2001年4月27日 星期五

Saatchi's new show promises to excite the Vice Squad again

By Louise Jury Media Correspondent
Friday, 27 April 2001

The attentions of the Vice Squad have clearly not left the Saatchi Gallery nursing any inhibitions. Its first exhibition since being raided by officers investigating complaints of obscene exhibits opens with an animated sequence of a modelling clay heroine pleasuring herself.

The attentions of the Vice Squad have clearly not left the Saatchi Gallery nursing any inhibitions. Its first exhibition since being raided by officers investigating complaints of obscene exhibits opens with an animated sequence of a modelling clay heroine pleasuring herself.

The police investigation six weeks ago into allegations that photographs of children were indecent has not deterred the gallery, owned by the advertising entrepreneur Charles Saatchi, from repeatedly showing the video of close-up masturbation by the artist Liane Lang. Jenny Blyth, the gallery's curator, defended its inclusion in the show by saying it was clearly not real. She said: "It's definitely not flesh. We perceive it as a humorous piece. It's the world of Wallace & Gromit and to use these materials in this way is so unexpected."

Ms Lang, a graduate of the Goldsmith's College that produced many of the Young British Artists, said she did not think people would be outraged. She said: "I never intended it to be offensive. There is also a distinction between showing adult sexuality and children."

The gallery came under fire last month from tabloid newspapers and a few unnamed visitors who protested that photographs by Tierney Gearon of her children were indecent. But the Crown Prosecution Service decided there was no case to answer.

The next exhibition, titled "New Labour", opens to the public next Thursday, chosen because of the initial expected date of the general election.

2001年4月26日 星期四

Emin back on the helter skelter of self-absorption

By David Lister Media and Culture Editor
Thursday, 26 April 2001

Tracey Emin, the leading member of the studiedly controversial Young British Artists, presented her first solo exhibition in London for four years yesterday.

Tracey Emin, the leading member of the studiedly controversial Young British Artists, presented her first solo exhibition in London for four years yesterday.

Once more using her own life as an art form in itself, she showed embroideries containing details of her sexual experiences, a video of the artist trying to meet her mother and a helter skelter as a throwback to her childhood days in Margate, Kent. The last was one of the very few new works in the exhibition. But the venue for the exhibition, the White Cube2 Gallery in the East End of London, was, she claimed, notable.

Emin said: "This shows that artists are moving from the West End of London to the East End. There is a new community springing up here."

The exhibition is entitled "You Forgot To Kiss My Soul" with the reproduction of the Margate helter skelter at the centre of the gallery. Honey Luard, of White Cube2, explained that it was "a fairly self-explanatory statement about the symbolism of the helter-skelter to life".

Emin, who last year sold her bed with its dirty linen to the art collector Charles Saatchi for £150,000 and then her reconstituted Whitstable beach hut to him for £ 75,000, says of her home town: "Being a virgin bride in Margate was not an option. You got broken into."

Emin's tent exhibit entitled Everyone I Have Slept With 1963-1995 contained the scrawled names of people she had slept with, including friends and relatives and sexual partners. It is not included in the new exhibition. Instead visitors can see a papier mâché Concorde, three new appliqued blankets, some neon displays, drawings and two videos, one of a conversation between Emin and her mother.

Emin was a Turner Prize nominee in 1999 and was recently awarded the eighth Cairo International Biennale Jury Prize.

Her home town, meanwhile, is trying to raise £13m for a Turner centre, which would show some of her works and those by contemporary Kent artists. Emin could yet see some of her works exhibited alongside those of Turner.

2001年4月4日 星期三

Giuliani creates 'decency panel' to keep art clean exhibits

By David Usborne in New York
Wednesday, 4 April 2001

Aspiring artists hoping for exposure in New York need to take care. If your work risks causing offence to the city's mayor, Rudolph Giuliani, or a group of his friends about to be appointed to an official "decency commission", you may be chased out of town. Steer clear of all religious depictions.

Aspiring artists hoping for exposure in New York need to take care. If your work risks causing offence to the city's mayor, Rudolph Giuliani, or a group of his friends about to be appointed to an official "decency commission", you may be chased out of town. Steer clear of all religious depictions.

The creation of the commission is Mayor Giuliani's latest big idea in his battle to keep New York's museums on the moral straight and narrow. Or that is how he sees it. Civil liberties groups consider it an illegal assault on the free expression rights of artists. For them it is censorship.

Apparently, Mr Giuliani intends his commission to root out works of art from the city's 34 publicly supported cultural institutions that may cross the line into obscenity. But where does that line lie? If there should be such a line. The panel members are buddies and aides of the mayor, who leaves office at the end of this year.

Mr Giuliani first frothed about so-called obscene art in 1999, when the Brooklyn Museum of Art opened Sensation, a collection of Saatchi-owned works, which included a black Madonna spattered with elephant dung. Mr Giuliani suspended city funding and tried to have the museum evicted, until a judge stopped him. When the museum hung a photo-parody of the Last Supper with a nude black woman in the place of Jesus he called it "disgusting".

Barbara Handman, director of People for the American Way, said yesterday: "The mayor has dragged the city through one costly, losing battle after another, as he persists in his attempt to become chooser-in-chief and impose his choices on the rest of us."

2001年3月16日 星期五

Nudists join the show as Saatchi's carnival reopens

Art controversy: Tierney Gearon's photographs of her naked children back on display as Crown Prosecution Service decides not to prosecute

By Thomas Sutcliffe
Friday, 16 March 2001

Just inside the inner entrance of the Saatchi Gallery there is an easy way to take the measure of its owner's attitude to media controversy. Some 15 feet of the wall is covered with a dense mosaic of framed newspaper articles bearing headlines such as "Art too hot to show" and "Art or outrage?"

Just inside the inner entrance of the Saatchi Gallery there is an easy way to take the measure of its owner's attitude to media controversy. Some 15 feet of the wall is covered with a dense mosaic of framed newspaper articles bearing headlines such as "Art too hot to show" and "Art or outrage?"

And after yesterday's opening, the first time the public could get in since the row over Tierney Gearon's photographs of her naked children erupted, it is clear that this memorial to moral consternation will soon stretch even further.

Journalists hoping to report on the seizure of the pictures may have been disappointed - the police stayed away pending a Crown Prosecution Service decision on whether there was a case. The CPS finally rang to say no action would be taken.

But there were plenty of consolations in the modest carnival of art lovers, students and protesters who arrived for the midday opening, not least the presence of Vincent Bethell and supporters of the Freedom To Be Yourself campaign.

For Mr Bethell, "being yourself" seems to be a matter of taking all your clothes off in public and - outraged by the assumption that nakedness might be crudely equated with indecency - he had come to do just that, stripping off with several colleagues just before noon.

The gesture prompted a stampede of astounded workmen from Jack's Café, across the road, and a clatter of camera shutters from the press photographers.

But it also demonstrated the curious terror that the human body can produce when exposed in unconventional ways. "I've got three children," yelled one incensed man. "If any one saw you mugs I'd slap the lot of you." Another, beside himself with rage at this eccentric defence of liberty, shrieked: "You fucking nonces."

"Hiding Obsesses, Revealing Heals" read the poster carried by one naked protester and for a moment it seemed all too likely that he would be able to apply this unconventional form of medicine in practice. Then the gates opened and the crowd surged down the ramp to queue for admission, clothed and unclothed united in decorous English patience.

Inside, Jenny Blyth, the gallery's curator, welcomed the naked protesters to the show and calmly fielded questions from journalists. Before the exhibition's opening, there had been no discussion of the pictures' potential to cause trouble, she claimed. In hindsight, she conceded, this might have been a little naïve, but she insisted she could still look at the pictures "with an open mind".

Joanna Needham and Catherine McCormack weren't quite so sure. In Jack's Café, before the opening, the two art history students from University College London, had reflected on John Berger's distinction between the naked and the nude. ("To be naked is to be yourself, to be nude is to be seen by others and not recognised as yourself" was how one of them recalled it.) And they had mused over what other art works might arouse the News of the World's moral outrage; Bronzino's Allegory of Cupid and Venus, in which a young boy tongue-wrestles with the goddess of love while tweaking her nipple, was elected as the prime candidate for a modern resuscitation of Victorian sexual terror.

In front of Gearon's images they were more hesitant about dismissing the fuss as mere philistinism. "We're slightly changing our minds about a couple of them," said Joanna, noting that in more than one picture there was a troubling ambiguity about the exact nature of the relationships. Kristina Henschen, whose child lay sleeping in the buggy she was pushing round the gallery, was unperturbed though. She could see no real problems with the pictures "but then I'm Swedish", she added, before turning away to attend to some journalists seeking to add a maternal viewpoint to those of obsessional nudists.

Outside a bereted figure who gave his name as Leon was stuffing copies of a manifesto for a free revolutionary art into the Saatchi Gallery postbox, a manifesto which called for "complete freedom for art". If he really wanted to take the battle directly to the forces of reaction all he had to do was cross the road, where Filippo Sardo, manning the counter at Jack's, was putting the case for censorship. If he were to display images of naked children, he declared, he'd be arrested. Call it art and stick it on the walls across the road though and you could get away with it.

In Mr Sardo's view the double standard was unacceptable and when it came to kids "nudidity" was out of order. The naked glamour models pinned to the wall suggested that, when it came to public display of nudity at least, he had a few double standards of his own.

Surprise, surprise

Friday, 16 March 2001

There's a surprise: the Crown Prosecution Service has decided, "after carefully reviewing the evidence", not to take legal action against the Saatchi Gallery over the photographs of naked children on show there (in a show sponsored by our sister newspaper, The Independent on Sunday).

There's a surprise: the Crown Prosecution Service has decided, "after carefully reviewing the evidence", not to take legal action against the Saatchi Gallery over the photographs of naked children on show there (in a show sponsored by our sister newspaper, The Independent on Sunday).

Plain-clothes police officers can now be recalled from investigating reports of cherubs in statuary at sundry locations around Britain, or depictions of them in paintings by Renaissance artists in public places.

The artificial panic over representations of children's naked bodies risked making worse the fearfulness for our children that so distorts our society.

Even amid our present, overheated paranoia about paedophilia, though, it was never remotely plausible that a jury would have convicted either the Saatchi Gallery or the artist, Tierney Gearon. It could not have been seriously argued that displaying the pictures put children at risk, even if some people found them disturbing.

Fortunately, common sense prevailed before this nonsense went that far.

Saatchi photographs are not obscene, says CPS

By Jason Bennetto, Crime Correspondent
Friday, 16 March 2001

Photographs of nude children featured in an exhibition at the Saatchi Gallery in London are not obscene and do not break the law, the Crown Prosecution Service ruled yesterday.

Photographs of nude children featured in an exhibition at the Saatchi Gallery in London are not obscene and do not break the law, the Crown Prosecution Service ruled yesterday.

Scotland Yard had threatened to seize the photographs after three complaints that the pictures, taken by two photographers, were indecent and would encourage paedophiles.

The case, which won the backing of Chris Smith, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, provoked an outcry over censorship of the arts and freedom of expression. The CPS said no action would be taken against the north London gallery - which is owned by the advertising mogul Charles Saatchi - and the Metropolitan Police said the matter was closed.

A spokeswoman for the CPS, which was sent a file of evidence by the Metropolitan Police's clubs and vice unit, said: "We do not consider that the photographs are indecent." The images, which are part of the exhibition called I Am A Camera, are mainly taken by Tierney Gearon, an artist from the US who lives in London. They feature her two children, Emily, six, and Michael, four. The exhibition is sponsored by the Independent on Sunday.

In one photograph the children are wearing theatrical masks and are standing naked on a beach; in another, Michael is urinating in the snow with his sister in the background.

Ms Gearon said: "My children are my entire life ... and these are beautiful, innocent pictures. You have to understand the context ... which is that I was documenting my family for two years."

A spokesman for the gallery said: "Everyone at the Saatchi Gallery is very relieved as are all the artists in the show. It's been a very worrying time for the two artists involved and their families. We are extremely grateful to the public and press who have supported the artists and the gallery."

The exhibitors were facing prosecution under the 1978 Protection of Children Act, but the crown prosecutors said that the photographs were not considered indecent and that the Saatchi Gallery could successfully use the defence that it had a legitimate reason to show the images because they are considered works of art.

The Act makes it a crime, punishable by up to three years' imprisonment and a fine of up to £10,000, to make indecent photographs of children (anyone under 16) for possession, distribution or show.

A CPS statement said: "In reaching this decision, the CPS considered whether the photographs in question were indecent, and the likely defence of the gallery, ie whether they had a legitimate reason for showing them." Under the current law the definition of indecency is anything that "is likely to offend right-minded people".

The photographs will remain on display until the end of the exhibition on 15 April.

2001年3月15日 星期四

Prosecution ruled out over naked children photos

Thursday, 15 March 2001

The Saatchi Gallery will not be prosecuted for displaying controversial photographs of naked children despite claims the exhibition was obscene, the Crown Prosecution Service said today.

The Saatchi Gallery will not be prosecuted for displaying controversial photographs of naked children despite claims the exhibition was obscene, the Crown Prosecution Service said today.

Police were called to the gallery in north London last week after complaints that the pictures - taken by American photographers Tierney Gearon and Nan Goldin - were indecent and would appeal to paedophiles.

But a CPS spokesman said that after careful consideration there was no realistic prospect of any conviction under the Protection of Children Act 1978.