Ethical considerations

I really wanted this site to be a positive one, but I couldn't pass this awful issue by. To paraphrase Trevor Hotten, artists ‘often do things that depict the very sad part of ... society.' So do writers. I think that Hotten's submission for the Archibald Prize is a sad indictment on what society will accept these days in the name of freedom of expression.


The Archibald Prize is Australia’s most important portraiture competition. No wonder; there is fifty thousand dollars in it for the artist and the tremendous kudos of the win. The Archibald is popular with the masses because they usually know the subject so are focusing more on how they feel about him or her rather than the art.

Right now the masses aren’t too happy about one particular submission. An artist called Trevor Hotten has submitted a portrait of Dennis Ferguson, a paedophile and repeat offender who had spent 14 years in prison and Brett Collins a Coordinator for Justice Action and a spokesperson for the Prisoners Action Group.

The spirit of the competition is to submit a painting of ‘some man or woman distinguished in Art, Letters, Science or Politics.’ It may have sometimes strayed from the original intent, but this portrait is about as far away from the aim as you can get. That portrait will link the two subjects inextricably together forever. I doubt it will win, but the controversy about this year's competition will leave a bad taste in my mouth until next year.

Protecting prisoners' rights is reasonable. Somebody has to advocate for them. But it needs to be balanced out with the rights of victims and that's something I rarely hear happening. Advocating for Ferguson harms the rights of victims and their families, and makes things intolerable for those who have young children to protect. People want to feel that they have a right to be safe from harm.

Hotten defends his submission with the usual mantra of ‘artists... [having] the right to express themselves without censorship.’ Since the dawn of time that has been the mantra of every artist who offers us something unpleasant to look at or to think about. The great thing is that that sort of art isn't likely to last into the future. Artists seem to believe they are beyond the humdrum of the rest of the community and needn't bother about ethical considerations. I think it's time somebody shamed them into it.

I’ve only seen the portrait in the newspapers and it may be that it’s lost something in the translation but it seems to me both flat and lackluster; it lacks dimension. Whatever it is that Hotten means to be expressing, the painting gives no indication to me of what it can be. He’s been quoted as having said that artists ‘often do things that depict the very sad part of ... society or even what people find vile. But it's important [they] visually capture these things.’ Unless his painting has something more to say than that he has captured a likeness I don’t see the point. We’re living in a digital world, after all. On the other hand, once you’ve left a painting's presence you’re meant to be moved by more than an exact image captured on canvas. I’m yet to be convinced that I would be moved that I would be moved by it if I ever bothered to be in its presence.