Analysis – Carol Altmann

I must admit that I thought it would have happened by now: that the Warrnambool City Council would have asked survivors of sexual assault what they thought should be done with the Rolf Harris mural at the Lighthouse Theatre.

Especially given that the council met last night (23/2) for its briefing – which is closed to the public – and was asked to adopt a recommendation at its meeting next Monday (2/3) that the mural be kept, but covered by black perspex, as it is now.

It is nine months since the council knew it had a problem on its hands, when Harris was convicted and sentenced in the UK on a string of sexual offences against young girls.

It is three months since his avenues of appeal lapsed.

But as of today, Tuesday February 24, only one person from within the entire council and its elected officials had bothered to contact the South Western Centre Against Sexual Assault or Emma House Domestic Violence Services to ask their opinion. (That was Cr Peter Hulin).

In the meantime, in light of his conviction, Harris’s works have been removed from public galleries around the world, his impromptu mural in a Melbourne paint shop has been painted over, he has lost his place in the Australian Recording Industry Association hall of fame, he has been stripped of a fellowship in the British Academy of Film and Television Arts and, as of earlier this week, was no longer an Officer and Member of the Order of Australia.

In Warrnambool, however, the council has apparently made up its mind to keep the mural without consulting anyone.

We contacted SW CASA manager Mary Clapham today for her thoughts on the mural.

This is Ms Clapham’s written response in full:

“Previous comments by the South Western Centre Against Sexual Assault as part of the public discussion of whether or not the local mural painted by Rolf Harris should be removed, have highlighted the very real possibility of this mural causing significant additional distress for people who have previously been impacted upon by the sexual abuse of children by paedophiles.

Many people, if not necessarily a victim themselves, may have been a parent, brother, sister, friend or relative of a child who was sexually abused and bear witness to the devastating impact it has upon individuals and families.

With sexual assault being as prevalent as it is within most communities (1 in 3 women and 1 in 6 men are abused before the age of 18 years), the community discussion currently being generated will include the voices of people who have been impacted upon by sexual assault and these are the people who have a right to be asked and listened to regarding the next steps for the Rolf Harris mural.

Regardless of the assigned artistic virtue of an art installation, an integral part of the public display of art is the honour associated with having that work displayed.

The Warrnambool City Council has rightly negated the honour previously afforded to Rolf Harris by covering up the Warrnambool mural. The South Western Centre Against Sexual Assault supports no community honour being afforded to any perpetrator of sexual violence against children, including Rolf Harris.”

We also contacted Emma House manager Pat McLaren to ask her opinion.

“We would like to see it painted over. It needs to be painted over so that it is obliterated forever, just like Frank Penhalluriack did in Melbourne without any problems whatsoever,” Ms McLaren said by telephone.

“This not censorship: this is about taking a stand against pedophilia.

“It is a piece of art on council property. It is not a piece of art that is bought and sold. Council needs to take a stand against sexual assault and grooming and all of the other things that Rolf Harris has been convicted of: these are not allegations, these are crimes proven in a court of law.

“The Australian Government has taken a stand, we need to do the same,” she said.

Ms McLaren said the council had quite rightly waited for any appeal before taking any permanent action, but now that the appeal had failed and Harris’s conviction stands, the council needed to renew the conversation about the future of the mural.

“It is not just a decision for the council to make, but one that the community must make. The council needs to be talking to people across the community.”

None of this matters, however, because the councillors, it appears, have made up their minds already.

The vote next Monday – and the arguments put forward – will no doubt be fascinating, but if anyone other than Cr Hulin claims to have consulted with those who support survivors of sexual assault in making their decision, they are wrong.

Analysis – Carol Altmann

If it is decided – as looks likely – to keep the mural by convicted child molester Rolf Harris in the Warrnambool Lighthouse Theatre, we must also decide to remove the perspex and present it in its full glory.

Otherwise, what is the point?

The arguments have been coming thick and strong from some in our community that the mural should be treated as a sacrosanct piece of art, up there with the likes of works by other “immoral” artists such as Caravaggio and Picasso and Rubens (none of whom, by the way, were convicted child molesters).

If we really believe this, we must take down the perspex and put the mural on show like the work of these masters.

There has also been the argument that art must be viewed as completely separate to any appalling crimes of the artist.

If we really believe all art work stands alone, why would we want to keep the Harris mural covered?

Indeed, if the mural stays – as the local newspaper and others have argued it must – then we need to stand by our conviction that any piece of art comes first, ahead of all else, and be proud of our decision.

The council could go even further and promote the fact that Warrnambool has what we consider to be a treasured work by Harris available for viewing, given that around the world his art has either been taken down or, as in the case of a similar impromptu mural in Melbourne, painted over.

A small sign could be added to explain that it was decided to keep the mural after a robust public discussion conducted largely through Facebook because the Warrnambool City Council, which owns the mural, failed to offer any leadership on the issue.

Indeed it has been eight months since the future of the Harris mural was first raised in July last year, and again in September, when Mayor Michael Neoh said it would be part of a council briefing paper in the near future.

It is now almost March and there has been no formal discussion either in the council or outside of it, perhaps in the hope that it would drift from people’s minds.

The only reason it is being talked about again now is because Cr Peter Hulin – who supports its removal – raised it and, like Cr Jacinta Ermacora before him, he plans to bring it up at the council briefing on Monday (16/2). These briefings are not open to the public.

Meanwhile, amid all the bluster about the dire consequences of removing the mural, there has been little regard for those who have suffered at the hands of child molesters like Harris.

These voices have been absent, despite assertions last year that they would be taken into account.

I contacted the South Western Centre Against Sexual Assault this week to see if they had been approached by anyone within or on council about the mural. No, they hadn’t.

I also contacted Emma House Domestic Violence Services to see if they had been approached by anyone within or on council about the mural issue. No, they hadn’t.

There are plenty of other people, however, prepared to give their views on what survivors of sexual assault might think.

One, bet-each-way argument they offer is that the mural must stay, even if covered, because it would serve as a permanent reminder of the evils of sexual abuse.

No it wouldn’t.

It would only serve as a permanent reminder that we lacked the courage as a community to roll over an impromptu mural because, according to some commentators, we would be morally obliged to also start demolishing Catholic churches and destroying every piece of art ever created by an artist who had committed a crime.

How ridiculous.

This is a very specific situation that demands a very specific response.

As has been said before, murals are – by their sheer nature – temporary. We had no qualms about recently freshening up the Lake Pertobe maze, for example, with works by Bonsai and Ghost Patrol, and it will no doubt be freshened up again in years to come.

What is not temporary, however, is the impact that the actions of sexual predators like Harris have on those they abuse.

The sick reality is that one in three girls and one in six boys are sexually abused in Australia and while we wring our hands about this shocking statistic, we too often shrink back from the opportunity to take a bold stand.

This is one such opportunity.

Instead of hiding Harris’s work behind a plastic cover, I would rather see an artist like Jenny Altmann (disclosure: my former sister in law) whose work often deals with the gritty themes of domestic violence and sexual abuse, be invited by the Mayor to re-interpret this mural.

This is not a debate about book burning, or slashing the canvases of Caravaggio, or demolishing places of worship.

It is about replacing a mural with a mural – and sending a strong message that when it comes to sexual abuse, perpetrators have nowhere to hide.

This is the full text of responses from elected councillors on the future of the Rolf Harris mural in Warrnambool. See the related Opinion piece here.

Cr Michael Neoh: “Council will discuss the matter as a group. I would respectfully say that it is appropriate to address issues in a considered manner and not to not act in haste to meet external deadlines.

“As you would be aware the painting has been fully covered and we were awaiting for any indication of an appeal processes which seems unlikely now. The acting CE and I recently discussed raising it in a future briefing and I assume it will be an item, like many others, on a briefing agenda in the near future.”

Cr Kylie Gaston: “I think we do something like put a white ribbon over the perspex. I don’t like destroying art and, if we remove it completely, the opportunity to convey a message about violence toward women has been lost.”

Cr Peter Hulin: “Quite clearly it should be painted over unless Harris is successful in any appeal to his conviction. If there is no appeal. Remove it. (If it remains) it could send a message that we condone this child predator’s behaviour.  This is a very serious matter and council as leaders of the community need to show the leadership this issue demands.”

Cr Jacinta Ermacora: “My personal view is that, in the first instance we should show respect to victims of violence who live in our community.  We should no longer celebrate his art work as he used his notoriety to abuse children and women.  This dynamic is not uncommon in our community and represents the ‘abuse dynamic’ which as a community we sign on to if we take no action.

“I believe that as the piece belongs to the Warrnambool City Council and thus belongs to the Warrnambool community, there should be a discussion with relevant stakeholders and community as to what to do with it.  I believe that the voices of victims aught be given significant weight in this matter.  I also believe that there is no ‘right’ answer in this, except to show recognition to the feelings of people in our community that have also experienced sexual abuse as a child or adult.”

Cr Peter Sycopoulis: “Considering that the artwork is painted directly on to the wall of the Lighthouse Theatre, I believe at this point in time, my preferred option would be to completely cover and fasten the artwork in question with some form of solid panelling.
I believe that a plaque could be mounted beside it to serve as a  reminder that underneath lies a painting by Rolf Harris who was convicted of (sexual assault charges) and that our society has chosen to show our disapproval of this type of predatory behaviour by not publicly displaying his works.”

No reply from Cr Brian Kelson or Cr Rob Askew.

OPINION – Carol Altmann

[box] A warning: this piece contains details of Rolf Harris’s crimes which some readers may find distressing.[/box]

[dropcap style=”color: #a02f2f;”] I [/dropcap]t is more than two months since the Warrnambool City Council promised a discussion about the future of the Rolf Harris mural in light of his convictions for molesting children but, until now, we have not heard a word.

As readers will recall, an impromptu mural by Harris in the loading dock of the Lighthouse Theatre was covered by painted perspex after he was convicted on 12 counts of sexually abusing four girls aged between eight and 19, with the community split over whether the work should be retained or painted over.

Mayor Michael Neoh, at that time, said there was no room for a “knee jerk reaction” and the future of the work needed a considered response – perhaps it would be reinterpreted by adding a white ribbon over the perspex or some other symbol of denouncing violence against women. (Except Harris’s crimes were not about women, they were about sexually abusing children.)

Then the discussion fell quiet as if, by keeping the mural out of sight and out of mind, we might all just forget about it.

But survivors of child sexual abuse never forget, and neither do we.

[dropcap style=”color: #a02f2f;”]W [/dropcap]hen Bluestone emailed each councillor for an update on their personal view about the mural, Mayor Neoh initially sounded annoyed that he was being pressed to “act in haste”.

“Council will discuss the matter as a group. I would respectfully say that it is appropriate to address issues in a considered manner and not to not act in haste to meet external deadlines,” he wrote.

When asked what deadlines he was talking about, Mayor Neoh replied:

“As you would be aware the painting has been fully covered and we were awaiting for any indication of an appeal processes which seems unlikely now. The acting (Chief Executive) and I recently discussed raising it in a future briefing and I assume it will be an item, like many others, on a briefing agenda in the near future.”

So does Mayor Neoh still want the mural retained or not? We don’t know.

[dropcap style=”color: #a02f2f;”] O [/dropcap]ur view on the mural is unequivocal – it should already be gone and you can read our reasoning in our earlier opinion piece – but the councillors are divided.

The full responses from councillors can be found here, but, in summary: Cr Kylie Gaston and Cr Peter Sycopoulis said they wanted the work retained – but covered – and with some form of educational message added, such as the white ribbon symbol or an explanatory plaque.

Cr Peter Hulin said that unless Harris successfully appealed his conviction (which appears unlikely), the mural should be painted over.  While Cr Jacinta Ermacora said there was no right answer, she believed the fate of the mural should be decided by the community and “relevant stakeholders”. “I believe that the voices of victims aught be given significant weight in this matter,” she said.*

We did not receive a response from Cr Brian Kelson or Cr Rob Askew.

[dropcap style=”color: #a02f2f;”] W [/dropcap]hat I wonder is this:

Would the council still be tip-toeing around this issue if the mural had been painted by a Warrnambool man who had since been found guilty of the same crimes as Rolf Harris?

[learn_more caption=”You can read details here: contains explicit content”]Harris’s crimes include touching an eight year old girl’s vagina, digitally penetrating a 15 year old girl on multiple occasions, and licking the vagina of a 15 year old girl while she was asleep and her parents, whom Harris had been visiting, were downstairs.[/learn_more]

These are among the crimes which the judge outlined in his sentencing of Harris and they need to be named up. (You can read the full remarks here).

The celebrity status that Harris used to cover up his crimes (including in 1986, when he painted the Warrnambool mural), is the very same status that is protecting him now.

We don’t need white ribbons and plaques and educational reinterpretations to remind us that this man is a predator and, to this day, has shown no remorse: he typifies so many sexual abusers, including those who still walk free in our community.

“But it is art”, is the most common response from those who find it impossible to accept that this mural must go.

It is a painting, to be sure, but in my mind not all art is created equal.

[dropcap style=”color: #a02f2f;”]P[/dropcap]ublic murals, by their sheer nature, are transitory: they fade, they are painted over, they are removed.

We know this because about 12 years after Harris spontaneously created his mural from an errant paint splodge, another commissioned mural less than 400m away was bulldozed to make way for a string of soul-less apartments in the Ozone carpark without so much as a whimper.

This was a work by local indigenous artist Fiona Clarke.

Harris’s work will remain in dozens, if not hundreds, of private art collections around the world – he was nothing if not prolific – and had this mural been treated the same way as Fiona Clarke’s when the Lighthouse Theatre was upgraded, it would already be gone. (Apparently the plans were modified to accommodate the mural, such is the power of celebrity.)

If only we, as a city, had the courage and fortitude of Frank Penhalluriack, the Melbourne paint shop owner who, the moment Harris was found guilty, rolled a bright-red roller over an impromptu Harris mural painted in his shop in 1990.

“It is one of the most important stands I have ever taken,” he told the Herald Sun.

I wonder how many of us – and our city councillors – could say the same thing?

* Since being contacted by Bluestone, Cr Ermacora raised the issue at last week’s council briefing, which is the first in a series of steps toward opening a wider community discussion.

[button link=”http://the-terrier.com.au/subscribe-2/” type=”icon” icon=”heart” newwindow=”yes”]If you would like early access to Opinion pieces, please subscribe to Bluestone.[/button]

Find more Opinion pieces here…

You paid for the party: here’s who came

Trader levy halved: a victory for voices

Flagstaff Hill at $15 million crossroad

Unravelling the mystery of art commissions

Lack of schooling a ticking bomb in south-west

What about more fun for grown-ups?

Council’s racing hospitality bill hard to swallow

OPINION

[dropcap style=”color: #a5cecd;”] T [/dropcap] wo very unsettling things have emerged from the debate over whether a mural by convicted pedophile Rolf Harris should be kept in Warrnambool’s Lighthouse Theatre, and neither offer any comfort to victims of sexual abuse.

The first was a comment by Warrnambool City Council chief executive officer Bruce Anson in which he compared Harris’s systemic abuse of minors to an artistic “foible” – a weakness, a blemish on his character, a minor flaw.

Here is the quote in full, as taken from the Warrnambool Standard report of July 2:

“I’m not justifying in any way what has happened (but) I don’t think we should destroy art as a result of inappropriate behaviour.

“Many of our great artists had foibles.”

A dirty old man in a rain coat who sexually abuses children is seen as the predatory pervert that he is, whereas an entertainer who fooled the world with his charm and natty dress sense –  and who also sexually abuses children – is considered to have a “foible”?

I waited for the torrent of outrage against Mr Anson’s comments, but there was barely a trickle, despite Mr Anson holding one of the most influential positions in our city.

[dropcap style=”color: #a5cecd;”] T [/dropcap]he outrage was instead saved in response to calls by some – including Bluestone Magazine via our Facebook page – that the Rolf Harris mural be painted over. Bluestone supports this move in order to send a clear message that the work of a convicted pedophile should not be honoured via public display in a public building.

If the Rolf Harris work was on a canvas, instead of a wall, it would be removed immediately (as is happening elsewhere in Australia), but because it is on a wall, we need to be even braver and bolder in our response and this is where we have become weak-kneed.

Despite Harris painting this mural in the very same year as he was actively abusing minors, the artwork is seen by some as separate to the artist, as if one Rolf Harris is the jocular painter, and “another” Rolf Harris is the pedophile.

This is a false comfort, as the hand that held the brush that created this mural is the same hand that could not keep itself off children – the art and the artist are inseparable.

There is also an argument that because Harris happens to be a visual artist, his “work” immediately deserves higher status and preservation than, say, the work of a pedophile priest, teacher or judge who – once exposed for their crimes – are stripped of all public honour.

Imagine if the Lighthouse Theatre decided to stage a musical tribute to pedophile and Harris associate, Jimmy Savile? Would we be as forgiving of the need to preserve his talents as an entertainer?

[dropcap style=”color: #a5cecd;”] B[/dropcap]y keeping the Harris mural in place, we are sending a message to every victim of sexual abuse that a piece of art is worth more than them: that we, as a community, value the work of a convicted, systemic abuser more than we value them.

We can argue around it, through it and over it, but that is is the bottom line.

If we keep the mural, we must also be prepared to argue that a recent work by a convicted pedophile is more precious to our collective community consciousness than standing up for the one in three girls and one in six boys who are sexually abused in Australia.

But wait, some say, the history of art is littered with examples of child abusers having their work celebrated in public, such as Caravaggio’s erotic paintings of young boys painted in the 17th Century.

I would like to think we have come a long way as a society in four centuries and understand – fully and painfully – the lifelong ramifications of child sexual abuse that, in the case of Harris, is clear cut.

I am also still struggling to find an artist who is a convicted pedophile and is still feted by the public – Caravaggio included.

[dropcap style=”color: #a5cecd;”] S[/dropcap]o why not just cover the mural up, as has been suggested?

Because that, to me, is a cop out. It says we are frightened to make the tough call and that one day, when we all “get over it”, the cover will come down again. Otherwise, what is the point?

Collectors can keep all of their Rolf Harris’s in their private collections and galleries – although it appears that the Queen has disposed of her portrait – but there is only one thing to do with our Harris mural: run a paint roller right over it.

Gather a group of women who have suffered sexual abuse (you won’t have to look far) and invite them to reinterpret the mural as a work of defiance: a work that says, loudly, we will not tolerate or condone this man’s disgraceful behaviour, no matter how well he paints.

With this work, we have the opportunity to make a very clear statement about a living, breathing sexual predator who happens to be an artist, and we at Bluestone are dumbfounded as to why it is proving so hard.

[button link=”http://the-terrier.com.au/subscribe-2/” type=”icon” icon=”heart” newwindow=”yes”] Did you enjoy this piece? Please subscribe here to help Bluestone thrive.[/button]

Read more Opinion pieces here…

Community vision should extend city wide: Julie Eagles

Flagstaff Hill at $15 million crossroad

Scrap trader levy and start over

Motor museum to revive Fletcher Jones

Traders are right to be asking questions

Be all things, or stick to the basics?