in a hypocritical u-turn the tate removed all graham ovenden images from their web site, supposedly “due to copyright restrictions” but the cynical among us have suspicions that it may actually have just had something to do with ovenden going on trial for possession of “kiddie porn” - in a less cowardly retaliatory move, persons unknown have replaced the deleted images in a “parody site” here
The real Tate not only caved in to state censorship over the picture of Brooke Shields without any court order, but it also censored itself in the case of Ovenden. Now the real Tate is the shame of the art world.
as this site potentially may also get deleted by tate’s lawyers i’ve decided to run a few more images on my blog (also due to the lack of images elsewhere and the price of graham’s monographs rising out of reach of anyone)
and the “kiddie porn” graham was busted for?: well, an inside source tells me it didn’t even include any nude images of children…
Excellent ! Next turn the Chapman Bros. But I am not surprised by this british reaction …. even some english ex-”underground” artist became spokesman of the Obscene Publications Squad.
Glad to see the protest against the vindictive persecution of a great artist is gathering momentum. Well done to whoever made the Tate parody. (No, it wasn’t me!) And thank you Trevor for posting these classic Ovendens.
I must be very lucky because i bought his books at flee markets for less than 10€. italian editions though. oh there was a time when i was not born when they had miraculous things in italian flee markets.
http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/9316/ovenden.jpg :>
i wouldn’t say the protest is gathering momentum (the tate, who should be seen as defending art, have given the middle finger - i suspect the general feeling is likewise) - nevertheless the ammunition for the defense is mounting - altho not reported anywhere the jury were dismissed and the trial being restarted because the prosecution was withholding evidence that the defense deemed crucial - this information deliberately omitted from news reports?! - graham apparently is really into conspiracy theories and such - but what’s going on in this case does make you wonder - something else bugging me is that they raided his home (three years ago now), took everything, but all they could nab him on was a deleted folder of “pseudo images” on his computer (kinda telling of police desperation and graham’s innocence?!)
Of the 400 photography books I own, “States of Grace” is hands down the best. Best wishes, Graham - fight the good fight, chap.
The Tate has now removed the “for copyright reasons” slug with one that simply says “not available,” while they avoid answering inquiries as to why the images were removed. One has to wonder if they will still be playing ostrich when the Obscene Publications Unit raids the Tate and starts carting off artwork…
tate statement (at last! - but we knew it already):
c/o otto117’s observations
As is usually the case with images of abused children, no one is interested in what they may think, or the impact of thier being used in these images. There are several children used by Ovenden who grew up to be very unhappy with the ‘art’ he used them to make and feel that they were abused. The continued display of these images compounds the belief that they are voiceless and that people have no interest in their experiences. Former ‘models’ have been insturmental in trying to secure prosecution for this man.
Where are their voices in this debate? Remember they were not able to give informed consent about the position they were put in by their parents and Ovenden, and they now have to live with the consequences. Ovenden clearly has a sexual interest in female children and I am at a loss as to why so many people are prepared to jump up and down to defend a second rate artist with total disregard for the children he used.
Perhaps the Tate should have the balls to say they have pulled these images out of respect for the children used in them rather than hiding behind ‘copyright’ claims.
I trust this comment won’t be modded off this page because it doesn’t fit with the attitude of this site. That really would be censorship wouldn’t it?!
if the Tate has not taken these down, I will go and take them down myself, I have a lifetime’s anger within me for the very reason that these pictures exist and I find them utterly distastefull apart from being abysmal ‘art’
a friend of mine sais she was abused by this artist and is represented on this site in one of the pictures, personaly i consider tates decision to remove the pictures honerable and hope that this site will close down too.
Now this website is promoting child pornography. Police report is in.
“Where are their voices in this debate?”
exactly! - where are they, all these abused children? - you are making very serious (and unfounded as far as i can see) allegations here