Kids at Museum of Brisbane; image Atmosphere Photography, supplied
John Chapman – one half of the British duo The Chapman Brothers of Young Brits fame – last week told The Independent that taking children to art galleries was a waste of time.
The father of three, and son of a teacher, Chapman was playing provocateur. He stated that parents were ‘arrogant’ for thinking children could understand such complex artists as Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko; adding that standing a child in front of a Pollock is an ‘insult’ to the American who pioneered the abstract expressionism.
‘It’s like saying… it’s as moronic as a child? Children are not human yet,’ claimed Chapman.
His comments raised the ire of the art world, triggering responses in articles and on blogs globally.
Museum of Brisbane Program Manager, Peter Denham, posted a strong statement on the museum’s blog and reiterated his comments to ArtsHub, labeling Chapman’s statements ‘coarse, detrimental to the growth of the art world, and mainly being said to drive media attention’.
Denham said: ‘Chapman’s comments sell children short (and families who encourage greater cultural interaction) … you need to start to grow appreciation and understanding at an early age.
‘Australian society generally traverses the arts in a peripheral way – going to an arts/cultural event is seen as a “special” trip out. We actually need to make arts/cultural activity part of the everyday and that is how we grow greater understanding and knowledge. Providing children with new cultural experiences is imperative in this journey,’ argued Denham.
While it was clear Chapman was stirring the pot – the brothers are known for their explicit, often profane, three dimensional works – one may ask why this circus, now?
Does it have anything to do with another news storied buried in the wake of the ban-kids-commentary?
In the same week as The Independent’s article, a nude sculpture by the brothers was removed on 9 August from Rome’s MAXXI contemporary art museum by the Italian government after it was labelled ‘paedo-pornographic’ by a children’s’ rights group.
Image: jakeanddinoschapman.com
The fibreglass sculpture titled Piggyback (1997) depicts two naked adolescent girls, one sitting on the shoulders of the other, and comes from a series where children are the subject.
It was donated in 2010 to the museum by the estate of Milan collector, Claudia Gian Ferrari. The Telegraph reports that it has been on display since December; reactions brewing.
‘This is not about an attack on the freedom of artistic expression, but to avoid promoting depictions with a clear paedopornographic context behind the art,’ said Antonio Marziale, President of the Italian Observatory on the Rights of the Child, on the organisation’s website.
So should we read it that its OK for the Chapman Brothers to use children as the subject of their ‘high-art’ sculptures, but not give them the same respect to see the artwork within a gallery environment?
Denham added in his statement: ‘I am also over artists positioning themselves, making themselves into L’Enfant terrible, it is also pretty tasteless and the Chapmans love playing in this space.’
Fellow Turner prize-winner Anthony Gormley commented to The Times on Chapman’s action: ‘I don’t think art is to be understood – it’s to be experienced. Art is not to be decoded. It is to be felt. Feeling comes before understanding.’
The concensus is an obvious one. Dehnam echoes it: ‘It is important for children to be exposed to new things, new ideas, things that aren’t spoon fed or straight forward – art is incredibly important in this sphere.’
Maybe the adage all publicity is good publicity can be called into question. On the first count, this stunt by Jake Chapman has only gone to diminish respect for the artist within the museum sector.
