ABC Perth at it again ...

Stateline (7.30 WA) occasionally uses artworks as backgrounds for interviews, even when the interview context has nothing to do with the article itself.

It's understandable when an interview is done in an office and that which is in the background is unavoidable but often an obvious special effort has been made to get a talking head in front of something colourful.

A royalty would be due should they run a background musical track yet the visual artists are surely not compensated.

The Anxiety of Everything

I've written about the 'problem' with accessibility to masses of images before but it reared it's head again today. We often have these moments where we see something that is so close to the bone of another creatives work that it makes you wince. This has been widely discussed in the past with the idea of motif 'ownership' being raised. That is to say, who 'owns' a particular object. Does Man Ray 'own' toilets? Does Emin 'own' beds? Does Hirst 'own' sharks? Does Weston 'own' capsicums? Does Mapplethorpe 'own' flowers and male genitals? The list could go on and on.

A few years ago I started (but - again - abandoned) a series called 'whispers'. Two of the prints were finalised, with one being shown at an award in 2009. Otherwise the series never migrated out from the cupboard and only stayed as digital sketches.

Today I noticed that a Canadian artist is essentially doing the same idea much more successfully. I don't claim it as a necessarily original idea and I'm sure if I scratched a bit deeper around the traps I could find much older examples of the same idea.

Nonetheless, the awareness is both frustrating creatively (now the work will most definitely be abandoned) and personally.

Plagiarism (and the perception thereof) is a big issue especially when you factor in attribution, referencing and mass media to the equation. That is, is it legitimate to reference/copy work provided it's attributed? What when the work is a background element? What when it's not attributed and knowledge is 'assumed'? Recent examples include Sam Leach at the 2010 Wynn Prize as well as the winner of the portrait prize at the 2011 Cossack Art Awards.

In 2008, a street artist - Cartrain - used Hirst's diamond skull as a small element in a series of work. Damien Hirst contacted the Design and Artists Copyright Society (DACS) demanding action be taken over the works. On the advice of his gallery, Cartrain handed over the artworks to DACS and forfeited the £200 he had made. The same artist later stole a series of pencils from a Hirst show at the Tate, held them 'hostage' demanding the return of his works. He even used the pencils to sign his own work.

Hirst himself has had his fair share of legal scrapes on multiple occasions. Most famously for his giant anatomy doll but also for multiple works by John Le Kay. Funnily enough when I first saw the Hirst skull, I immediately thought of Arthur C. Clarke's show - the titles including one of the images of our generation.

You can find hundreds and hundreds of similar examples easily online. Is ignorance a valid argument any more? Is awareness ultimately stifling, especially if you have to establish the originality of an idea prior to actually 'doing' something?

As a side note, 'Whispers' was unsuccessfully proposed as an exhibition in Perth a few years ago.

More reading:
"When does similar become too similar"
"Who owns cooling towers?"

The other side of the coin...

The key arguments put forward - often will a much reddened face - by climate skeptics seem to revolve around three points:

1. that climate is simply changing but not necessarily exclusively by our hand. We might have 'something' to do with it but our efforts will ultimately be so miniscule to be ineffectual and will instead simple damage the world economy;
2. any opposition to climate change 'tenets' is painted as heresy and it's not conducive to robust debate; and
3. that climate change 'tenets' are taught as facts when - in the mind of skeptics - they are still very much debatable.

1. The skeptics, oddly enough, don't connect the dots between the necessary shift away from oil/coal-based economy not just due to ecological issues but also based on the finite nature of the substances. Add to this the pollutive aspect, it becomes a much larger - and necessary - cultural shift. Whilst the efforts themselves might seem ineffectual and very much a Western luxury, the shift away from waste in general will have a roll-on effect across the various systems.

The same sceptics - often heavily funded by multi-national oil-based companies - are surely versed and practice principles of 'risk-management' and 'harm minimization' in their business decisions. The climate change 'action plans' are simply attempting to do the same on a national/global scale.

2. This is difficult to rebuff as there is - as in most industries - surely an aspect of mobbing involved. Where it becomes exceptionally grey is the lack of either interest or willingness by some scientists/commentators to submit work for peer review. This becomes a political football for both sides. ie. outspoken skeptic Lord Monckton has supposedly never published any peer-reviewed articles on climate science and reputedly some leading scientists won't 'expose' their raw data for analysis.

3. Similar to the 'intelligent' design proponents, climate skeptics maintain that alternatives to climate change tenets should be given equal weight in the educational and media systems. This is simply resolved in that they should be given 'proportional' weighting. ie. if 95% of scientists agree with argument x and only 5% with argument y then the later should be given 5 minutes/words out of every 100.

Where this becomes 'dangerous' is popular opinion shouldn't override scientific rigor and drive policy. ie. according to CBC, 51% of Americans believe "god created humans" and a further 30% believe "humans evolved with god guiding the process".

More artworks as wallpaper...

Further to this post from March, now SBS has done the same. Maybe the journo has switched teams?

'Clean', 'Green', 'Safe' and other harmless - but loaded - words.

The other day whilst driving I saw a van from a cleaning business with the following claim on it's side: 'Creating a Cleaner, Safer World'. My immediate impression was that they must have some ecological-credentials or ideology to back that up but when you break the claim down it could, theoretically mean the complete opposite.

As an example, in a previous life I knew a few truck drivers who would boast of doing 160km/h+ downhill in 18-wheelers full of Hydrochloric Acid. The acid was used to clean huge silos at a local factory... basically creating a 'clean' and 'safe' (bacteria-free) mini-world in which food products could be stored. That said, should the same material be outside that controlled environment - ie. as a result of an accident - then it would obviously not be the case.

'Safe' and 'Clean' also doesn't necessarily mean 'food-safe'. It equally could mean 'non-slippery' or 'protected' and a multitude of other things, all of which don't necessarily mean 'healthy'.

A provider of Hydrochloric Acid could - should they find a dye robust enough - tint their acid green and legitimately claim it as 'clean', 'green' and 'safe'.

The other term often abused is 'organic'. If something is plant-based (ie. compost), isn't it technically 'organic matter'? Would a consumer be able to differentiate 'organic compost' from 'organic organic compost'? Can something be called 'organic compost' even if the source material comes from questionable sources.

Isn't 'organic manure' from intensive, repugnant chicken farms still technically 'organic matter'?

Artworks as wallpaper

I've never really taken it too seriously before but ABC Perth and/or the politicians being interviewed seem to have a tendency to position themselves using artworks as backgrounds. These are often not shown as part of a bigger scene but almost exclusively alone on a simply coloured wall. This is - for want of a better word - dodgy and most come close to a copyright infringement. The works are being 'reproduced' outside the conditions likely in place to protect the artist.

The easiest analogy would be music. Imagine a scene but with some music playing faintly in the background as ambient noise from the not so immediate surrounds. Obviously it would be much different - and unambiguous - if a stereo speaker was positioned immediately out of shot and designed to provide 'background' to the interview. The later would trigger royalty provisions.

The artworks used in these interviews have nothing to do with the substance of the articles so the usual 'news' arguments shouldn't apply. Given the isolation of the works, you could also argue that it's not exactly an ambient scene. An interview in front of a more complex scene, ie. Lamps, bookcase, desk, etc that just happens to have an artwork in the background would pass this test but surely not a head and shoulders shot with the artwork dominating the frame?

Ironically enough it might be a copyright infringement to post screen dumps of the articles in question but as they are put here the course of critical debate and/or arts news I can only assume the same conditions apply that do to news organizations themselves.

Tony Abbott pledges to stop the planes

Federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott announced today that a coalition government pledges to stop the planes, particular those originating from Heathrow.

"At any given moment there are close to 50,000 illegal overstayers in Australia and it has to stop!", he said to Tony Jones on ABC's Late Line last night. "[Minister for Immigration] Chris Evans freely states that the majority are young Englishmen simply having too good a time.... If he was fair dinkum he'd stop the planes!"

In fact the largest number of overstayers come from the US, followed by China and then the UK.

If overstayers are caught, they are no longer detained but issued with another temporary visa, and according to some reports from within the Department of Immigration they are allowed up to six more months to make their way home.

Green's senator Sarah Hanson-Young added that 'it is easier to demonstrate and peddle fear and hysteria through pictures of people on boats, than it is through people coming off planes at Sydney international airport.'

The Greens have since taken the unusual step of supporting the Liberal proposal.

Minister Evans, himself an English migrant, responded that 'they're often young Englishmen who have gone to a party and are a few days late .... Or they've met a young lady and [they're] having a good time.'

A spokesmen for the UK Prime Minister David Cameron commented that it was an English rite of passage to visit the colonies and that the Australian opposition leader should learn his place.

He also stated that the United Kindgom's immigration department had no plans to screen out potential overstayers.

Prime Minister Julia Gilliard was noticably absent from the debate and has been accused by Mr Abbott of a bias due to her Welsh heritage.

The weight of expectation and a convenient scapegoat....

In times of crisis, you can just feel the tingling in the opportunists of the world. Finding a vent for unpopular decisions is critical to Corporate/Political PR and ensures that they don't get personally bitten.

If you want to scale back philanthropic and community activities, layoff staff or shift resources and - at the same time - justify a weakened balance sheet to shareholders, what better way to do it than find a scapegoat?

That way it's EXCLUSIVELY 'their fault' that you don't do x or y and not your own ineptitude or lack of risk management. The disappointment of anyone who might otherwise benefit is conveniently transferred to another protagonist and the corporation dances away to the next cocktail party with another bonus in the back pocket.

Corporations are not so bound by community support and can easily blackmail their way out of corners whereas political systems are much more fragile on such a short electoral cycle. This is exploited continuously - especially in Western Australia - to maintain the status quo environmentally and socially.

Thus ANY price on pollution will mean you need to sell your first born and any social benefits from a resources tax means that you'll need to hand over the kidney.

Evil Genius Idea of the Day....

The best (and worst) way to motivate the masses is to appeal to fear and, in particular, any xenophobic traits that might simmer below the surface. Politically, this has been broadly used in the past to get the seemingly unpalatable down the throats of an apathetic and skeptical populace.

In recent years the most prominent non-political manifestation was the effort by Australian tabloid news (and arguably local producers) to tie imported Chinese food products to human fecal matter.

Given that a lot of citrus fruit is imported into this end of the world from the USA, you have to wonder why those same networks aren't looking at their questionable practices?

Similarly, do people have the same vitriol for Norwegians, whose quota of whales close to equals that of Japan?*

How many are motivated not by ideology but instead by a visceral response should they hear a few syllables?

Lately there has been an interesting shift in Australia. In particular, talk that the housing price bubble and not just the usual job market are being skewed by migrants.

In almost the same breath, the virtues of Chinese coal and iron ore markets are touted as being the be-all and end-all of Australia's fragile economic prosperity.

In the past, politicians have exploited similar weak points extensively - to devastating effect - when it comes to exploration for resources in seemingly sacred national parks.

Whilst not ideal, couldn't this same idea be used to motivate the masses by tying new, greener technologies to non-dependence on external forces?

* The argument that the Japanese are taking 'our' whales is a ridiculous notion.

Tribe of Troll-like Creatures Discovered

Reports are coming out of Western Australia of the discovery of a previously unknown humanoid species.

The troll-like, upright-walking beings were first discovered by a group of school children researching Asylum seekers on The West Australian's website. UWA Anthropologist Joanne Spritz who has extensively studied the group dynamics noted that whilst they are chaotic and prone to violence, they do seem to organise extremely well under duress. 'We have found that those who earn less than three Holdens per annum are 30% more likely to respond aggressively to even the lightest stimulus', she said. 'Oddly enough, those who earn more than five Holdens per annum also shared this same statistic.'The police are asking that anyone who encounters these creatures not approach them as they may be dangerous.

Arch of Triumph/Pit of Despair

Update: And the winner is... Guy Maestri with his portrait of Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu. As always, there is controversy given the remarkable similarity between the painting and the subject's album cover.

The painter claims never to have seen the image but in the same breath says that he was listening to Geoffrey's music whilst painting the image for inspirational purposes... ?

As last year, the Archibald is 'back' with a rather disappointing suite of finalists.

I would hazard to guess that Cherry Hood will win with her image of David Helfgott. Cherry Hood won in 2002 with a similarly insecure image.

That said, I like the poetry in Brandon by Vincent Fantauzzo. This especially so given the feature that The Australian ran on him in late January. There is something very troubling about this image and it's successful for it's lack of 'cuteness'.

We personally both like Paul Ryan's Mountain of Tom which is unlikely to win.

Overall - as we've said before - the images in general feel undercooked. We have no claims to be able to do better but the work feels ... well ... not there.

Bail outs and other mis-used terms...

It's seems like every other industry has now decided that they are due a supportive package of some sort from various levels of government.

This is hard to swallow given that the latest at this end of the world is the construction industry. It is projected that 10,000 jobs will be lost (not sure if this is Australia or WA) and desperate calls have been made for various infrastructure projects to be fast-tracked to pick up the slack.

What makes this incomprehensible is that that same industry (as the mining industry) has had the collective us over a barrel for a number of years and has been anything but sympathetic (moralistically, ethically and financially) to the greater good - admittedly with a few exceptions. You only had to build a home in the last five years to have a clear illustration of this - ie. quality of workmanship, scheduling of work, availability of staff, etc. Why then should the collective we help those industries?

Given the wages of staff employeed and turnovers of companies in that industry you would assume that a mature, rationale system would put it's own safeguards in place.

There is always the argument that Australia rides on the royalties/taxes generated by those industries but those tarifs arguably compensate the collective us for the various complications that arise from those industries.

It is a very complex and difficult issue especially when you factor in the various levels of government exploiting tarifs, stamp duty, etc for political gain. There is always too much land released, not enough land released, etc, etc.

There is a danger that this will all develop into protectionist policies, cultural institutions will suffer and - most importantly - collective efforts like carbon emission reductions will be put to the side.

Squashed grapes...

Someone tipped me off that an article was in The West about Martin Heine so I bit the bullet, went out and bought one.

What a tragic affair - not the article or Martin's work - much more the newspaper. Multitudes of ads emotionally loaded with 'times tough?', 'bank won't touch you?'-type stuff.

This one I found especially off...



Make's you wonder how the creative meeting went... 'People surely won't click that we are encouraging people with potential emotional issues to buy alcohol and lots of it cheaper?'. All a bit like having a 4WD or Beer commercial during a 'reality' show about car accidents.

... it requires a response.

Beijing in Numbers...

I have to laugh - shouldn't really, but can't help it - each time we hear the 'righteous' talk about 'bad' China and it's ecological and human rights issues.

Whilst we don't condone 'bad'ness, there seems to be a pair of country/continent-sized blinkers in relation to the 'doing of the bad'. Looking at per-capita, GDP and social figures alone there is more than enough to be ashamed about.

One of the greatest fears - which is VERY carefully worded by politicians - is that the third world will one day be 'as bad as us' which, ironically enough, would mean our certain doom.

This argument that 'we won't stop being bad until they stop being bad' is highly hypocritical given that we are in the first world for our prolonged, historical badness. The lack of civilised behaviour is exactly the beast that we have ridden to get to this point.

This post has been prompted by some number-based chest puffing from Channel 7 over the Olympics.

An excerpt:

Channel 7 has shipped more than 1260 high-definition cameras, 61 outside broadcast trucks and 375 production vehicles to cover the 1840 commentator positions... Channel 7 will have more than 400 staff covering 28 sports with 10,500 competitors from 221 countries.'

SBS and - I'm assuming - most other networks will also be sending teams as well as the usual diplomatic tourists who seem to conveniently need to visit countries hosting major sporting events.

Let's just look at those numbers a bit. Assuming that a proportion of the 400 C7 staff will be locals (drivers, etc), let's say that Channel 7 were to conservatively fly a total 300 staff with a small proportion flying business or first class.

Numbers for return flights from Sydney to Beijing (see Carbon Planet) are as follows:

• 250 Economy Class: 1420.3 tonnes CO₂


• 40 Business Class: 454.5 tonnes tonnes CO₂


• 10 First Class: 170.4 tonnes tonnes CO₂

That would give an approximate total of 2000 tonnes of CO₂ for the flights alone. It also assumes that people will do ONE flight there and ONE back rather than bunny hopping around on domestic flights ie. to Hong Kong where some events are being held or other regional hubs.

On top of that comes the shipping of equipment and running costs whilst there which are impossible for me to guess at.

2000 tonnes is such a foreign number so it's easier to do some 'comparisons'.

It equates to 6.66 tonnes per person which is just over 24% of the YEARLY average for an Australian (source: Carbon Planet) or - here we go - 2.5 times the yearly average for a person in China or close to 5 times the yearly average for a person in India.

Something to make you think...

Cranky Bishop

The church is up to no good yet again... From Yahoo...

People should stop "dwelling crankily" on old wounds, Bishop Anthony Fisher says as he faced questions about the Catholic Church's handling of Melbourne sisters repeatedly raped by a priest.

Mr Bishop gets around... This from Unleashed on June 13.

A better variety of tolerance is built not on rivalry and relativism, but on our common humanity in pursuit of shared goods and ideals. It builds on respect for persons, human rights and conscience properly understood. It allows public recognition of the good religions do and collaboration by the state with churches on things like education, health, welfare, even public celebrations. It copes with differences without antipathy or contempt.

One could argue that tolerance should, by that same measure, allow public recognition of the BAD that organised religions also do.

Whilst we're talking about Human Rights... the UDHR...

Article 3 - Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person;

Article 5 - No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;

Article 19 - Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Cranky or not... I would hope that the Bishop is not advocating or suggesting that victims keep a lid on it to not tarnish his precious moment? I fully support victim's and their supporter's exploitation of increased media focus to draw well needed attention to systemic abuse.

Buck stopping...

In relation to the latest church scandal, it could be the 'A' in atheist talking but I find the following infuriating:

Cardinal Pell: In church law and civil law the buck stops with me and I've got to try to act justly...

Well... Mr. Pell and his institutions are NOT above the law... if a criminal act is committed then perpetrators should be prosecuted and punished by the full force of the law just as every other citizen of any given country.

I strongly feel that he should also be prosecuted and punished should it be found that he willingly obstructed due process... which at first glance, would seem the case.

This argument that he made a mistake or didn't read x properly is farcical.... Imagine the same argument as a criminal defence from any other alleged criminal...

There is a supposed clear line between both church and state. This idea that the church is above the law and should be self-regulating is stomach churning.

Smart cookies...

It's incomprehendable that a multinational such as McDonalds would be this stupid..

Around The World in 70 Days, Wednesday, May 28 2008

Starting today McDonald’s Australia customers will get the chance to taste their way around the world in 70 days! To celebrate its sponsorship of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games McDonald’s will be introducing five new products, each reflecting one the world’s five continents... McDonald’s Director of Marketing, Helen Farquhar said McDonald’s has partnered with the Olympic Games for more than 30 years and this year it wanted to make the Games even more meaningful and personal for customers... and will bring to life the global flavours and diversity of the Games along with a sense of unity and national pride,” said Ms Farquhar.

The McAfrica will be on sale until July 11.

Enough to make your stomach turn... in more ways than one I'd imagine.

Last Henson post.... promise!

Sister Wendy talks about censorship and sexuality in art. Seems more than apt at this moment in Australian cultural discourse.

Insight discussed Henson on the Monday night... some of the video is online. As previously mentioned here, Perth artist Connie Petrillo had had problems in the mid-90s and was also present (see part two of the videos).

Bill Henson @ RoslynOxley9

I'm hesitant to add more verbage to the debate but there are a few issues that are both contenious and interesting.

The first of which is the definition of 'pornography' as this very loaded term has been thrown around quite liberally by various outlets.

Do we now define a nude image as, by default, 'pornography'? The subject is simply nude and not engaged in any sexual activity, the latter being a major component of the legal definition.

Irrelevant of the subject's age, are we now expected to apply this same standard to ALL artwork? A ridiculous notion.

The photograph and 'reality': The simple analogy would be 'do we apply the same standards to a painting or sculpture'? The photograph, especially with a 'face', makes it 'easy' to identify the subject... how then do we approach work where the age of the subject is more obscure. The case in point - although used here only for argument's sake - might be someone like David Bromley.

I stumbled across a piece on American TV about a challenge to laws in the US regarding the 'representation' or 'simulation' of a young subject. That is, the actor/model could be an appropriate age but is 'playing' someone who is not.

Consent has also been played up, especially the idea that the child 'can't' give consent and theoretically the parents would have had to sign appropriate forms to give consent. Initially the implication was that the show was closed due to the police looking for such documentation.

This brings in other issues including the major one of 'neglect' and whether the parents are guilty of such a thing if they gave consent for the images to be made. The other argument was that if the 'malicious' photographer (who is of significant standing) approached a subject, would the parents turn down the opportunity for another 15 minutes?

Protection of the subject has also been widely reported... how will the child deal with the stigma, especially given the media furore? Ironically enough the idea of the 'cusp' of adulthood has a lot to do with stigma, peer pressure and mixed messages... if anything it seems that the work 'deals' with these issues already. The problems comes when the representation (The Girl) becomes very specifically the model (Jane Doe). Most struggle to look past the personality portrayed to the bigger concepts.

One of the major arguments from the right is that the work provides 'fodder' for paedophiles. Supposedly Target catalogues also provide 'material'... should we ban them as well? As a few people have quite rightly pointed out, almost irrelevant of what or how something is portrayed, it is highly likely that there is some micro-demographic who finds it stimulating in some way.

The Target catalogues also pulls back into the argument the idea of intent. Sally Mann was widely lambasted for Immediate Family but as she herself has said repeatedly, the work was not so much about designed images but about what her children were doing already. She just formalised it in 'The Frame'.

What others 'do' with the images is where the greatest issue lies. When people apply scewed views to representations is the creator of that representation responsible? Is Target guilty of promoting paedophilia by imaging children in their products? Even if the products are for children?

From my point of view, the 'sexualisation' of children in mass marketing should not be mentioned in the same breath as genuine - I use that cautiously - artistic output. Bill Henson is a world-renowned artist who has and is creating work of significance that challenges the viewer on a multitude of levels. His work is not easy to look at but because of it's strength it provides insights into the human condition that are truly significant.

If the world was to be sanitised to rid it of all that 'might offend' we would not have a critical dialogue to move forward. Challenging the tenets of a society is what often contributes to the manifestation of bigger ideas... to censor artistic work - irrelevant of what that work portrays - can only bind creativity to conservatism and nationalism.

What is 'acceptable' in artistic circles (as opposed to the greater populace) is a hard line to draw but a line that should be drawn by those who are suitably qualified.

I leave it with this from Alison Archer about Connie Petrillo's work. The parallels are disturbing to say the least.

Gallery Statement
Sydney Morning Herald
The Australian
The Independent
PIP Flickr Discussion