FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Last British Empire Paedophile: Morality, Art and Donald Friend

Righteousness is never pretty, and it tends to often respond after the fact. The fallen hero, or at least the figure shrouded in mystery, is suddenly found to be a creature of ill repute, tarnished, and therefore, in need of emotional and psychic exile. Works, and the man, need to vanish.

Such a figure is Donald Friend, advertised on the chat show circuit in Australia as the country’s greatest paedophile artist. (He has been regarded as the finest of figurative draughtsmen.)  The title is, in a sense, a typical introduction to what is an old confusion: is the art of an immoral, criminal artist to be treated as its creator?

In 2006, Friend sealed his place in the pantheon of Australian ignominy and judgment with the publication of his fourth volume of diaries.  A note from February 1967 left the reader on his encounter with a 10 year old Balinese youth in little doubt doubt: “I hope life will continue forever to offer me delicious surprises like Dolog and that I will always be delighted and surprised, he goes about the act of love with a charmingly self-possessed grace, gaily, affectionately and enthusiastically and in these matters he is very sensitive and not at all sentimental.”

Since the publication of his diaries, Friend’s work has been subjected to a gradual, though unmistakable erasure. He is persona non grata in the art world, a true untouchable for the auctioneers, purchasers and galleries.

This is a debate that should have been long resolved. But puritanical and fundamentalist assessments of labour being the image of moral worth, the vision of a person in that product, tends to intrude.  It keeps company with the nonsense that there is such a thing as immoral art.  Art might be abysmal or well done, but it can never be moral.  The point is known even before Oscar Wilde took issue with the point that a book can never be moral or immoral, simply well written or badly written.

The Friend case is troublesome for its attempt to police the product of an artist, to censure, to hide, and to obliterate the fallen being’s work because of the creator’s character. This approach is hardly befitting any gallery, nor will it do that police have a say in such matters.  Punish the artist, yes, but what of the art?

The same righteous clans now baying for the removal of such artists would do to stop and think about what would be left in a gallery if an artist’s personal resume of conduct were to be considered.  One could start with removing the works of, say, murderers, a gruesomely apt example being that of Caravaggio. Yes, he may have murdered Ranuccio Tomassoni, be it over a tennis match, or, as it was subsequently suggested, a dispute over a prostitute by the name of Fillide Melandroni.

To then charge through the galleries to remove art of such astonishing atmosphere from a soul of such volcanic, ill-tempered violence would be no mere act of conventional philistinism but one of cultural stupidity.

A modern case in point is even more salient. Paul Gauguin’s postimpressionism remains masterful and plentiful, and even, on a certain level, mystical, a window to the animist soul. But here was a true monster, a dissolute exploiter, a colonial figure of his time, and a person who was bound to have had his way with under age subjects in his paintings.

As Adrian Searle would say, writing about the Tate’s Gauguin exhibition in 2010, the artist was “guilty as charged.” Post-colonial scholars and feminists were right to take issue with his exploits. “The criticism has been a necessary corrective to the unsustainable myth of the artist as protean genius beyond the mores of his time, place and society.”[1]  What he produced, however, is a different proposition.

Art, as opposed to the troubled artist, inhabits a space outside the law. The law remains blunt, crudely temporal, applicable to the human subject; but art resists that, has no knowledge of the principles etched in moral codes, a thing of itself. The only morality in such matters, if, indeed, it could be considered such, is the emphasis on an aesthetic, rules of design or perspective.

Rule makers and regulators tend to disagree.  Their job is to blur the artist with the art, to censor, to control taste, and to suggest that a person who views a work from the brush of a murderer, a paedophile or a thief is somehow diminished, perhaps even encouraged to pursue such a course of action.

Is looking at a canvass or sketch featuring the artist’s experience somehow an incitement to crime, a miraculous initiation into a dark world?  Moral fundamentalists and criminal code guardians would certainly think so. As do, it seems, auctioneers who seem to have placed Friend on the taboo list.  As with listening to Wagner, there is a presumed temptation that engaging a person’s work is bound to corrupt you as readily as the creator himself.

According to Frank Campbell, who got his hands on a copy of the 2006 published volume of diaries, Friend was “the last British Empire paedophile.”[2]  But for all that criminality, he remained prolific, his work that should be the subject of an assessment separate from his own unpunished acts.

Notes.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2010/sep/27/paul-gauguin-tate-modern-exhibition

[2] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/life/weekend-australian-magazine/should-we-boycott-donald-friends-art/news-story/1de2cbb07571f7b285139191c6e363d0

 

More articles by:

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

September 18, 2018
Conn Hallinan
Britain: the Anti-Semitism Debate
Tamara Pearson
Why Mexico’s Next President is No Friend of Migrants
Richard Moser
Both the Commune and Revolution
Nick Pemberton
Serena 15, Tennis Love
Binoy Kampmark
Inconvenient Realities: Climate Change and the South Pacific
Martin Billheimer
La Grand’Route: Waiting for the Bus
John Kendall Hawkins
Seymour Hersh: a Life of Adversarial Democracy at Work
Faisal Khan
Is Israel a Democracy?
John Feffer
The GOP Wants Trumpism…Without Trump
Kim Ives
The Roots of Haiti’s Movement for PetroCaribe Transparency
Dave Lindorff
We Already Have a Fake Billionaire President; Why Would We want a Real One Running in 2020?
Gerry Brown
Is China Springing Debt Traps or Throwing a Lifeline to Countries in Distress?
Pete Tucker
The Washington Post Really Wants to Stop Ben Jealous
Dean Baker
Getting It Wrong Again: Consumer Spending and the Great Recession
September 17, 2018
Melvin Goodman
What is to be Done?
Rob Urie
American Fascism
Patrick Cockburn
The Adults in the White House Trying to Save the US From Trump Are Just as Dangerous as He Is
Jeffrey St. Clair - Alexander Cockburn
The Long Fall of Bob Woodward: From Nixon’s Nemesis to Cheney’s Savior
Mairead Maguire
Demonization of Russia in a New Cold War Era
Dean Baker
The Bank Bailout of 2008 was Unnecessary
Wim Laven
Hurricane Trump, Season 2
Yves Engler
Smearing Dimitri Lascaris
Ron Jacobs
From ROTC to Revolution and Beyond
Clark T. Scott
The Cannibals of Horsepower
Binoy Kampmark
A Traditional Right: Jimmie Åkesson and the Sweden Democrats
Laura Flanders
History Markers
Weekend Edition
September 14, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Carl Boggs
Obama’s Imperial Presidency
Joshua Frank
From CO2 to Methane, Trump’s Hurricane of Destruction
Jeffrey St. Clair
Maria’s Missing Dead
Andrew Levine
A Bulwark Against the Idiocy of Conservatives Like Brett Kavanaugh
T.J. Coles
Neil deGrasse Tyson: A Celebrity Salesman for the Military-Industrial-Complex
Jeff Ballinger
Nike and Colin Kaepernick: Fronting the Bigots’ Team
David Rosen
Why Stop at Roe? How “Settled Law” Can be Overturned
Gary Olson
Pope Francis and the Battle Over Cultural Terrain
Nick Pemberton
Donald The Victim: A Product of Post-9/11 America
Ramzy Baroud
The Veiled Danger of the ‘Dead’ Oslo Accords
Kevin Martin
U.S. Support for the Bombing of Yemen to Continue
Robert Fisk
A Murder in Aleppo
Robert Hunziker
The Elite World Order in Jitters
Ben Dangl
After 9/11: The Staggering Economic and Human Cost of the War on Terror
Charles Pierson
Invade The Hague! Bolton vs. the ICC
Robert Fantina
Trump and Palestine
Daniel Warner
Hubris on and Off the Court
John Kendall Hawkins
Boning Up on Eternal Recurrence, Kubrick-style: “2001,” Revisited
Haydar Khan
Set Theory of the Left
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail