Here's a nice moral conundrun for you all to ponder upon. According to the BBC (and just about every red-top newspaper in the land) some beardie-weirdie artist and photographer by the name of Graham Ovenden has just been convicted of sex offences against children.
For what it's worth, these offences took place 30 or 40 years ago. He has enjoyed a fairly distinguished reputation in the art world - again, for what that's worth! He was noted for decades as specialising in pictures of young girls, often in a state of undress or sometimes naked - yeees, quite! This brought down on his bearded head several court actions, not just here but everywhere including the USA - natch! - where they were shocked, I tell you, shocked! You can read his Wiki entry for all the details which I couldn't be bothered to plough through. As far as I can see the authorities have had several goes at him and his work but nothing stuck - until now. I have had a quick look at some of his work and judged by that alone I would say that he is a good-ish artist but a man fixated on the bodies of young girls. Even so, throughout these decades of accusations and innuendoes, the 'Illuminati' of the High Art World have not just stood by him but rushed to praise him.
Today, the Tate, a gallery noted for displaying crap art at every chance they get, have swiftly withdrawn Ovenden's pictures - and here we come to the point of this tedious post. If a blackguard paints a brilliant picture does it matter what the crimes and sins were of its progenitor? Are we to be forbidden from seeing any art produced by villains? And who decides who is a villain? If Ovenden is in fact guilty of sexually abusing children then his balls should go on display at the Tate Modern which might, on consideration, improve the standard of that benighted rubbish tip on the South Bank. But if Ovenden has produced some great, or even interesting, works of art then I think I am entitled to see them if I wish to do so - particularly as it's my money that keeps most of these nationalised art galleries going.
Jest askin'!
To be honest this both makes me angry and (more) depressed.
The charges for which he has apparently been found guilty were two of 'indecency' and one of 'indecent assault'. Not being a lawyer type I have no exact idea what those could entail but I have suspicions. (They couldn't be something as simple as having them pose and rearranging a dress whilst painting them could they? And where were the parents? Present?)
I 'suspect' the campaigners have been after him for years (as witnessed by the court cases previously) not for having 'sex' with minors but for portraying their images in a manner they feel is wrong. So now, with the media frenzy of any ageing DJs (preferably deceased so they can't defend themselves) who did as (well from what I've heard) every pop star and DJ did, to whit, sleep with any young girl who threw themselves at them (much as occurs now, again I'm told - although I did once go out with a former rock band 'follower' who regaled me with stories of her formative '16' year old exploits, I'm just waiting to see her claim she was molested instead of being entirely willing/throwing herself at them). The 'girls' (?) are now lining up for some major pay-outs and the authorities can claim to be 'doing something'.
As a nurse I have mixed feelings. I've dealt with children who have been horribly abused and not by Priests/Scout masters/DJs but by parents (thankfully only briefly as a male is not appropriate in those circumstances and I would be liable to 'damage' the parents, and yes in most cases the sweet, lovely mothers knew, agreed and sometimes were involved). At the same time I wonder will I in twenty, thirty, forty years face a knock on the door because some girl who I treated for her overdose/alcohol collapse/etc. suddenly decides she could do with some attention/sympathy/money?
I don't know anymore about this case than was in the papers (and refuse to view the paintings since having such images, from your descriptions, on my computer would effectively end my career permanently, such is the 'paranoia' currently) but the real victims are, to my mind, the children (not young adults) who face disbelief because of the money-grubbing claims of some.
As to your question, if we didn't view any art because of the crimes/beliefs and/or behaviours of the artist - we wouldn't have any art to view, would we?
(Oh and agree about the Tate, although the rest aren't much better currently - my art appreciation tends to be confined to The Louvre, Pompidou Centre and, when I can afford it, the better museums in Washington/NY)
Posted by: Able | Thursday, 04 April 2013 at 19:08
Yes, Able, like me, you find yourself unable to be definite about the details of Mr. Ovenden's activities. However, I think we can be fairly specific concerning his stupidity if he was, in fact, innocent of any malpractice. I mean, he persisted in behaviour that was highly risky. The quick look I had at a range of his work definitely showed a high number of sexually *implicit* images of young girls but then again, I have seen similar images on hoardings advertising girls' fashions.
You will, of course, young Able, take a hundred lines for even setting foot in the Pompidou centre, an establishment of anti-art nearly as hideously ugly as the man who gave it its name! Hopefully the Germans will invade again and blow the bloody thing up along with its wretched contents!
Posted by: David Duff | Thursday, 04 April 2013 at 20:14
Ah Non monsieur!
I can't say I'm it's biggest fan, but at least it isn't the Tate or the Guggenheim! And it does have the good point of being where many of the 'beautiful people' of Paris stroll about.
It's also in my favourite area of Paris, the 3rd arrondisement, with all those excellent places to drink, oggle the ladies and occasionally eat (although I prefer to head to Chinatown, conveniently close by, to eat).
Oh god, I'm sounding like a Luvvy - I'll be telling you how fabulous it is Dahling soon, mwah mwah
(currently saving the pennies to get to The Freer if I can - the drinking afterwards is merely an after-thought, honest)
Posted by: Able | Thursday, 04 April 2013 at 20:53
I only remember two things about thePompidou. The first was a gallery with nothing in it but blank pictures painted in one flat colour, obviously by a no-talent, no-imagination 'artist' with an inability to draw!
The other was a gallery divided into several small areas each of which contained an 'artistic' construction of some sort. However, there was one which contained nothing but a pile of floor tiles and I assumed they were refurbishing it but then I spotted an explanatory notice and apparently the pile of tiles was the exhibit!
And I didn't even get a chance to ogle the crumpet, either, because I was with the 'Memsahib'!
Posted by: David Duff | Friday, 05 April 2013 at 08:49
Maybe a quick trip to Le Havre to the 'Mobile Pompidou' - the 'arts' about the same (geometrical exhibit at the moment if I recall, which resembled the doodlings of the nursery I had to do a placement at many moons ago as a student - I really enjoyed my time there. Why? Well - 'finger-painting'! As an adult, how often do you get the chance? And yes, I still 'borrow' friends younger children so I can play with the toys/paint in the ELC), and you can use it as an(other) excuse for some duty free. Or you could just stroll round and laugh at the Picasso museum.
"I didn't even get a chance to ogle the crumpet, either"
Well I, taking advantage of one of the few places that still don't 'spontaneously' form lynch mobs when you 'spark up', sit with my, obligatory, Gauloises and 'get' oggled :-p (well I'm assuming it's oggling, either that or shocked looks that anyone with a face like mine is allowed off the Ile de la Cité).
Truth be told, I only go to these places because 'friends' keep trying to edumakate me (and because the only girls who think a PhD in 'some really complicated sounding medical-like subject' is cool, wear glasses and hang around looking pale, wan [+/- hair in a bun and pursed lips] in these sort of places).
Posted by: Able | Friday, 05 April 2013 at 10:33
I can't help feeling, Able, that there is a an autobiography struggling to emerge from you. May I suggest a title guaranteed to take you to the top of the Best Sellers: Fifty Shades of Medical Green!
No, no, don't thank me, just the usual readies in a plain envelope.
Posted by: David Duff | Friday, 05 April 2013 at 10:47
Autobiography? Oh dear lord no! I suspect that when my time is up and I'm forced to watch my life flash by my eyes - I'll be yawning and searching for the remote to see if that program about the monkeys is on the other channel.
I took the Heinlein quotes to heart early on:
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”
Although I'd rather die gallantly than face another diaper, thank you (and whilst my invasion failed miserably but if you need pork chops, I'm your man).
Also:
"Yield to temptation, it may not pass your way again"
(for the record I am an Olympic class yielder)
So, when my time to be judged arrives:
"She didn't spread his word as often as she'd promised Him that she would. She believed that God expected to be conned more often than not and that He would be a good sport about it.
You can con God and get away with it, Granny said, if you do so with charm and wit. If you live your life with imagination and verve, God will play along just to see what outrageously entertaining thing you'll do next.
He'll also cut you some slack if you're astonishingly stupid in an amusing fashion. Granny claimed that this explains why uncountable millions of breathtakingly stupid people get along just fine in life."
(Dean Koontz - Odd Thomas)
I hope this is true since being astonishingly stupid is something I'm really good at.
(Another 'appropriate' quote:
"Writing is nothing to be ashamed of, just do it in private and wash your hands afterwards" Heinlein)
Posted by: Able | Friday, 05 April 2013 at 12:48
For anyone interested in reading about what really happened in the Ovenden case, please take a look at my blog. The allegations that were reported by the press as the basis for the conviction (the 'taste test' and dressing up in Victorian nighties to be abused nonsense) were exactly what the jury DISbelieved. Ovenden was acquitted on those charges. Ovenden was convicted for two minor acts involving one former model and some photographs of 2 other former models, both of whom testified that Ovenden never abused them in any way. artist-on-trial.blogspot.com
Posted by: Bruce Wagner | Monday, 06 May 2013 at 14:01
Thank you, Mr. Wagner. I have no views one way or another as to his guilt or innocence but for those who do you will read a good defence at Mr. Wagner's site.
Posted by: David Duff | Monday, 06 May 2013 at 14:18
Mr Wagner with a good defense. bollocks! He is obviously a mole or in any case some one who is (illegally, by uk laws) disclosing private court information (look at his blog) for his or the convict's own gains.
Disclosing information and then making own biased assumptions and attacking anyone who does not agree with him (google brucewagner52).. and all to defend a known pedophile hub (yes graham ovenden is a hub; he has interfaced his friends with young children (girls and boys) for years. Probably will continue to be able to continue now he has received a silly suspended sentence (like he stole a pack of milk).
Posted by: pantersbridge | Saturday, 08 June 2013 at 00:43
The information on artist-on-trial comes is hardly illegally disclosed. It comes from people that attended the trial, a public proceeding. Mr. Pantersbridge (home of Ned Ovenden), should really disclose who HE is and what his interest is in making groundless (and libelous) accusations about Graham Ovenden (his father?).
Posted by: Bruce Wagner | Sunday, 09 June 2013 at 02:21
Gentlemen, in my 'youf' my part in pub fights was always to hold the jackets of the participants and I am happy to fulfil that role again here. However, I urge you both to beware M'Learned Friends who forever lurk in the undergrowth hopeful of a fat fee, so feel free to have a go but anything I consider to be below the legal belt will be struck out.
Posted by: David Duff | Sunday, 09 June 2013 at 08:32