Living cities, living art

In London, Antony Gormley’s monumental One and Other project has just kicked off. The empty fourth plinth in Trafalgar Street will be occupied by a different member of the public every hour for the day for the next one-hundred days. The 2400 participants are effectively drawn from a hat, meaning that applicants are not decided based on any form of merit or perceived position of privilege. In short, this is an exciting piece of public, democratic art for the 21st century.

There are a number of satisfying aspects of this project that warrant some consideration, particularly for the authorities administrating Australia’s state and territory capital cities. Art is often rightly viewed as an elitist enterprise. What people with an interest in art consider to be “groundbreaking” art is often out of reach of ordinary Australians, by simple virtue of the fact that is housed in galleries, which a large percentage of the population simply do not visit. In contrast, One and Other is free, open to the public twenty-four hours a day, and is has been placed smack bang in the middle of one of the most central thoroughfares and meeting places in Central London. Even people living or working in London without an interest in art or public art projects are likely to stumble across this work during their day-to-day lives and become interested. Furthermore, the sheer volume of people involved in the project will do wonders for the project’s reach. The 2400 people who will stand on the plinth during One and Other’s duration have friends and families.

What a wonderful collision of art and democracy in one of the world’s greatest cities.

The elitists, the punters, and Bill Henson

First, a disclaimer: I do not claim to be familiar with Bill Henson’s oeuvre or indeed the content of his exhibition in Roslyn Oxley9 gallery in Paddington for which he is now apparently facing criminal charges. Having said that, and speaking as someone who as seen some fairly dubious stuff presented in the name of “art”, I find it hard to believe that the content of Henson’s work on show realistically does constitute child pornography. The naked human form is not pornographic, and I don’t think it should be considered so unless it is presented in such a way as to be primarily concerned with sexual suggestion. There can be little doubt that Henson was not primarily engaged in an act of sexual suggestion in exhibiting the work; his primary aim was no doubt to express something through his art. This interpretation of the semantics of the situation is one that legal experts reportedly adhere to and at least one prominent Australian screen royal has staked her reputation on.

In a political sense, what I find interesting here is the yawning rift this particular issue opens up between those whom we might term the “elitist” supporters of the Rudd Government and the mainstream. Thus far many of the more vehement detractors of the Howard Government have more or less been quite satisfied with the performance of Federal Labor, despite the fact that the party has in recent months often taken a similar tack on certain issues to the previous government. Partially this may be because Rudd in particular has so far done quite a deft job of mixing symbolism with pragmatism in a concerted effort to keep people from all quarters generally on board. This issue is precisely the kind of issue, however, that divides the elites from the party’s mainstream supporters, and the reason it does so is because it is an issue that requires a multi-layered consideration of the situation.

The first layer worth considering here, and the layer that the government’s more elitist supporters are drawn to first is of course the moral/legal question. In a civilised, truly liberal society, there should of course be nothing to prevent artists from using the naked forms of people of any age in their work, so long as the goal of the work was the expression of something explicable other than potentially offensive sexual perversion. It is unlikely that anybody within the artistic community or anybody who has studied the arts at any significant length at university or elsewhere would disagree with this statement. On the other hand, one needs only to walk in the shoes of the average conservative suburbanite to sense why Henson’s work has produced the reaction that it has. The average person has not had an education in the arts. The average person does not really give two hoots about elitist babbling about freedom of expression. Should we then be surprised that when the average conservative suburbanite person walks into a gallery and sees some of the more provocative examples of Henson’s work, they might feel confused and/or appalled? The problem here is of course one of interpretation. It is possible for someone who has studied art and the human form to view photographs of young naked adults as nothing other than something quite beautiful in an asexual sense. On the other hand, it is possible for someone to view the same photographs and see nothing but seedy, dubious trash.

This is just the kind of wedge that the Rudd Government has to be clever enough to avoid if it is to retain the support of the progressives and conservatives who voted for change last November. Rudd was of course quick to condemn Henson’s work as “absolutely revolting” and wonder publicly why we “just can’t let kids be kids”. I have little doubt that the Prime Minister was sending a message to the conservatives who voted Labor in November and those who might vote Labor next time around when he came out and gave both Henson’s work and elitist opinion such a vicious backhand. This message is intended not so much as a dog whistle as a message sent between the lines to the electorate; I am on your side. When the common sense of the average suburbanite is pitted against the sophistry of elite opinion, Rudd has signaled his intentions here to lean towards the former.

So do I think that Rudd is genuinely, truly offended by Henson’s work? Personally, I think it is doubtful. I think on this particular score, the Prime Minister did what he thought was politically sensible, fearing that the somewhat resurgent Nelson Opposition would be handed a juicy wedge if he backed Henson. It is extremely unfortunate, particularly for the artist and the children at the centre of it all, but it shall nevertheless be interesting indeed to see how this drama develops and what the repercussions are for the government’s here-to-fore rosy relationship with Australia’s artistic community.

UPDATE You can make up your own mind over at Junk for Code here. Over at LP they have an interview with Henson here, and Kim has an wonderfully thoughtful post on the topic.

Creativity in society and the arts

Cate Blanchett and Julianne Schultz are the co-chairs of the Creative Australia stream at the rapidly looming 2020 Summit, and they have an interesting column today in the SMH that gives some indication as to what we can expect from the summit in this stream. The key link that Blanchett and Schultz seem keen to emphasise is that between the arts and creativity, with creativity being viewed as intrinsically necessary for a society to be prosperous and successful:

Think back to any significant time in the past and the chances are that it is the creative output of the time that comes to mind — from rock art in remote caves to the pyramids of Egypt, Michelangelo’s sculptures, Shakespeare’s plays, Beethoven’s symphonies, the beat of Elvis and the list goes on.

The lasting value and evidence of a civilisation are its artistic output and the ingenuity that comes from applying creativity to the whole range of human endeavour.

While the lasting evidence of a civilisation past does quite often happen to be the artistic output of that civilisation, I think its drawing a long bow to attribute the lasting value of a civilisation to its artistic output. Michaelangelo’s sculptures are timeless and lasting works of art, but surely some of the philosophical and scientific achievements and advancements made by Renaissance-era Italy have been significantly more important for us in the context of the development of modern society.

Aside from that, can we really say that a creative society is necessarily a successful society? I don’t think this is necessarily the case, but one would have to think that the more effective societies across the world, however you want to measure “effective”, have found efficient ways of exploiting the creativity of their people for the collective benefit of the nation. I suppose that is a fairly ruthless way of looking at creativity, but conceptually speaking Australia has a pool of creative talent at its disposal, and we need to consider the optimal path for maximising creativity in circumstances where it serves to in some way better the nation. It’s hard not to see how this can be done without taking some risks and taking punts on people and ideas that might not necessarily work out.

It will be interesting indeed to see how Blanchett and Schultz steer debate in this stream, and to what extent calls for greater public funding of the arts dominate the debate. One of the key challenges for the stream would seem to be to effectively “be creative” on the topic of arts funding; or rather to develop a few ideas for creating greater incentives for artists that don’t necessarily mean redirecting public money from other areas to the arts. Personally I am an advocate of greater arts funding, but one does have to consider whether a grant to a budding scientific researcher or indeed tax incentives for low income earners are likely, on balance, to be of greater benefit to society than a grant to a budding artist with a brilliant idea that may or may not come to fruition for the collective benefit of the country. It’s tough.