Two pieces of artwork on display at Tauranga Art Gallery will not be removed despite recent opinions the pieces are ‘inappropriate'.
The two photographs of the Gay Liberation Dance of 1974, at the gallery as part of the national Now and Then exhibition, feature ballpoint pen messages with explicit messages and swearing.
The two photographs of the Gay Liberation Dance as part of the Now and Then exhibition.
They have been labelled ‘inappropriate' by Tauranga resident Jocelyn Winwood and her sister, who were shocked with what they saw hanging on the walls when they visited.
'We are by no means prudes but were astonished and disgusted that such exhibits would be deemed suitable by the gallery staff, to be viewed by the public at large - all ages included,” says Jocelyn.
Jocelyn contacted Tauranga councillors and the gallery in hopes of getting the artwork removed, but has yet had no success.
'I have had positive, supportive response from councillors Murray Guy and Bill Grainger, but it appears that they are the only two on our council that have a sense of moral decency,” says Jocelyn.
'This is not a good look for Tauranga and is an insult to the ratepayers who contribute to the running of the gallery.
'I would have thought that the council would have had the power to force the Gallery to withdraw or put an appropriate censor type notice up regarding the two offensive exhibits.”
Tauranga Art Gallery director Penelope Jackson says the artwork will remain in the gallery as it's a part of the touring exhibition.
'We will not consider withdrawing any works as they are part of the exhibition.”
The touring exhibition features 39 photographs depicting New Zealand's culture and themes from the past four decades.
19 comments
free
Posted on 05-06-2013 15:58 | By traceybjammet
its a free country we learn by our open minds not our closed
Tracey BJ
Posted on 05-06-2013 17:42 | By Plonker
So by your rules free for all drug use at schools is ok because there is "freedom of choice"? The point you are missing is that "freedom" is something that remains behind closed doors unless widely accepted, not illegal and commonly decent. The problem currently is that self indulgent perversion, the "I Want It" mentality is what is currently happening, it is unacceptable. It is not about an "open" mind it is about having a clean and decent mind and being socially acceptable to the wider community.
Public toilets and Art
Posted on 05-06-2013 19:14 | By Murray.Guy
The words and, to a lesser degree, the accompanying images, are most frequently found on the walls of public toilets until painted over, for the same reasons as the media chooses to blank out, make unreadable. I accept that there are those who consider such exhibits to be valid expressions. I do not accept such sexually explicit exhibits are appropriate in a publically owned and funded gallery in the absence of reasonable advice notes / warnings being put in place. A 'Content may Offend' notice would not detract from the exhibition, would enable adults to make informed decisions, especially so in regard access by their children and school groups. It is sad that the Gallery has refused to so much as even consider options. That may be the right of the Art Gallery Director and Board as a CCO. It is equally my right at the next funding round, the next review of their Statement of Intent, to reflect the feedback I have had from ratepayer contributors, in my discussion and debate, in my response to their requests.
get a
Posted on 06-06-2013 08:12 | By Castreece
Get a museum. Nice that people can use their photo albums and musings for 'art' displays but goodness, how many people in Tauranga and no museum! Culture we lack to the extreme.
For Once I agree with Murray Guy
Posted on 06-06-2013 12:03 | By The Sage
Just a thought Murray. Maybe you could relocate them to your tea house at Pyes Pa once you get it running.
Socially Acceptable.....
Posted on 06-06-2013 12:15 | By Reeff
@Plonker......what a load of rubbish!! Isnt it nicer to live your life and not give a dman about what other people think? sure would stop alot of suicides etc if people got down off the high horses and realised that every single one of us is different .....you can have an open mind and you can still be a decent human being regardless of whether the so called "wider community" perceives you as being "socially acceptable"....If you find something to be inappropriate then dont go look at it....simple really
Response to Murray Guy
Posted on 06-06-2013 12:27 | By Pukeatua
Murray Guy writes about the need for 'appropriate expression' at the same time as he offers a veiled threat to the Art Gallery Director. Mr Guy obviously believes the latter is 'appropriate expression' for a local body politician.
The definition of art
Posted on 06-06-2013 12:39 | By Pamax
The definition of art is to cause a reaction and that (reaction) does not need to be pleasant. Art is intended to challenge the viewer and if it fails to cause a reaction it fails the definition(of art). These works are creating a reaction so definitely qualify as art and thats what we have an art gallery. For councillor Guy to imply he will use his council position to restrict the freedom of our art gallery management to display art will bring discredit to himself. Max Lewis, Mt Maunganui
Max is mistaken, and Pukeatua distorts ...
Posted on 06-06-2013 16:34 | By Murray.Guy
My facebook comments DO NOT restrict art as stated by Max Lewis, nor is there any veiled threat as stated by Pukeatua - I will apply what I have learnt from community feedback, my own observations, and seek to amend the Statement of Intent that applies to the community art gallery. It is disappointing, but not surprising, folk should abuse the fact that my facebook is totally public and deliberately misrepresent my comments. Max is welcome to be challenged by his definition of Art, anyway he chooses, but not when it's my rates, my grandchildren put at risk, others I represent being offended. Art should not be used as a rationel to be sexually explicit, cause offence, in a public space, public Art Gallery or toilet. Where there is risk of offence, it is surely not unreasonable to provide folk a choice to avoid, to restrict their children?
Hangover from the past
Posted on 06-06-2013 17:11 | By carpedeum
I wonder if Councillor Guy may have been on the Manukau City Council in a past life?They objected to a Michael Illingsworth exhibition at the Fisher Gallery back in the 1980s - his art showed breasts like "poached eggs"and pubic hair like a triangle of wigly pencil lines - they excluded primary schools from attending in those days.Perhaps an appropriate sign may be the compromise on this occasion
Mr Guy's Community
Posted on 06-06-2013 22:26 | By Pukeatua
Mr Guy may seek to justify his comments through reference to 'those he represents', but the threat of action remains. Thus, Mr Guy justifies his bullying words by making reference to 'community'. As such, Mr Guy absolves himself of responsibility for his actions - he was acting on behalf of 'those he represents'. Mr Guy is not willing to accept that there is a 'community' in Tauranga who are comfortable with the decisions of the Gallery Director. Indeed, evidence from these forums indicate there is a significant community in Tauranga that finds Mr Guy's position contrary to those who seek to live in an open and democratic society. Mr Guy is welcome to his opinion, and I support his right to express his views. I do not, however, support an elected official bullying the Gallery Director because he does not agree with her professional judgement. Perhaps those who Mr Guy represents respond well to threats and narrow-mindedness. I am pleased the Gallery Director does not.
chill out
Posted on 07-06-2013 13:41 | By luke
guys, you won't hear me say this very often but i almost agree with mr. guy. i don't think he is lobbying against the exhibition, as many of you are claiming, but he simply feels there should be some sort of warning as you enter the exhibition that it contains some extreme language or content. seems a pretty harmless request to me. he is quite within his rights to raise this concern in his role as an elcted official. i'm not sure about the toilet wall comments he makes though. I tend not to hang around toilets. But, i think whatever is written tends to get cleaned off regardless of whether it could be perceived as offensive or not.
Get real folks
Posted on 07-06-2013 16:31 | By YOGI BEAR
If you have to put a lable on it then it is ok? Come on people, what you are saying is it is ok if it is around the corner and just out of sight, what a load of BS, you all need "Ostridge" in the middle there as all heads are in the sand on this.
Public space v Gallery walls
Posted on 07-06-2013 19:11 | By Pamax
Obscenities and graffiti on building walls is doubly offensive, first because of the content and second because it is in full public view. An art gallery on the other hand is a building which the viewer chooses to enter. Perhaps the gallery may have to consider alerting visitors until the city matures artistically a little more. Max Lewis, Mt Maunganui.
untitled
Posted on 08-06-2013 12:03 | By morepork
... but I know what I like." I'm glad the Gallery is not removing these pictures. Art is intended to extend us and take us into areas where we don't normally go. It isn't about beautiful sunsets and chocolate box or cake tin scenery. If you're offended by this (or any other) exhibit, ask yourself:"Why does it offend me?" Could you change your mind about being offended by words or images? If you did, would that result in personal growth? Maybe so, maybe no. The point is that art is subjective and affects all of us in different ways. If it is censored or removed, we never get the chance to test ourselves, or think about why we had the reaction we did. I don't go around mouthing obscenities, but I'm not particularly offended by people who do. It depends on the circumstances and the context. An Art Gallery is a context where you can expect to be surprised and you may not always like what you see, the importance is NOT the swear words pencilled on the wall, it is about your reaction to them. Murray Guy has a point that it wouldn't hurt to have a warning, but that is kind of implicit if you enter an Art Gallery. Offended by nudity? You probably won't appreciate the statue of David or the Venus De Milo, but seeing them may cause you to question why you are offended. Art can stimulate us to break through the conventions we have had instilled into us and discover more about ourselves. It doesn't mean you need to drop or change the conventions; it just means you don't have to be enslaved by them either.
Really?
Posted on 08-06-2013 13:19 | By sojourner
That's ART? God help us.
Thank you Mr Guy
Posted on 09-06-2013 17:21 | By Blasta
@ Pukeatua, you bring more political BS to this discussion than any politician. This 'art' is NOT appreciated by ratepayers and IS of objectionable, or the very least, dubious values. Remember, this is a public art gallery and therefore it does not belong. The art gallery has been a very controversial rates investment for us ratepayers and to have this 'mud' flung in our faces is a double insult. Again, thank you Mr Guy.
Quite right, ban all queers
Posted on 11-06-2013 10:30 | By jonthejoiner
Of course you are all quite right, all queers should be banned from the arts. Of course that would leave you with very little content. What is good and decent? Unfortunately some of the people commenting above would, I think, see themselves as the paragons of decency. Good art should make you sit up, think, reflect, annoy, produce feelings and emotions. What a lot of people think art is about is a pretty picture. So thanks for annoying a lot of people Tauranga arts gallery, I for one am enormously pleased. Who said Punx dead, lol
morepork
Posted on 12-06-2013 16:24 | By wazzock
best comment I've read in a long time
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.