Page 21 - Studio International - March 1967

Correspondence the Supreme Court of the State of Victoria (Australia) of the major problems as I see them:
pointed out that in prosecutions for publishing
obscene matter it must be established by the prosecu- (1) Every secondary school art teacher is fighting (I
Censorship of the arts-an Australian tion not only that the matter will corrupt people, but hope he is fighting) a status battle-academic v non-
view of the Jim Dine and other cases also that the same matter is obscene by modern academic (practical subjects). Art, needless to say, is
Dear Sir, standards (R. v. Close (1948) VLR 445). in the latter category. There is a profound lack of
Jasia Reichardt's Comment in a recent issue of What emerges from these and many other cases is respect for, and an appalling ignorance of, the sub-
Studio is very relevant to the Australian situation at that the Courts-whether in Australia or England- ject, particularly in grammar schools. Solution?-
the present time where a young painter named Mike will look to the circumstances of publication or replace the Dip. A.D. (Degree Equivalent) with a
Brown has recently been sentenced to three months' exhibition, which in Dine's case should ensure an degree. Art may not be an examinable subject but a
imprisonment for having 'delivered indecent paint- acquittal for the artist on any charge of obscene student's involvement and intellectual development
ings to a Sydney Art Gallery for exhibition'. exhibition. Apart from the place of the exhibition it is in a degree course can be assessed satisfactorily.
It seems to me however that Miss Reichardt's com- clear that persons will be readily available to comment Richard Hamilton is right when he says 'the system
ments are in need of some criticism, particularly her on the impact of Dine's drawings and to inform the works' at the University of Newcastle. Naturally, the
statement that 'in art, where mass publication is not Court of the significance of the very stark portrayal G.C.E. attainment level will have to be brought in line
an issue, only a total misunderstanding is responsible of the female genital organ. The test will then be, as with standard University entrance requirements
for raising the question of obscenity.' it always has been, whether the drawings can be said (another anomaly). The existing requirements of five
Miss Reichardt does not in her article appear to in any way to be for the public good. That conclusion '0' Levels is only equal to the minimal entrance re-
start with the proposition that any censorship at all of is to be drawn by the Court and it can only be drawn quirements for a College of Education, a non-graduate
any matter whatever is unfounded, but rather, seems on the evidence before it: if expert evidence of suffi- course.
to hold that within the existing framework of censor- cient weight is adduced the Court should have no
ship, art should be exempt from interference. My hesitation in concluding in favour of Dine. In this (2) Those readers who are cynical about the merits of
objection to this is that if the system of censorship is to respect I think that the words of the Chief Justice of degree status for art may not realize the greater
exist at all, as present-day governments in both Victoria in Close's case bear repetition. In that case implication within the secondary
Britain and Australia obviously think it must, then art Herring, C. J., said: situation-recruit-ment! Most secondary schools enforce a remarkably
should be no more free from interference than any efficient selection system at the age of thirteen years
other activity. 'The offence charged is commonly known as (in most cases). Here the academically-able are
The fact that Dine's drawings were removed from obscene libel, and, as I understand the law, it con- steered away from art to pursue an entirely 'academic'
the Robert Fraser Gallery in London seems to me to sists in the publication of any indecent, lewd or course. From the remainder, allegedly with 'practi-
be no more serious a matter than the seizure in filthy matter, which tends to corrupt the morals of cal' ability, a number are condescendingly described
Sydney of copies of one of James Baldwin's novels society. Not only must public decency be outraged as 'good at art'. This regrettably means for some-
(since released in this country); for if the system of by the publication but also public morality en- 'good at little else'! It is generally from this minority
censorship is to exist in our society, we can no more dangered. It is not everything that is filthy that comes that the Colleges of Art recruit their pre-Diploma
claim that works of art should be exempt than we can within the criminal law, there must also be a students. The solution is to gain the head teacher's
claim works of literature should. ten-dency in the matter charged as obscenity to deprave confidence and respect for the subject, mainly by
In Australia we still fall back on the old test of obcen- and corrupt people whose minds are susceptible to implementing my first suggestion and by improving
ity pronounced in Hicklin's Case in 1867, which was corruption and into whose hands it may fall. . . . information about careers for artists and designers.
the test applicable in England until the Obscene Pub- This is the case of a novel recently written. . . . Can
lications Act was passed by Parliament in 1959. The the publication of such a book in this way possibly (3) Narrow G.C.E. 'A' Level syllabuses are too fre-
test of obscenity which is now contained in the be regarded as being for the public good?' quently allowed to be a ball and chain I This is quite
English Act would seem to be a better one than that unnecessary, as good results can still be achieved by
which previously existed, and it would appear that in There will no doubt be those who will protest that abandoning the syllabus for one year and pursuing
the application of that test to the Dine case the artist Dine or his gallery should not be put to the expense of instead an intellectually-stimulating course in the
has little to fear. For the important thing about the defending a prosecution for obscenity, so that in this fundamentals of aesthetic principles-basic design, if
test is that it deems an article (which includes a sense at least my criticism of Miss Reichardt's thesis you wish. This, when closely linked with other subjects
painting or drawing) to be obscene where its effect is misconceived. To this I would only say that we must at Sixth Form level- philosophy, ethics, languages,
. . . is such as 'to tend to deprave and corrupt either change the system or work within it. No doubt sciences, computations, statistics and engineering
persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant we would all prefer the former, but until we have in (as at Hele's School), produces sound, confident,
circumstances, to . . . see . . . the matter contained Australia and in Britain a government of whatever mature and truly creative young people. Could this
or embodied in it.' political colour prepared to interest itself in these replace the pre-Diploma? Yes, where schools are
The words underlined above are the key to an under- matters we cannot do other than fight to preserve the large enough. First-year Sixth Formers are perfectly
standing of the section and it needs little ingenuity to freedom of the artist against the forces of an unen- capable of producing outstanding work of a pre-
see that in any prosecution brought against the artist lightened society. Diploma kind. Even if one does not agree with the
or the gallery or both, the defence should be that the Yours faithfully, transference of the pre-Diploma to schools, basic
Dine drawings are not such as to tend to deprave and G. P. Miller design of this nature remains desirable within the
corrupt those persons who would be likely to step Perth school curriculum, if only to alleviate the sudden and
inside the doors of the Fraser Gallery in order to see Western Australia what must appear illogical change in work on enter-
them. Now this amounts to no more than a question of ing a College of Art. Tom Hudson's plea for visual and
fact, and I am sure that any reasonable Court would [Mr G. P. Miller, LL.B., is an Associate of a firm of plastic experience much earlier, probably arises from
appreciate that the patrons of commercial art barristers and solicitors]. this point. A further anomaly can be seen here, as
galleries, whatever else they may be, are a more Sixth Form studies are largely geared to University
sophisticated set of people than the public at large, Art teaching in secondary schools demands but art is in no way related to the require-
and as such not prone to depravity or corruption upon ments of Colleges of Art. Neither is the work done
sight of Dine's phallic drawings (Miss Reichardt's Dear Sir, consistent either in standard, content or direction.
description). May I wholeheartedly support Tom Hudson's refer-
The fact is that Courts have long appreciated that ence (January issue) to the significance of the secon- Those readers who question the validity of my some-
the time and place of publication of matter is highly dary school situation. Frankly, I would go even further what cloudy picture of the Secondary scene, would
relevant in prosecutions for obscene exhibition. As and say that no re-thinking about art education can do well to read Art in Fifth & Sixth Forms, an interim
long ago as 1917 the New Zealand Court of Appeal be realistic until the foundations upon which a new report of the Bath Academy of Arts Research Centre
appreciated that the exhibition in the Dresden Art system is to be built, have been critically examined. on Art Education. To isolate one sobering yet reveal-
Gallery of Giorgione's Sleeping Venus was a very Naturally, most of us are aware of the high standard ing statistic-in schools with large Fifth Forms only
different matter from the exhibition of a reproduction and imaginative pioneer work being achieved at some one-fifth take art at '0' Level I
of that work in a shop window in a New Zealand city secondary schools. Unfortunately, the overall picture Nothing that I have proposed is an attempt to destroy
(Clarkson v. McCarthy (1917) NZLR 624), and in 1948 is not so encouraging and I would like to outline some creative freedom and individuality, but from my own