Art And Pornography

[poliphilo]

The Tate has retired its Ovendens. It has taken the images off-line and made the originals unavailable to researchers. I'm not really surprised. In the circumstances I'm not sure what else it could have done.

All the same, there's something odd about punishing a work of art for the sins of its maker. While Ovenden was merely under suspicion but technically innocent his pictures were displayed for all to see. As soon as he was found guilty they were taken down and hidden.  They became wicked overnight. One day they were artistically justifiable images of childhood innocence- or whatever the critics said they were; the next day they were porn.

Type "Brotherhood of Ruralists" into Google and see what comes up. There are Ovendens in the mix but the iffiest image on the page- a very young fairy with her kecks off- isn't by Ovenden at all but by his brother Ruralist (and teacher) Peter Blake. Only Blake isn't a paedophile so the picture is entirely blameless, right?

Comments

[trixibelle-net.livejournal.com]

I think it must also be about giving attention/praise/confirmation/affirmation to the artist as well (or rather, removing those things). Who wants to reward a paedophile - especially when the reward includes allowing, appreciating and enjoying dubious images of his own making. We wouldn't glorify the scribbles of a lesser-talented man such as him.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

I assume another factor is that abuse was involved in the very creation of these works, in that getting the models to pose was part of the process of seductino. That seems more defensible than getting rid of them because their author was, in addition to (but separately from) being an artist, a paedophile.

[cmcmck.livejournal.com]

An important aspect of discussing the arts- Richard Dadd was insane and murdered his father, Gesualdo da Venosa murdered his wife and her lover, Wagner was a rabid anti semite and Benjamin Britten, well, the least said about him the better but Peter Pears probably kept him out of prison.

But does this mean we shouldn't be engaging with their work?

[theperfectfool.livejournal.com]

IMHO - taking the images off line for the time being is probably a good idea because for every "hit" by someone genuinely interested in the art, there would be hundreds by people just seeking clandestine thrills until the whole matter fades into historical obscurity. Making the originals unavailable to researchers, however, strikes me as revisionist whitewashing and censorship of historical fact inspired by the fear of legal action and/or public outcry. Someone needs to write a non-sensational book about all this eventually, and they will need to study the images in order to do so. Fact is fact no matter how distasteful or abhorrent we find it.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Dadd's work doesn't constitute an invitation to murder and Wagner, very largely, kept his anti-semitism out of his operas. Ovenden's pictures, on the other hand, might well be interpreted as a celebration of paedophilia. That makes his case a little different I think. The art is implicated in the crime.

As for Britten.....

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I hadn't seen that before. All I can say is Hmmmmmmm....

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I agree.

As you say, we can't wipe Ovenden from the record. He's a figure of some art-historical significance and his work is well known. The Tate may have locked their holdings away but Google his name and all the offending images pop up.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Yes, the pictures are implicated in the crime.

Ovenden is also a painter of landscapes. I hope the Tate (assuming it has any) isn't also locking those away.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

The better the art the trickier it becomes. Ovenden is a minor artist; we're not losing much by locking his work away. But suppose he was a figure of the stature of Picasso? Would we still be wanting to turn the key?

It's a fact that we do tend to turn a blind eye when greatness is involved. There are all sorts of questions about Benjamin Britten and there's a paedophile vibe to a lot of his work but these things don't stop us performing him.

[charliemc.livejournal.com]

I agree with what you've said here. The PRODUCT (the art) should stand on merit, regardless of the artist (and especially regardless of the negative actions of the artist). Treasures could be lost with any other reasoning.

Nor should we judge based solely on the quality of the art, nor the fame (or lack of fame) of the artist...

Truly a can of worms.

[charliemc.livejournal.com]

The art is implicated in the crime.

Granted, that's true. But it still bothers me...