Features
GETTING ABREAST OF CENSORSHIP
17.11.2011 / Dea Birkett / 0 Comments
Dea Birkett, director of Kids in Museums, on the anomalies in what art can and cannot be seen outside public galleries
Nipples are in the news. A rarely seen portrait of a bare breasted Nell Gwyn is on show as part of the wonderfully wicked First Actresses exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery.
You may wonder why there’s anything interesting about bare breasts on display among old masters. The National Portrait Gallery, as its neighbour the National Gallery, contains far more nudity than any under-the-counter magazine. But what’s interesting about these breasts – astonishingly pale as if made of fine white china – is that they’re not only on show on a gallery wall but also plastered on the London Underground in large posters advertising the show.
This may well be a first in the art world. The last time the advertisement for a high art exhibition contained nipples it was banned from public transport. Cranach the Elder’s 16th century Venus was the poster girl for the Royal Academy’s 2008 Cranach exhibition. But the image of the goddess of love, with nothing but a translucent veil to shield her boyish figure, was considered too obscene for passengers and promptly removed. Even the National Portrait Gallery has been in trouble before for exposing passengers to too much cleavage. Ten years ago, Sir Peter Lely’s portrait of the Countess of Oxford was used for the poster of their Painted Ladies exhibition. But her bare breasts were banned from the Underground. The gallery had to design a different poster especially for tube stations, using a portrait of a fully clothed Duchess of Richmond.
So have Transport for London had a change of heart about nipples? I don’t think so. Their policy on advertising remains as it was ten years ago. So perhaps there’s a notable difference between the different portraits? Simon Verelst’s Nell Gwyn is unashamedly provocative. Cranach’s Venus stares at her gawkers, inviting them to admire. There is no doubt that both painters were deliberately creating erotic images. Any judgment of artistic difference made by a transport official has no grounds.
There are other images they could consider curtailing. If the transport authorities really cared about the moral corruption of their commuters, surely they should ban the newspapers containing early 21st century works – photographs of nubile women in nothing but a g-string - being glanced at in every rush hour carriage. If they can prohibit the consumption of cigarettes and alcohol, why not the consumption of nudity as well?
There’s one more contemporary twist in this some breasts good/some breasts bad saga. The Department of Education recently commissioned a report from Reg Bailey, chief executive of the Mothers Union, on the sexualisation of children. Bailey recommended that billboards showing provocative images were not displayed close to schools; the government says it intends to implement this ban. When I visited the First Actresses exhibition, troops of schoolchildren were swirling around the gallery. I noticed they were surrounded by rather a lot of painted nipples, not all belonging to Nell. So what’s going to happen to these school visits? Is the gallery going to have to invest in a large number of sheets, to throw over paintings that reveal too much flesh as young people pass by?
Once you start to unpick most arguments for censorship, they crumble into a pile of contradictory hogwash. Long may school parties enjoy the National Portrait Gallery and all its nudity. There’s nothing wrong with nipples, whatever century they come from.
My concerns in an earlier column about museums putting on exhibitions about the Olympic games next year were boosted further this month when the European Tour Operations Association (ETOA) said that its members were bracing themselves for a whopping 95% decrease in London bookings during the period of the games. Tom Jenkins, ETOA's executive director, is quoted as saying, “We always see a decline in demand for a destination during an Olympic year, so some of this was to be expected. During the Olympic period itself there is almost no demand from regular tourists”. So why are so many London museums planning exhibitions around the Olympics? Who do they think is going to pay to go and see them?
The National Gallery’s much lauded Leonardo da Vinci exhibition will be closed by then. The queues outside prove just how popular such shows are. I know it must have been hugely expensive to install such great works in Trafalgar Square. But I wonder how many people aren’t going to see it because of the steep £16 ticket price, and £8 if you’re 12 or over. I would never argue that the National Gallery should introduce general admission charges, but I would argue – as in another earlier column – that there’s really no such thing as a free museum anymore. It’s just at which point you’re asked to pay.
Comments (0)
Leave a comment
Make sure you enter the * required information where indicated.