Editorial Tuesday February 17, 2015

Peter Jackson, editor, The Northland Age

Can this be art?

THE POINT, let alone the creative merit, of a good deal of art these days probably eludes most of us. It is no longer surprising that works that rely upon a seemingly haphazard, talentless collection of mundane items to win plaudits from those who obviously have a superior ability to interpret these things than the average person can command, earn their 'creators' staggering sums, and not infrequently international exposure. It is even less surprising that these people are never heard of again. The reason for that, undoubtedly, is that their 'work' is crap. Always was, always will be.

However, if the gullible wish to splurge their money on rubbish that is entirely their choice. The most the rest of us can ask is that we not be expected to join the adulation, and that we not be asked to help pay for it. More on that in a moment.

But there comes a point where so-called art can be so irredeemably offensive that it should not see the light of day. That applies to the Cradle of Filth's 'Vestal Masturbation' T-shirts, at least one of which is included in an exhibition that has opened at the Canterbury Museum. One would not expect anything of any value, artistic or otherwise, to emanate from an outfit going by the name Cradle of Filth, but we might have expected that someone connected with this exhibition would have possessed sufficient decency to exclude it.

Britain is blessed with a Chief Censor who reportedly banned this puerile example of artistic expression, and for a time we here in the Antipodes officially took a similar view. Our Chief Censor banned the T-shirts in 2008, making it illegal to wear, sell or distribute them. In 2012 a shop owner in Invercargill was ordered to destroy his stock of the shirts, and was charged with possessing objectionable material. In 2015 it is left to an anti-abortion campaigner to lead the fight with an online petition, although there was no sign last week of the museum buckling to public outrage.

The shirt in question displays a semi-naked nun in the act of masturbating, while the back refers to Christ with a profanity, one that is widely regarded in decent society as the most profane of all. We might ask ourselves, and the museum, if a shirt that carried a similarly distasteful message relating to child pornography would be regarded as equally meritorious, and pivotal to the exhibition's artistic meaning. Or what about a racial minority, any religion other than Christianity, the holocaust, homosexuality or any of a number of ingredients of the human condition that enjoy much greater protection from political correctness than Christ?

As is their wont, of course, those who have the interpretative advantage over the rest of us have not been slow to defend the creative genius behind this garment, and to argue that it has a valid place in the display by virtue of its artistic quality. Canterbury Museum director Anthony Wright said last week that the exhibition's purpose was to tell the story of T-shirts - how we've been hanging out for someone to do that - within street art culture, without "unduly" censoring the content.

Unduly? Can that word possibly be applied to something that is so patently offensive to so many? Anyway, apparently the potential to cause offence had to be balanced against the museum's right, if not obligation, to enlighten us, and it had "bent over backwards" to ensure that anyone who might be offended won't be.

He also claimed that the offending shirt was a "tiny" part of the overall exhibition, which begs the question, what would have been lost if it wasn't included? Not a lot, obviously. At least not enough to deprive us of the priceless opportunity to understand the part played by the T-shirt in the development of Western civilisation.

Meanwhile, ratepayers who have the misfortune to own property within the community occupied by the Canterbury Museum have helped pay for this monstrous abuse of artistic freedom. It hasn't been publicly quantified yet, but it's reported that 'T-shirts Unfolding' opened to the public in part thanks to ratepayer funding. That ratepayers' money should be used to help put something as tasteless as this shirt on public display is little short of an obscenity in itself, more so given that this example of public idiocy follows hard on the heels of Local Government NZ claiming that councils generally are so strapped for cash these days that they must be permitted to levy new taxes.

So here we have a museum exhibition that makes such a significant contribution to our understanding of who we are, where we have come from and where we are going, as revealed by the T-shirts we wear, that is so artistically meritorious that it cannot be staged without ratepayers forking out for the privilege of being insulted.

How spending their money is likely to benefit ratepayers hasn't been explained; the museum can't even be hoping that the negative reaction to its loathsome exhibition will ensure its financial success, given that admission is free.

It must have occurred to someone that while some people might have no taste, few are likely to be willing to pay money to see rubbish like this. Especially if they have to wade through the entire history of the T-shirt and its impact on the free world to find the one that has piqued their twisted interest.

Offence has been so widely taken that it has given rise to the strangest of bedfellows, including Family First and the Taxpayers' Union, although the former is appalled by the offending shirt, and has called on the museum to remove it, the public to boycott it and the police to act on it, the latter by the spending of public money to display it. How much does it cost to hang up a T-shirt?

All this is just another example of how we have come to accept that anything goes, although, as the post Charlie Hebdo world knows, targets for blasphemy should be chosen with care. Picking the wrong religion can have horrific consequences, but then Christians aren't known for shooting people.

This is another example of how standards, once unquestioned, have been abandoned in the interests of - what? Are we better off for being free to gaze upon the garbage created by an English band whose very name sets out to offend? How does this exhibition benefit anyone?

This isn't just about whether a T-shirt is or isn't blasphemous though. It's about setting a moral standard, about taking care not to hurt other people, and in this case not trying to disguise a horrible portrayal of a stupid idea as a valid form of artistic expression.

It would seem safe to say that the people behind this exhibition do not have what is required for their role in their community. It might well be that the artists among us have long tested social boundaries, although that probably isn't true of those who have achieved greatness, but this sort of garbage is a push too far.

It has no artistic merit, it has no role to play in challenging the viewer, and it has no place inside a public museum. It should be removed, and the people who thought mounting it was a good idea should be invited to find some other means of making a living, preferably one that does not demand compulsory financial support from their ratepayers.