN THEY CALL ART' screamed The News of the World (TNOTW), and published
many of the pictures complete with blocked out rectangles over their willies and
front bottoms. The paper didn't want to mention the name of the artist involved
- to protect the children you see. It has never taken much for TNOTW to publish
anything that could be bent or be construed as sordid, or anything that could
be considered as a worthy headline grabbing piece of gossip. ('Oooh I say ...'
as Kenneth Williams might have put it).
TNOTW can print pictures of semi-naked women, carry adverts for what basically
must be for phone-sex [1], and will employ journalists to unearth peoples private
lives for their readers enjoyment [2]. The tabloids moral pedastal is built on
sensationalism, where shock and outrage is the food for its economy, hypocrisy
its cash-till, and as such, is generally treated either with suspicion, or with
humour, but preferably both. They can be fun to read, and funnier still when they
they claim the moral high-ground. But for all this, I didn't expect so many people
to come out and sound so ignorant about an image, or the interpretation of the
image.
Art,
or any image of interest, is not only contained within itself, but has to reflect
and acknowledge the outside world. Even if it doesn't, or wants to, it has to,
and does. To make it good art, it needs to hit a spot. Somewhere. Somehow. Gearons
photos hold no kinetic sexuality. None. Flesh, young and old, is, potentially,
sexual. But a newspaper that gags on the flesh sells equation, will come up with
the only interpretation necessary - that is, it must equal sex. And it works.
But Gearons photos, succeed not just because there is nothing sexual going on,
but they also work, consiously or subconsiously on behalf of the artist/gallery/viewer,
to redress lost ground. They are relaxed, casual, happy photos. Look! adults playing
around with kids, kicking about in the sun for a few weeks. It never occured to
me that these photos looked dark or 'creepy' before I read the headlines, weeks
after it opened. They are dark in a nondiegetic visual sense only. Made real by
the reaction.
the
reaction
An article published in the Daily Mail by Andreas Whittam, typically got things
wrong. But not just any old wrong. A dark, rather scary wrong, and one which could
sum up the whole shabby irony. I quote: 'Speaking as a grandfather, I hope that
those who believe sexually titallating images involving children are acceptable
so long as they can be labelled art will now consider how bogus this arguement
is.' I have written this correctly. You might want to read it again. It's a line
that might come from one of Chris Morris's characters; an honourable, Masonic
Lodge nearing, knighthood queing, morally guided family man, but is either wilfully
unable to grasp the simplicities of language, or is suffering the lonely pain
of self-denial. Considering that Andreas Whittam writes for the Mail, I am hoping
he's closer to the former.
Even Mark Lawson, the most recognisable chairperson on the arts, got quite bald
over the whole affair, and quite pompously suggested that the mother of these
children had disregarded her kids reaction to these pictures being 'displayed
around the world' when they become teenagers. Below is one of Gearons pictures,
and Lawson went on to point out that this image had the potential to 'quicken
the step of any gallery-visitor who happened to be into kids-and-pets-porn.' I
must have a look at his bookmarks one day, cos that's one interpretation of this
image I didn't see. He is the critic ... and I'm not, but what the fuck
IS he on about!? Another set of bookmarks I'd like to see, is Ian Hislop's,
the editor of Private Eye, who recommended that these images 'are the sort that
get downloaded from the net.'
Michael
Hames, former head of the Obscene Publications Squad said, 'The chattering classes
will believe they have an absolute right to peer at nude youngsters' genitals
'. I mean (?!). Pervert. [3]
These are pictures of a family behaving completely innocently, and they're interesting
and valid because of this fact. The paranoia of paediophilia in this country has
gone way beyond logical sensible thinking, so much so that even the slightest
glimpse of a child's flesh now starts the alarm bells ringing. You hear of fathers
who worry about bathing their children, or feeling slightly self-conscious about
waiting for their children at the school gate. It's a ridiculous situation. A
number of years ago, another mother, who is also a newsreader at the BBC, was
visited by the police after pictures of her bathing her children were deemed to
be suspicious by whoever was developing them. Well they visited the wrong person.
Julia Sommerville was cleared of any wrong doing. We can thank the tabloid media
for all this.
There are many people in the world who aren't perverts, nobody as yet has nudge-nudged
me when I've conversed about the young, and it's rare that I get I felt up in
public, but it seems that our gloried moralists must think that anyone interacting
with children, and expressing this interaction, must harbour desires that contravene
the law[4].
This whole mess has concerned and interested me in a more personal way too, as
I am working on a series of paintings which are connected in many ways to Gearons
series of photos. I'm painting pseudo photo-realistic versions of snapshots displayed
at my parents house, and two of the 64 in the series, are of my sister, when she
was 2 or 3, standing on a table, completely naked with her arms out wide. I took
it myself when I was 5 or 6, getting her to pose in that way [5]. It remains a
family favourite, especially with my sister, and if ever exhibited, I will go
to court if anyone accuses me of child abuse. On second thoughts I won't.
the outcome
The pictures were found not to be contravening the law, and remain on the wall.
notes
[1]
I tried it once, but as is widely known, you get some kind of intro and you've
lost 2 quid - it's boring, so you put the phone down. I've seen Short Cuts - pub.
It's simple maths.
[2]
This is not to decry their sometimes valuable pieces of investigative journalism,
when they are looking at serious matters.
[3]
In a television interview, Mike Hames, the newly crowned Child Protection Adviser,
was positively licking his lips while he recounted what he saw. Below is a full
transcript from an ITV news programme on television. Stage directions and comments
are in italics.
TREVOR McDONALD (NEWSREADER): There's continuing controversy tonight about whether
the police should have any vote in deciding whether pictures in a London art gallery
are obscene. Officers have been to the Saatchi Gallery twice in recent days to
follow up complaints about an exhibition showing pictures of naked children. Katie
Derhams's report includes (concerned pause), images from the exhibition.
(He glances to the left, still looking slightly concerned)
KATIE DERHAM (NEWS REPORTER): A smart North London gallery, owned by Charles Saatchi,
and known for its support for cutting edge British artists. But last week it was
visited by the police who have laid down an ultimatum; if photos of this exhibition
aren't removed by Thursday, they have the power to come and get them themselves.
The photos at the centre of this row are a series taken by American photographer
Tierey Gearon of her children. There have been 3 complaints to the police that
they're not art or harmless portraits of family life, they're child pornography.
INTERVIEW - TIEREY GEARON: Now I just keep looking at these two images and I cannot
see what it is ... I mean ... I'm not, I'm not a person who's sexually perverted
so I can't ... I guess .. I cannot see it, I still can't see it. I can't see what...
I mean to me, these objects, these photos are so unsexual.
KATIE DERHAM: But experts worry that's not what they may appear to some.
MIKE HAIMES: CHILD PROTECTION ADVISER: I mean, if she kept them indoors, in a
drawer (lick), and shared them with her family, then nobody would know
about it (HAVEN'T YOU SEEN 'THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE'!?), but she has
chosen to put them on the wall of a public gallery, and drawn them to public attention.
And in my view, a few of these photographs, certainly one of them, is indecent,
within the meaning of the Protection of Children Act [3a], and had I been in charge
of the case last week, I would have advised that that, and probably one or two
others, should be removed.
KATIE DERHAM: It's more than 30 years since the police have done anything like
this, but, in the currrent climate of fear about paeodoplhilua, this isn't so
much a debate against censorship, as people being asked to completely re-assess
the way they view an innocent family photograph.
[3a]
Section 3 - 3a of the 'Protection of Childern Act' states:
The Secretary of
State shall include the individual in the list kept by him under section 1 above
if, after he has considered the information submitted with the reference, any
observations submitted to him and any other information which he considers relevant,
he is of the opinion-
(a) that the organisation reasonably considered the
individual to be guilty of misconduct (whether or not in the course of his employment)
which harmed a child or placed a child at risk of harm; and
(b) that the
individual is unsuitable to work with children.
[4]
To place a full-stop after 'law', may either suggest that a) I forgot to mention
morality (a possibility now made redundent), b) I believe that law is a reflection
of morality, or c) That all this is an excuse to write at least 700 words. (But
this is further confused by the fact that I am an anarchist sympathiser, who believes
that we need laws - annnnn that's the rebel in me.) The answer however is a),
I forgot to mention morality because I'm writing this quickly.
[5]
None of Tierey Gearon's photos (15 images - 6 including nakedness) were staged.
None of them.
links
For an accurate and intelligent reaction to this - http://www.artrumour.com
or News of the World - http://www.newsoftheworld.com
Independent - http://www.independent.co.uk/enjoyment/Art_and_Design/Visual_arts/2001-03/childtwo130301.shtml
affiliates
Website
Creations Web Hosting & Domain Registration
We recommend their service
based on our experience of their service. We reviewed web services world wide
before deciding on them, based on services and good price.
Need
Online Help Desk Software?
Website
Creastions developed their own, which has an automated follow up and alert system.
Handy.
Search the World's Largest
Visual Art Events Database
