Censorship is Stifling Australia's Artistic Freedom of Expression (Commissioned by The Guardian, 2013)

 

 

It seems ironic that within a Melbourne exhibition examining the legacy of the late, radical Australian artist Mike Brown, a new work of art should have been found offensive. It is significant that the gallery in which the work was hung, Linden Centre for Contemporary Art, has not defended the artist or his work which, according to a NAVA spokesperson, does not seem to contain anything that is actually illegal. Instead, it immediately closed the exhibition with no explanation, effectively also censoring the work of the other artists in the show. The gallery’s position following the seizure of the work is a stark reminder that the freedom of expression which artists should be able to take for granted in any democratic country is steadily being eroded here.

 Art can only mirror the culture which produced it. It shows us all the positive aspects of humanity: but it is also the duty of art to examine the uncomfortable dark stuff about being human. Sometimes art will be troubling, but only inasmuch as the society that is depicted is troubling. Intelligent, rational viewers of art acknowledge that while a work may sometimes challenge, or we may not agree with the artist’s point of view, there are many differing yet valid perspectives within a pluralist society. Unfortunately, Australian art which presents challenging ideas is attacked and censored. History shows us the downward trajectory of nations once the State begins to censor art, then books, then ideas. If we are only permitted to view ‘correct’, officially sanctioned work then art’s primary function, which is to reveal us to ourselves, is destroyed and we are only getting half of our culture’s story.

 Like America, isolated Australia is puritanical in mindset and prudish about sexual matters, mistakenly confusing its deep-seated anxiety over sexuality for moral rectitude. This boils into moral panic when it comes to ‘difficult’ art. A few examples will suffice.

 In 1963, Mike Brown’s large collage, Mary-Lou as Miss Universe was withdrawn from an exhibition in Sydney. A police chief had taken such offence to the work that he lifted it off the wall and carried it out of the gallery. Charges of obscenity were laid against Brown, who was sentenced to three months in prison with hard labour, later reduced to a fine. The police chief said that he did not claim to be an art expert. Evidently, he had no qualms about being a ‘morality’ expert.

 Juan Davila’s satirical work Stupid as a Painter was removed from the 1982 Sydney Biennale. The painting depicted an image of Marilyn Monroe masturbating and it was presumably the proximity of a crucifix to her vagina that caused the uproar.

In 1999, Mike Brown's painting, You're Welcome, came under attack from the Catholic Archbishop of Perth, because it contained anti-religious phrases, even though he had not personally seen the work.

And we are all very familiar with the Bill Henson case of 2008. The fact that the Australian censorship body eventually stated that Henson’s censored work was "not sexualised to any degree" must have been of little comfort to the artist.

In the aftermath of the Henson debacle, extensive new guidelines were drafted by the Australia Council concerning the depiction of children in art, many of which are largely impracticable. Writer Frank Moorhouse told the Age that the protocols were "the most dangerous movement in the arts in my lifetime” and suggested that the Australia Council had failed in its duty to protect and promote art, independent of government directives. It could be argued that the very act of creating protocols for art is in itself an infringement of artistic freedom. A more alarming Australia Council edict was that even certain “cartoons, drawings or digital creations made entirely from the artist’s imagination” were to be outlawed if it was felt that these transgressed ‘moral’ proscriptions. How Orwellian.

And now, in 2013, the serious intentions of an artist have again been hijacked and misrepresented by those who cannot tell the difference between actual real life and fictional artifice; who are dumbfounded by such elements as irony and social satire. They are self-righteous bigots who should not have the power to deprive intelligent, rational viewers of engaging with ‘difficult’ art.

Speaking on a television interview, several decades ago, the great Australian satirist, Barry Humphries, was asked why Australia produced so many excellent sports people. He thought for a moment and then replied that it had a lot to do with the glorious weather, and that people spend a great deal of time outdoors; but the main reason was that there was absolutely no intellectual life in the country whatsoever. His joke carried a core of truth. A whole generation of artists, writers and intellectuals, such as Humphries, Germaine Greer, Clive James etc, had to leave Australia to be taken seriously. But then, Australia has never liked its artists. They make you think too much.