A Question of Consent and Consequence
Comments Off 
You have probably all heard or read something about the controversial works of Australian photographer Bill Henson that have been confiscated by police due to the use of naked underage girls in his work. I would not normally get involved in a debate that has already been commented on by everyone and anyone but since I have already written on a similar issue involving the work of Nan Goldin, and I am an Australian, I am going to say my piece.
Considering that Bill Henson has been producing similar works for more than 15 years it is unfortunate that he has basically been led to believe that what he is doing would not result in any serious negative consequences. I have no doubt that Henson has been treated unfairly and has been falsely portrayed as some sort of child abuse promoting monster. However, now that the works have come under scrutiny there is no way that action can’t be taken.
By not taking action after questions have been raised I believe that the police or who ever else is responsible for investigating such complaints would be seen as advocating eroticised images of children (whether or not they were). I have heard compelling arguments from both sides of the fence and would like to be able to support Bill Henson (who is a fantastic artist) and his work but as a Christian I am compelled to look beyond my opinion as an art critic.
I do believe that there are two main factors in this whole saga that should be considered above all others and they are consent and consequence. I am aware that there have been comments from one of Henson’s former child models that supports his work but the opinion of one or even a few of the former models cannot be taken as I doubt that the children in Henson’s photos were able to fully understand the gravity of the situation or fully comprehend the possible issues and consequences of being photographed naked. Because the children in the photographs were not able to make a decision with the same understanding and awareness that an adult would, they should really not have been allowed to consent to being photographed or have consent given for them by their parents. The second issue of the consequences of not taking some action, as I mentioned earlier, could be used as an excuse for more sinister activities which just can’t happen. I think it is also important to remember that Bill Henson is the only person who really has any choice in this situation in that he can choose to change the subject of his future work but the children in his photographs can’t choose to be taken out of his past work.
I do actually agree with those that are of the opinion that Bill Henson’s work is art and not pornography but as far as I am concerned the question of whether or not Henson’s work is art or not is not the primary issue. I also genuinely believe that Henson’s motives were genuinely artistic and that in no way is Bill Henson a paedophile. Having said this, the life of a child is far more important than anything related to art and artistic freedom.
Created by Nicholas Forrest On 05/29/08 At 07:33 AM
More than Just a Fake
Comments Off 
A year or so ago I was made aware of a non-Aboriginal Australian artist who was passing himself off as an Aboriginal Australian artist and making quite a bit of money in the process. The artist in question was born in Sydney but spent time during his teenags years at a school in a particular area of Australia’s Northern Territory that has produced many of the most well known and highly valued Aboriginal Australian artists. According to this artist’s profile on the website of the gallery that represents him, during his time in the Northern Territory he was exposed to the artistic practise of the indigenous people and was later taught to paint in the traditional Aboriginal x-ray style by an Aboriginal Elder. The art gallery that was selling the work of this fraud did nothing to alert potential customers to the fact they might be purchasing works of art that looked the same as that produced by geniune Indigenous artists but were by an artist who was not an Aboriginal Australian. Because a style of painting is not protected under Copyright Law it is not illegal as such for this artist to paint in the style of Aboriginal artists, but it is illegal for the artist to promote himself and present himself as an indigenous artist when clearly he isn’t.
After many years of misleading the public and misrepresenting himself, this artist was reported to the the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission who agreed with the complaints that had been made, and consequently put measures in place to stop this artist continuing the misleading and deceptive practices that led to the complaints. The artist and the gallery that represented the artist were not particularly pleased about the ruling but when an artist is clearly exploiting the culture and artistic practice of the Australian Aboriginal people for their own financial gain there is no other option but to put a stop to it. Instead of being unhappy about the ruling the gallery should instead be glad that they have the chance to regain their credibility after their reputation was tarnished because of their association with a fake Aboriginal artist.
There have been many different cases such as the one I have described above. On of these was the case against Australian Aboriginal Art Pty Ltd who were accused of selling souvenir items which were promoted as being made by Aboriginal artists and were “certified authentic” when in fact they were not. It was found that a majority of the artists who produced the souvenirs were not Aboriginal, or of Aboriginal descent, and that there was no authentication process that could justify the label “certified authentic” which resulted in a ruling that the practices of the company selling the items were in contravention of the Trade Practices Act.
It is extremely unfortunate that there are people out there who are willing to exploit the artistic talents of other artists for financial gain, especially when they are taking money away from a people who are in desperate need of the money. One can only hope that with more education and information people will become aware of this problem and report people who are selling fake Aboriginal art and souvenirs.
image: “Yirrkala-Sacred Story” by Mawalan Marika
Created by Nicholas Forrest On 05/12/08 At 07:27 AM
Copyright Bullies
Comments Off 
One of the many and varied jobs that I undertake within the art world is as a visual arts copyright consultant for a membership based copyright organisation. This position involves; advising artist’s on their rights, advising clients on their responsibilities, issuing copyright licences and investigating possible infringements.
Being on the front line of visual arts copyright means that I have the opportunity to experience the problems associated with this issue from both sides of the fence.
The task of keeping both the artist and the client (image users such as dealers, galleries, cultural institutions, media etc.) happy is difficult at the best of times primarily because of the conflicting priorities and the complexity of copyright law. It is astounding how many people are against the payment of royalties to artist’s when images of their works are used by someone else for financial gain. Just when I think that I have heard every excuse and objection to the payment of copyright fees to an artist I am confronted with another that is even more desperate and irrational.
One of the most common and frustrating objections I hear comes from secondary market galleries and dealers who do not feel as though they should have to pay for the use of an image of an artist’s work. The reason I have singled out secondary market (the sale/s of an artwork subsequent to the initial purchase of an artwork directly from an artist) galleries/dealers is because artist’s who are selling their work through a gallery/dealer on the primary market are unlikely to ask that gallery/dealer to pay copyright fees. This is basically because the artist is receiving money from the sale of the work (and in addition may be an unknown emerging artist).
According to these galleries and dealers, by using images of artist’s works (in advertisements, catalogues, brochures, websites etc.), they are benefiting the artists. They believe they should be able to use the images without having to pay a fee because they are promoting the artists and their works, however, regardless of whether they are promoting artists and their works the gallery/dealer is benefiting from the profile of the artist whose work they are using as a promotional tool. As well as the benefit the gallery/dealer receives from the association with a particular artist, there is also the rather more significant factor of the money that the gallery gets from the sale of the work, none of which goes to the artist. What I am trying to show is that the benefit to the gallery from using an artist’s work usually far outweighs the benefit that the artist receives. Having said all this, the fact still remains that an artist is legally (in most countries) entitled to a fee when an image of their work is used in any sort of advertising or promotional activity.
In many instances the required fee just isn’t paid. More and more examples of bullying and exploitation are being brought to my attention by artists who are sick and tired of being taken advantage of. Unfortunately there are a lot of selfish people out there who think that it is their God given right to profit from an artist’s hard work. You may be amazed to know that I have also come across instances of cultural institutions refusing to purchase an artist’s work unless they sign a waiver giving that institution permission to use images of the artwork in any way they please without having to obtain permission or pay fees. Other instances of bullying include galleries refusing to promote an artist’s work unless the artist waives the copyright fees, and museums guilting artists into waiving copyright fees in ‘exchange’ for having their work exhibited.
It is not just the monetary reward that makes copyright fees so important. Going through the correct procedure for obtaining permission to use an image, and paying the appropriate fee, is an acknowledgement of the artist’s hard work and recognises their work as being valuable and special. A worthy cause indeed.
Created by Nicholas Forrest On 03/10/08 At 08:29 AM
A Sign of the Times
Comments Off 
With contemporary artistic practice progressing and evolving at a fever pitched rate combined with the rapidly growing art market that rewards innovation, uniqueness and experimentation, it is becoming harder and harder for artists to stand out from the crowd and get noticed. The art market boom has caused an unprecedented appetite for contemporary art that has resulted in an increase in the number of artists being marketed by galleries and dealers. To compensate for the increased competition for representation and attention, artists are now needing to really think outside the box and come up with ways of attracting as much as attention as possible without affecting their credibility.
My research into this subject was sparked by a press release that I received in my inbox that was announcing the unveiling of a new artwork at a secret location in Beverley Hills in May by an artist who goes by the name of Rophar (http://www.rophar.com). What is so special about this painting that it needs to be unveiled I hear you ask, well, for starters it is adorned with over 250 carats of diamonds including multiple 4,5,6 and 7 carat stones with an accumulated value of $10 million dollars. Oh, and the asking price is US$110,000,000. According to the press release this painting, titled “Menagerie” has been commissioned by a fabulously wealthy countess who prefers to remain anonymous. How intriguing.
Another artist who has attracted his fair share of attention is Tim Patch who, as his pseudonym Pricasso suggests, paints portraits of people using his penis. To create his work Patch dips his penis in paint and applies it to the canvas, which is smoother than the average painting surface to prevent any un-necessary chafing. Pricasso?s controversial methods have gained him extensive press and fame all over the world resulting in a high demand for his “services” at events such as Sexpo where he paints in front of an audience. This year Pricasso has also entered one of his paintings into the highly prestigious, and traditional, Australian Archibald Portrait Prize. Guess whose Archibald Prize entry received the most publicity and media attention, none other than Pricasso.
Artists Anthony White and Marcel Salathe, of the infamous duo Salathe and White, recently started an ambitious and unique project that involves auctioning off their collaborative paintings along with a guarantee to buy them back at a specific price, which is indicated on the painting, upon the safe return of said painting during a specified month. According to the artists - each painting is a bond or more precisely a zero coupon bond?. The first “bond” painting auctioned off had a face value of US$1063 and sold for US$1286. The result of the unique concept and successful sale was significant media attention.
All these artists have attracted attention to their work and gained exposure by going above and beyond the traditional expectations of what an artist should be and do. People are receiving so much stimulation from tv, movies, computers, mobile phones, the internet etc. that the act of entertaining ones self by enjoying and appreciating a painting has become somewhat obsolete, especially for the young people of today. In order to be commercially successful many artists are not able to just be artists any more but are having to take on the role of entertainer, promoter and advertiser. A sign of the times I suppose.
Image: “The Countess” by Rophar
Created by Nicholas Forrest On 02/28/08 At 09:03 AM
Loading ...