tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59141323792325202322024-03-19T00:58:15.922-07:00artist on trialThis site is about British artist Graham Ovenden and his conviction on false charges of child abuse and so-called "indecent" images. It is also about his art.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15634435116714830373noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5914132379232520232.post-68661526411272871972013-09-17T13:31:00.001-07:002013-09-17T13:31:34.584-07:00Graham Ovenden Appeal to be Heard by High CourtIt was announced today that the Court of Appeal has agreed to hear the appeal by Graham Ovenden of his convictions under the Indecency with Children Act 1960. Although no date for a hearing has yet been set, the Court has indicated that the hearing will be held in open court, rather than "in camera," as is often the case with such convictions.<br />
<br />
This blog has already discussed some of the issues on appeal. In the coming weeks, we will present additional issues that are likely to be considered by the high court.<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15634435116714830373noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5914132379232520232.post-35981305513890572112013-09-15T17:53:00.001-07:002013-09-15T17:53:18.085-07:00Graham Ovenden Not Guilty of Indecency Involving Witness JBMost people (other than those who read this blog closely) falsely believe that Graham Ovenden has been found guilty of a "string of sex offences against children" that supposedly included dressing up his models in Victorian nighties, then blindfolding, disrobing and subjecting them to fellatio. None of that ever happened and Mr. Ovenden wasn't convicted on those charges or anything even remotely similar. Absurdly, he was convicted of five counts under the Indecency with Children Act 1960 for the "indecent act" of taking photographs -- <i>not</i> taking "indecent photographs." The two should not be confused, because in Mr. Ovenden's case, the supposed results of the "indecent acts" -- i.e., photographs -- were never shown to the jury. Indeed, in the case of Model X, the photographs that were alleged to have been taken "indecently" didn't even exist. <br />
<br />
To be sure, in the case of both Model X and Maud Hewes (the only two former models involved in the indecent photographing counts), there existed photographs that, although not shown to the jury, could have been found to be "indecent" were the jurors to apply the lowest common denominator of current opinion regarding photographs of nude minors. However, convicting Mr. Ovenden for "indecent photographs" was not the objective of the prosecution: that is, the Crown Prosecution Service did not want to open the door to criticism from artists, photographers and indeed, the entire art establishment for condemning works of art. So instead the CPS based its case on phony sex charges (prompted for the most part by the police), and the novel theory that merely photographing nude minors could, in and of itself, and without any visual evidence, be an act of child molestation. Think about it: Model X testified that she "remembered" being photographed while nude and blindfolded, and on another occasion, while lying back, splayed out on some rocks. The fact that those photographs never existed (because the incidents never occurred) was irrelevant to the charge. The mere allegation that photographs were taken was sufficient to secure a conviction. Photographers should be very frightened by this expansion of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 and the mischief it is sure to bring to others besides Mr. Ovenden.<br />
<br />
That brings us to the two remaining charges involving a third model, JB. At the outset, JB alleged three incidents. First, she claimed that when she was six she had a bath with Mr. Ovenden and another girl. Allegedly, Mr. Ovenden asked her to wash his "John Thomas." (The alleged incident involved no touching, just an invitation.) Second, JB claimed that when she was 7, Mr. Ovenden blindfolded her and played a "tasting game," culminating in his putting his penis in her mouth. Third, JB claimed that when she was ten Mr. Ovenden came up behind her, grabbed her breasts through her clothing and said "come on, let's have a feel."<br />
<br />
Allegation number two, the tasting game, was disbelieved by the jury, while Mr. Ovenden was convicted on the first and third allegations. The discussion of these charges should be prefaced by a few facts that were not fully explored at trial, but which are salient nonetheless. Within a year of the alleged "let's have a feel" incident, JB asked Mr. Ovenden to photograph her naked, which he did. She was very proud of her breasts and a photo of her naked from head to toe appears in Graham Ovenden's monograph <i>States of Grace</i>. When she was asked about the photography session at trial, JB said she didn't remember it, and the photograph was never introduced because Mr. Ovenden's legal team were determined to keep <i>States of Grace</i> out of view of the jury. But her insouciant facial expression and open pose are not those of a girl who had to fight off an attack by the photographer not long before the photo session.(One can argue that it was a mistake not to introduce the book into evidence, but hindsight is always golden.) There is also evidence of a motive by JB to give false testimony. Long before the trial, JB and her mother took sides with Mr. Ovenden's ex-wife, Annie, in a bitter dispute over the Ovendens' collapsing marriage, Edmund Ovenden's misappropriation of equity in Barley Splatt and the removal of valuable photographs and other documents from Mr. Ovenden's possession. In fact, JB worked for Annie Ovenden: in 2010, she registered the domain for Annie Ovenden's website and thereafter remained the registrant and technical contact. (This fact was discovered after trial.) A friend of the Ovendens also witnessed a conversation between Annie and JB's mother regarding how they would "get" Graham. Mr. Ovenden's legal counsel must have felt strongly enough about how fraught the charges were that they didn't wish to air this dirty laundry.<br />
<br />
In any event, there are ample grounds on which to appeal the convictions on these charges. Let's begin with the bath allegation, which JB said happened when she was six years old. There are three possibilities: 1) JB was willfully lying, 2) JB had a memory of an event that never occurred, or 3) JB remembered a real event. Facts already mentioned above suggest that JB was lying, but assuming, for sake of argument, that she actually had a memory of such an event, the task is then to determine whether the memory is true or false. This is not simply a matter of listening to JB's testimony and deciding whether her story is convincing. As memory expert Daniel L. Schacter has observed, "[p]eople incorrectly claim -- often with great confidence -- having experienced events that have not happened." (See, <i>The Seven Sins of Memory: How the Mind Forgets and Remembers</i>, Houghton Mifflin, 2001.) This is especially the case when witnesses rehearse their testimony with police officers, prosecutors and others (e.g., their mothers) and become "extremely confident about what they say -- even when they are incorrect." (Schacter, <i>Searching for Memory: the Brain, the Mind and the Past</i>, Basic Books 1996).
A great deal has been learned since the early 1990s about how memory works and much of this knowledge flies in the face of the common understanding of the man on the Clapham omnibus that a memory is like a tape recording of what happened. For this reason, the British Psychological Society (BPS) produced its <i>Guidelines on Memory and the Law: A Report from the Research Board of the British Psychological Society</i>, written expressly for consideration by the CPS, police and defence solicitors. The following principles, designated as "Key points" in the Report, rather speak for themselves:<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Remembering is a constructive process. Memories are mental constructions that
bring together different types of knowledge in an act of remembering. As a
consequence, memory is prone to error and is easily influenced by the recall
environment, including police interviews and cross-examination in court.</li>
<li>Recall of a single or several highly specific details does not guarantee that a
memory is accurate or even that it actually occurred. In general, the only way to
establish the truth of a memory is with independent corroborating evidence.</li>
<li>People can remember events that they have not in reality experienced. This does
not necessarily entail deliberate deception. For example, an event that was
imagined, was a blend of a number of different events, or that makes personal
sense for some other reason, can come to be genuinely experienced as a memory,
(these are often referred to as ‘confabulations’).</li>
</ul>
These points are particularly salient with respect to adult memories of early childhood, which is why the Report warns: "<b>Detailed and well-organized memories dating to events that occurred between seven to five years of age should be viewed with caution.</b>" JB's alleged memories of the (non-existent) event were nothing if not detailed and well-organized. Her memory was sequential and complete, told from beginning to end. It included where she sat in the bathtub, how Mr. Ovenden got in with an erect penis, how the other girl was asking to wash Mr. Ovenden's beard, how Mr. Ovenden repeatedly said to them "No, no, wash John Thomas. Go on, Go on," how she felt "uncomfortable," how the other girl washed said John Thomas a couple of times, how Mr. Ovenden then got out of the bath and came back with a camera, and how he took photographs of JB and the other girl in a green towel. (If you thought perhaps that there were photos of JB and other girl in a green towel, you would be wrong.)
If the highly detailed nature of JB's "memory" didn't give the CPS pause about proceeding with that charge, then the age at which the event was alleged to have occurred should have. As the Report plainly states:<br />
<br />
<h4 style="text-align: left;">
In general the accuracy of memories dating to below the age of about seven years cannot
be established in the absence of independent corroborating evidence.</h4>
<br />
There was no independent corroborating evidence in JB's case. The "fact" of JB and her mother agreeing that JB disclosed the alleged incident when she was fifteen or sixteen (assuming, for the sake of argument, that this is true), does no more than corroborate the existence of a memory, not whether the memory is true. Independent corroborating evidence means evidence that is adduced or discovered contemporaneously with the alleged event and that directly supports one or more aspects of it. It does not mean a supposed conversation ten years later. Simply put, the CPS should never have prosecuted Mr. Ovenden on this charge.<br />
<br />
What else is wrong with the two JB-related convictions? They are inconsistent with the acquittal on the third allegation, the so-called "tasting game" incident. The standard on voiding a conviction due to inconsistent verdicts is an exacting one. The burden is on the defendant to prove that the verdict is "unsafe," that is, that there is both "a logical inconsistency between the verdicts" and "no explanation" for the inconsistency. <i>Dhillon</i> [2010] EWCA Crim 1577, par. 33. There is no universal test for determining whether a verdict is "unsafe." However, in <i>R v. Cross</i> [2009] EWCA Crim 1533, the court found that verdicts would be inconsistent where:<br />
<blockquote>
They cannot possibly be explained by any line of reasoning which the jury could have adopted looking at the evidence as fair-minded ordinary people. The appellate court has to apply this test in the context of the issues which were presented to the jury, but that does not of course mean that a jury had to view the evidence bearing on those issues in the way that was argued for either by the prosecution or the defence.</blockquote>
<br />
Here, one needs to view the allegations by JB in the overall context of the case. First, the counts of conviction (the bath and "let's have a feel" incidents) were completely different from any other allegation in the case. Second, the only allegation by JB that was supported by a similar allegation -- the tasting game -- was thrown out by the jury. These two facts alone make out a <i>prima facie</i> case for "inconsistency."<br />
<br />
Another factor to consider is that JB's credibility was at issue, since Mr. Ovenden denied that the three alleged events ever occurred. It might be argued that the testimony of JB's mother swayed the jury as to the bath incident, but it could not possibly explain the conviction on the "let's have a feel" count. Moreover, the convictions on these two counts came only after the jury had been deadlocked for four days and Judge Cottle instructed the jurors that they could convict by a majority. Consequently, the jury's decision has the hallmarks of a "compromise" where the jurors split the difference -- acquitting Mr. Ovenden on the more serious charge (one that was potentially corroborated by a similar allegation by LD), but convicting him on the two minor ones.<br />
<br />
The closer one looks at the case against Graham Ovenden, the more one sees its vindictive heart. The case is replete with official corruption, from the coercion and coaching of witnesses, to novel applications of law, to bringing charges that should never have been brought. It is a rich irony, indeed, that in his petition to the Court of Appeal to put Mr. Ovenden behind bars, H.M. Attorney General cites as a consequence of Mr. Ovenden's supposed "abuse," the turmoil that the police and prosecution caused Model X and Maud Hewes -- turmoil, it must be said, that these witnesses never felt either when they modeled for Mr. Ovenden or when they looked back on their experiences in their twenties.<br />
<br />
It is now up to the Court of Appeal to see that justice is done by reversing Mr. Ovenden's convictions.<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15634435116714830373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5914132379232520232.post-89425953066400991692013-07-27T20:24:00.001-07:002013-07-28T07:28:52.098-07:00What Her Majesty's Attorney General Doesn't Want You to Know (Part 2)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/40gwgjjbt/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Blindfold Watts" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/40gwgjjbt/Blindfold_Watts.jpg" /></a>When Graham Ovenden was convicted in April 2013 on two counts of “indecency with a child” with respect to photographing the witness identified here as “Model X,” the charges, which the police filed on her behalf, did not relate to any existing photographs. Rather, they related to imaginary photographs that exist only in Model X’s false memories – false memories that were created by the police during their interviews with her. This is no mere speculation.<br />
<br />
Model X did not come forward years later when she figured out what had happened to her. This was a lie that the prosecution fed the press and which the press dutifully reported. In reality, the police paid Model X an unsolicited visit in 2009 and attempted to get her to say she was blindfolded and molested. (The source for these allegations was Minty Challis, a/k/a Donna Berry.) Although the police never got Model X to allege molestation of any kind, they preyed on the inaccuracies of her memory and the clinical depression she developed in later adulthood to convince her that Mr. Ovenden had done something wrong. So how did the police find Model X in the first place? Mr. Ovenden gave them her address. He was obviously naïve to think that the police wouldn’t have their way with her.<br />
<br />
The contrast between Model X’s written statement for the introduction to States of Grace at age 27 and her statement in 2009, at age 46, testifies to the power and will of the police to invent crimes where none exist. Here is what Model X wrote in her own hand in 1990, when she knew that several of her images would be reproduced in Graham Ovenden’s States of Grace:<br />
<blockquote>
There was a freedom about it -- not just being myself, but it showed other possibilities, different from everyday situations. It was nice to be accepted on the level that I was myself and he didn't used to say “this is so-and-so and she is 10 years old.” In this sense, it was very adult....<br />
<br />
Graham didn't pose me that much. He used to just let me do things and he used to say “that's OK.” It was quite spontaneous. Sometimes he might have said “pick up your chin” or he might have said something emotive, like “look far away” or things like that. I never felt that he took away “me” as a person.<br />
<br />
One of the things that's very important, I feel, is that the work is very honest. However erotic the pictures are, however they are provocative, they are honest pictures. We were there. We did those things. It's not like someone's faked it. I know that Graham's an artist, and not to take anything away from him, of course, but the thing is, the people are there. So, it exists and you can't pretend it doesn't exist and that sexuality doesn't exist. So the honesty, I think, is really important and I think people are just stuffy and have a lot of fears about what's okay and get confused about what's okay.... It was a very safe environment.</blockquote>
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/w1uxu8om1/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Blind Millais" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/w1uxu8om1/Blind_Millais.jpg" /></a>Now compare this resolute declaration with paragraphs 36 and 37 of the prosecution’s opening statement about what Model X would say when called to the witness box. (These paragraphs were simply regurgitated, complete with typographical error, by the Attorney General in his “Reference Under Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988,” recently submitted to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division. Evidently the Attorney General couldn’t be bothered to find out what Model X actually said at trial.) The reader should keep in mind that these paragraphs are supposed to make out two separate “offences” of “indecency with a child:”<br />
<blockquote>
"[Model X] was about 10 years old when the defendant took photographs of her at a time he was still living in London. This took place in a studio in an empty bedroom of the house. [Model X] remembers the defendant telling her that he wanted to recreate a ‘Little Blind Girl’ and he told her a story about a blind girl. Susannah was sitting on the floor. She was naked. The defendant put white sticky tape on her eyes. She couldn’t see. The defendant pushed the tape down. [Model X] didn’t know what the defendant was doing through she could hear him breathing as if he was holding his breath and then exhaling.<br />
<br />
"When the defendant moved to Cornwall, [Model X] would visit the Offender’s home address with her family. The defendant photographed her outdoors. [Model X] remembered there being rocks up the hill from the house where the defendant photographed her naked. She remembers the rocks digging into her back as she lay across them. She can recall be [sic] stretched out in certain poses and feeling vulnerable."</blockquote>
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/4krc5hn6h/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Model X 01" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/4krc5hn6h/Model_X_01.jpg" /></a>As mentioned above in this posting and elsewhere on this blog, the prosecution did not introduce into evidence any photographs showing Model X fully naked with tape over her eyes or lying down on rocks. The authorities had dozens of photographs of Model X, but none of them fit the descriptions of these two alleged events. However, they did have photographs by Mr. Ovenden which plainly demonstrated that Model X’s memories were confabulated – that is, her recollections were based on true events, but contained crucial details that never occurred.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/p8ukxyxsp/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Model X 04" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/p8ukxyxsp/Model_X_04.jpg" /></a>Model X testified that her eyes were taped, that she was totally naked, and that she was blindfolded only when she was alone with Mr. Ovenden. However, photographs in the possession of the authorities, reveal those details as false. Reproduced here are three photographs of Model X posing with another model on the day the “blindfold” photographs were taken. The blindfold is cloth, not tape, and Model X is wearing a white dress, open at the top. (One of the photographs served as the source image for a drawing about blind Justice that Mr. Ovenden made for a patron.*)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/v78e87grd/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Model X 02" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/v78e87grd/Model_X_02.jpg" /></a>And if Mr. Ovenden told Model X a story about a blind girl, it would hardly be sinister: blind and blindfolded figures are not uncommon in the history of art. (See paintings above.) Still other photographs in the possession of the police show Model X seated, never lying, on rocks at Barley Splatt. When one of those images (shown above right) was introduced by the defense, Model X commented under oath that it was “lovely.” The implication that someone stretched Model X out over rocks is pure invention.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/v8ic1mil5/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Model X 03" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/v8ic1mil5/Model_X_03.jpg" /></a>This is not to call Model X a liar. She undoubtedly believed that what she testified to was the truth. (The defense failed to confront her with her statement in States of Grace for reasons unknown to this writer.) But her memories – so graphically in conflict with both her recollections at age 27 and the photographs that Graham Ovenden actually took of her – are clearly false.<br />
<br />
The phenomenon of the confabulation of memory is well known, as attested to in the following précis by Dr. Ian Anderson, a Chartered Psychologist. Although Dr. Anderson did not consult in the Ovenden case, he clearly should have, as his observations would have helped the jury to understand how someone could have one set of memories of certain childhood experiences at age 27 but a drastically different set at age 46:
<br />
<br />
<i>A lay view of memory function might well be characterized as a belief that memories are recorded and stored rather like an archive of video recordings to be retrieved and replayed at will. Research over decades has demonstrated that this is not accurate. The general view that psychologists hold of memory is that memories are stored not as whole narratives, but as fragments. Fragments of memory are reconstituted into narratives at the time of their retrieval. I would note that functions of memory are clearly much more complex than the description I have just given; but I believe my description represents a simple overview that accurately contrasts with the lay version of memory noted above.<br />
<br />
Whatever the mechanisms of memory, most of us believe that our memories are more or less accurate. We also believe that we are better at remembering important events than trivial events. Research has consistently shown, however, that our memories are probably far less accurate than we believe them to be. Our memories are sufficient for most practical purposes as demonstrated by the fact that we can function in our day-to-day lives. But there are occasions when normal people in normal situations ‘remember’ things that have not occurred.<br />
<br />
This ‘remembering’ of events that have not occurred is known in psychology as confabulation. Confabulation is also referred to in more general contexts as ‘False Memory Syndrome’ and sometimes ‘Recovered Memory Syndrome’. Confabulation of memory is one example of our brains/minds filling in the gaps of missing information in order to make sense of the world. Both our visual system and our auditory system also routinely perform this task, and indeed sometimes get it wrong.<br />
<br />
I want to be clear that confabulation is a normal artifact of memory that happens to the healthily functioning brains/minds of most people at some time or another.<br />
<br />
Some people are more prone to confabulation than others…. [T]here is a plethora of publications devoted to this phenomenon. I would draw attention to an article published as recently as 5 August 2010 (Mazzoni et al., 2010). In this study as many as one in five of the 1,600 participants reported clear recollections of incidents that they knew had never taken place. Most of the false memories reported by the now-adults in the study related to events between the ages of four and eight years old.<br />
<br />
If a memory is confabulated a person who experiences that memory has in a sense invented the memory, although that person will not in any way be aware that it is an invention. In other words, confabulated memories are experienced as if they are the truth. Indeed, one of the ways that researchers are able on some occasions to identify clearly confabulated memories is by the certainty with which those who report those memories maintain them in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary.<br />
<br />
Once a memory has been confabulated it is impossible to separate it from a real memory. Therefore, if a person can create a confabulated memory he or she can certainly maintain it consistently even though in a sense the memory is fabricated. Not only can the individual who experiences the memory not distinguish between a real memory and a confabulated memory, but research has also demonstrated that without external reference psychologists are no better at distinguishing confabulated memories from real memories than are others. However, there are some contextual factors and features that properly raise doubts in relation to the veracity of a memory when it is considered.<br />
<br />
The research above also demonstrates that there are specific circumstances that are likely to increase the possibility of the creation of confabulated memories.
“One set of circumstances that has been associated with the creation of confabulated memories is when a person has been the subject of certain types of psychological counselling or other interventions of psychological therapy.<br />
<br />
There are many types of psychological interventions, sometimes known as ‘talking therapies’. It is by no means inevitable that a competently delivered form of psychological therapy will necessarily create confabulated memories. However, in order to comment as to whether a particular therapeutic intervention has the potential to create confabulated memories, it is necessary to consider both the style of therapy and the details of the ways in which the individual therapist delivered that therapy.
“As I imply above in relation to potential for any therapeutic intervention to create a confabulated memory, the devil is in the details.<br />
<br />
For completeness, I will add that the potential for confabulation as a result of therapeutic intervention probably arises for no better reason than the fact that talking therapy typically involves an intense interpersonal relationship between therapist and client focused upon specific problems in the client’s life and sometimes the reasons for those problems. In other words, although therapeutic interventions have a high potential to create confabulated memories, the fact of the matter is that any such conversation, interview, or discussion has this potential, and ‘talking therapy’ is merely a special case of this type of interaction.<br />
<br />
Another set of circumstances that has been associated with the creation of confabulated memories is the investigating process itself, particularly the methods of interviewing used by, for example, the police. Such issues as interviewer expectations, specific types of questions (particularly leading questions), summaries that confirm interviewer expectations and omit or deny contrary information provided by witnesses, etc. are all things that have the potential to pollute memory.<br />
<br />
I am not suggesting by the above that interviewers would necessarily intend to distort accurate recall; in fact, it may be the very intention to elicit accurate recall that sometimes creates the circumstances for confabulation. A lay person considering such interviews would not necessarily be able to point to specific interactions that have the potential to create confabulation: this requires an expert analysis.</i><br />
<br />
In light of the fact that Model X has suffered from depression in adulthood and given the interventions by the police, who swooped down on Model X with a fury to “get” Graham Ovenden, it is clear that Model X’s testimony consisted not of accurate memories, but confabulations. <br />
<br />
One can also sense just how deeply Model X was manipulated by the police. The Attorney General notes that in her victim impact statement, taken in 2013, Model X said that “giving evidence had been the worst experience of her life” and that “she had struggled with vague feeling [sic] throughout her life that she had been taken advantage of; throughout her life she had felt loneliness and isolation and felt very alone in her relationships.” These claims (quoted here from the Attorney General’s brief, not the victim impact statement), were, like Model X’s testimony, embroidered by the police. Applied to real child abuse, they might be believable, but here they are just tropes. <br />
<br />
It’s no wonder that giving evidence was the worst experience of Model X’s life. She had her memory irreparably damaged and then discovered on cross-examination, when she was confronted with the photographic evidence, that something was truly amiss. This is something for which the police should be punished, not something for which Graham Ovenden should be held responsible.<br />
<br />
<br />
*The title of the drawing is “Justice conducts the choir of innocents in her new anthem” and is reproduced <a href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/how-press-lied-about-graham-ovendens.html" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15634435116714830373noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5914132379232520232.post-15248639496916711392013-07-15T21:17:00.000-07:002013-07-18T05:10:49.384-07:00What Her Majesty's Attorney General Doesn't Want You To Know (Part 1)In April of this year, Graham Ovenden was convicted on three counts of “indecency with a child” for taking unspecified photographs of Maud Hewes, who vigorously defended Mr. Ovenden's images of her -- and her experience of being photographed -- well into her twenties. (See, <a href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/trial-fails-to-rewrite-history-of.html" target="_blank">Trial Fails to Rewrite History of Graham Ovenden's Art </a>for complete statements by Ms. Hewes, which are only summarized in this post.)<br />
<br />
In March 1992, at age 18, Maud Hewes told Robert Atkins, then a reporter for the <i>Village Voice</i>, "When I modeled for Graham, I’d make up the poses and he’d shoot them. He never asked me to be sexy and I never tried to." Two months later she filed a sworn affidavit in the United States District Court in New York, stating that her image alleged to be child pornography "is a portrait of me as I was eight years ago. I am not acting in a sexual way in the picture and Graham never asked me to be sexual or treated me as a sexual object. The accusation that the image is 'obscene' is, to me, an accusation that I am 'obscene,' something to which I take offense." (The US government promptly dropped the charge on the day she would have testified in favor of her photo.)<br />
<br />
When Mr. Ovenden was being persecuted by the Metropolitan Police in 1993, Ms. Hewes made the following declaration to police in one of her two sworn statements: "I decline the idea that any of the images of myself are indecent and emphatically state that I was never abused, or photographed/drawn by coercion."<br />
<br />
Her interview together with Emily Ovenden in the documentary "For the Sake of the Children," showed throughout the U.K., confirms her earlier statements. Only in 2009, after the police came knocking yet again, did Mr. Hewes change her mind and decide that she shouldn’t have been photographed. No one pressured Maud Hewes to defend Graham Ovenden in the 1990s. To the contrary, she was under pressure to denounce Mr. Ovenden for 20 years.<br />
<br />
At Mr. Ovenden's trial, police testified that they "lost" Ms. Hewes's two sworn statements to the police in 1993 that would have put the lie to at least three of the charges and undermined two other charges related to another model. Conveniently, the police and Ms. Hewes testified that although they knew she had been supportive of Mr. Ovenden, they didn't remember the specifics of what she said, and thus her statements that are reprinted here from secondary sources were <i>inadmissible</i> as evidence. Judge Cottle ruled that there was no harm and no foul.<br >
<br />
That Graham Ovenden’s conviction on these charges is unjust, unfounded and a product of police mischief is patently obvious. Oh, and that "indecency"? It was merely for taking photographs when Ms. Hewes was naked. There wasn't any other "indecent" act on the record. The judge made that perfectly clear in his instructions to the jury.<br />
<br />
An small (but highly relevant) excerpt from "For the Sake of the Children," which was part of the Channel 4 series Films of Fire, can be downloaded <a href="http://pigtailsinpaint.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Sake.avi" target="_blank">here</a>, courtesy of Pigtails in Paint. The film was made in late 1996 (when Maud Hewes was 22) and shown on British television in 1997.<br />
<br />
(Youtube took the clip down within 24 hours of being posted, probably due to the image of Emily Ovenden and Maud Hewes (nude in profile) or Ms. Hewes alone (from the waist up). Never mind that the the photographs are plainly legal in the United States (no genitalia displayed) and the film showed on broadcast television throughout the U.K. Mrs. Grundy is alive and well and working for Youtube...)<br />
<br />
Graham Ovenden's suspended sentence was set to be reviewed by the Court of Appeal on Friday, July 26, 2013, but the Court of Appeal has now determined that it will reconsider the sentence only when it decides whether to accept the appeal of Mr. Ovenden's conviction. Of course, anything other than a reversal of the conviction will be a failure of justice.
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15634435116714830373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5914132379232520232.post-34039615301170464892013-07-07T10:58:00.001-07:002013-07-07T14:28:07.335-07:00Laurie Lee on Graham Ovenden's Art and Photography<a href="http://postimg.org/image/eu3sk4xzt/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Ovenden A Memory of Morwenstowe" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/eu3sk4xzt/Ovenden_A_Memory_of_Morwenstowe.jpg" /></a><b>Laurie Lee</b> was a novelist and poet who is best known for having written <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0195871/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2" target="_blank"><i>Cider with Rosie</i></a>, one of Britain's most popular books. A film version was produced by the BBC in 1971 and has shown on television on numerous occasions. It was Laurie Lee who gave the Brotherhood of Ruralists (of which Mr. Ovenden is a part) their name. Mr. Lee was an enthusiastic supporter of Graham Ovenden's work from the early 1970s until his death in 1987. Mr. Lee wrote the Forward to Graham Ovenden's eponymous monograph (Academy Editions/St. Martin's Press, 1987). It is reproduced below, along with the text of a brief introduction to an unpublished photographic monograph which was superseded by <i>States of Grace</i>.<br />
<br />
Laurie Lee<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/brgulzn6h/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Ovenden Camille" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/brgulzn6h/Ovenden_Camille.jpg" /></a>Foreword to <i>Graham Ovenden</i> (London: Academy Editions/St. Martin's Press, 1987).<br />
<br />
Graham Ovenden is a natural-born artist of acute originality and grace who has captured regions and perceptions unmistakably his own. Nor are his intense appreciations of the world restricted to a single medium: best known as painter and draughtsman, he is also freely involved in the practice of music, poetry, photography, design and the precise discipline of architecture.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/annjijnrt/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Ovenden Alice, Was It Only A Dream" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/annjijnrt/Ovenden_Alice_Was_It_Only_A_Dream.jpg" /></a>Ovenden was an instinctive and self-directed artist from his beginnings; whilst still a child he was filling sketchbooks with both imaginary and direct drawings from nature. Amazingly, by the age of twelve -- having heard Wanda Landowska on the wireless -- he had built for himself a full scale harpsichord in good order and decorated it lavishly in the Claudian manner. This could, perhaps, be one of the earliest examples of his particular obsession: a love of harmony, yes, and of light and form which he has steadily perfected throughout the years. He is a man who not only reflects a world he wishes to see, but has also created from it keen and personal perspectives. It was some fifteen years ago when I first came to know Graham Ovenden's work, at a one-man show at the Piccadilly Gallery. I had wandered in by chance and was immediately entranced, not only by the brilliance of his landscapes, but also by his audacious explorations into almost forbidden territories -- among them a series of paintings of young girls, some nude or semi-nude, veiled by bands of shadow and light, whose faces, neither blossom-pretty nor waif-like wistful, showed that they were wiser in their brooding provocation and contained sexuality than any of their adult observers.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/qboqpc3dl/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Ovenden Alice ( Jo)" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/qboqpc3dl/Ovenden_Alice_Jo.jpg" /></a>The reproductions in this book show some of these, together with the whole sweep of Ovenden's other skills and affections. We see here the full range of his landscapes, unexpected, unsentimental, but arresting for their luminous passion; studies of trees, the form of their roots and branches surrounded by a radiance of leaves and light. These landscapes belong to no other painter. Most of them are of the far West Country, many of them idyllic, others bearing the mysterious imprint of early man's presence on this land and the former life of the rocks.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/tl35vsrh5/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Ovenden Betty (1986)" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/tl35vsrh5/Ovenden_Betty_1986.jpg" /></a>Ovenden persuades us that these landscapes are also portraits -- there is mood and character in them. But it is the changing flow of light, set against the steadfastness of tree and stone, that seems happily to engage the artist, so that we see expanding cloudscapes, sweeps of water and waves, and often that brightest rural goddess of all -- the fertile and inconstant moon.<br />
<br />
Indeed the occasional presence of the full moon, basking above this rural amplitude, reminds one of the artist's acknowledged indebtedness to the oblique influences of his youth, Samuel Palmer and William Blake, and later, Graham Sutherland and Paul Nash. Even so, he is not an artist overstamped by influences. The world he offers comes from his own original vision, a romantic classicism wrapped in well-tempered truth.<br />
<br />
The collection of works shown here, spans roughly thirty years, beginning with darkly observed photographs Ovenden made in the late 1950s reflecting the damp light of Rotherhithe and the East End, and an age of aproned street-children playing ancient games none of which will ever be seen again. We also have his figures in landscape, his superb portraits and his nudes which, as he says, are also primary portraits. Most nudes in art are little more than cyphers, bloodless clichés of complacent technique, all similar as garden gnomes. Ovenden's nudes are portraits, in that they are acutely observed studies of personality at exact points of time, each subject separate and caught in a moment of fate. They have names and faces, and the faces are often trapped in the suggestive stance of the body, as if not yet belonging to it, or not ready to acknowledge it. For the most part they are studies of young girls, at the time of questing, calculation, uncertainty and power, when the fluent prepubescence of mind and body has not yet been locked into a stiffened maturity.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/5vdq73t3t/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Ovenden Duska as Ophelia (1978)" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/5vdq73t3t/Ovenden_Duska_as_Ophelia_1978.jpg" /></a>This is one of Ovenden's outstanding gifts, the way in which he delineates with such tender perceptiveness the wayward witcheries of some of his younger models. Whether in pencil, paint, charcoal or conté, this lightness of touch and originality of view is visible throughout his work. In his Alice and Lolita prints, for example, a series of slumbers surprises, neither pretty nor shocking but haunting in their sombre assurance -- young visitors of night and dream; while his book illustrations, particularly those for Wuthering Heights, are of dimensions the book only hints at.<br />
<br />
His work in pencil can be as light as gossamer, but often conceals darker shadows beneath. This poetry also has an assured lightness of touch which sometimes hides far deeper implications. Graham Ovenden is a masterly enigma. There is no one like him. He is an artist of penetrative innocence who still rules his own private island. And this book is part of its treasure.<br />
<br />
<br />
Laurie Lee<br />
Introduction to <i>Graham Ovenden Photographs</i> (unpublished)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/f4fwh81zt/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Ovenden Anoushka Harris (2005)" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/f4fwh81zt/Ovenden_Anoushka_Harris_2005.jpg" /></a>Graham Ovenden's photographic portraits and nudes of the girl child are in all probability the finest examples in Western Art.<br />
<br />
I remember autographing a copy of my Two Women for Graham in the mid eighties. I did so as a humble student to his masterful and utterly honest depictions of girlhood. Like his mentor, William Blake, Ovenden stands as a unique and powerful reminder of an authentic vision that has not been sullied by the neurosis and falsehoods of popular culture; nor that of the obsessive and immodest dictates of the law.<br />
<br />
During one of the many discussions we have held together, Graham rightly pointed to the fact that within the foundations of our culture, the Humanism of Ancient Greece remains as a bedrock of sanity and rational behavior.* The total body of self is that of the Gods and what more so when depicting the wholesome beauty of our childhood. I well remember when my own Cider with Rosie was first published how some moralists picked on the natural sensuality of girlhood and tried their utmost to defame this series of essays based on my boyhood experiences. I hardly dare write this, but I now wish I had been more forthright in showing certain members of the public their puerile actions and minds, for they are the true pornographers.<br />
<br />
God bless Graham Ovenden and his enigmatic art, it enriches us all.<br />
<br />
- Laurie Lee, 1988<br />
<br />
*[An example of that sanity might be seen in the words of Protagoras, a Greek philosopher and teacher who lived around the 5th century BCE: "As to gods, I have no means of knowing either that they exist or do not exist. For many are the obstacles that impede knowledge, both the obscurity of the question and the shortness of human life." -BW]<br />
<br />
<br />
(Mr. Ovenden's nudes have not been reproduced here, as blogspot is in the habit of deleting blogs containing images of minors (even non-existent ones) under the guise of banning "child pornography," regardless of what the actual images depict. The importance of this blog lies primarily in the defence of Mr. Ovenden and his work, which is not child pornography and does not advocate or in any way support child abuse.)Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15634435116714830373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5914132379232520232.post-48589006578971841502013-07-06T22:46:00.000-07:002013-07-16T04:36:46.698-07:00The Guardian's Yellow Journalism This post is in response to a piece of hysterical vitriol by Deborah Orr, published yesterday online at <i>The Guardian</i>, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/06/graham-ovenden-child-portraits-lenience" target="_blank">Society's lenience belongs with Graham Ovenden's child portraits - in the past</a>. Artist on Trial attempted to post a comment (leaving out the commentary below regarding Ms. Orr and reporter Steven Morris, and not referencing this blog), but each time the comment was deleted within a few minutes of posting, despite the fact that it in no way violated <i>The Guardian</i>'s "community standards." One would have thought <i>The Guardian</i> was a serious newspaper, but in fact it has proved itself -- through opinion pieces like Orr's and reportage regarding Graham Ovenden over the past six months by Mr. Morris -- no better than the gutter press, passing off prosecutorial posturing and accusations dismissed at trial as "facts" and leaving the actual facts of the case unreported. This is the type of journalism that one can now expect from <i>The Guardian</i>: to be accused is to be guilty, and any defence, whether based on fact or in law, must be silenced.<br />
<br />
The "indecency with a child" charges brought against Graham Ovenden (under the 1960 Indecency with Children Act) was a sinister ruse on the part of the Crown Prosecution Service to turn nude photographs, taken with the permission of the models and their parents, into "molestation" charges. But there was no molestation in connection with the photography. 5 of the 7 charges of which Mr. Ovenden was convicted involve ONLY taking nude photographs, with no touching, no coaching into poses, no undressing the models. And the two models whose images were the basis of those 5 charges strongly defended Mr. Ovenden during that liberal era, the 1990s, when they were in their 20s, stating plainly that they chose their own poses and Mr. Ovenden was only there to witness it.<br />
<br />
When it came to the jury instructions on those 5 charges, the question put to the jury was whether or not they believed "that right minded people" would regard the taking of a photograph of a child while she is nude to be "something that was obviously indecent towards her." These were plainly trumped up charges, as the law requires a second limb, about which the jury was never properly instructed: "That the Defendant did the act intending to derive sexual satisfaction <u>from the knowledge that the child was watching him</u>." (R v Colin Francis 88 Cr App R 127, emphasis added.)<br />
<br />
As any intelligent person will perceive from that latter language, this law was never intended to apply to mere photographing, but to indecent exposure or perhaps some act during photographing involving plain manipulation of the child -- of which there was none alleged amongst the 5 charges, as adduced at trial from the models themselves. It is a non-sequitur to ask whether a defendant who merely takes a photograph of a nude child intended to derive "sexual satisfaction from the knowledge that the child was watching him." Obviously the charges against Mr. Ovenden relating to photographs should have been brought (if at all) under the 1978 Protection of Children Act for "indecent" photos, but the CPS chose this route for two reasons. First, the photographs of one model were created prior to 1978, so the CPS would have been limited to charging Mr. Ovenden with possession of those images unless it could prove that he had printed them post-1978. Second, the CPS chose to proceed under the 1960 Act in order to brand Mr. Ovenden with the modern equivalent of "the scarlet letter" and so that moral entrepreneurs like Deborah Orr could rant hysterically about child abuse and rhetorically spit on Mr. Ovenden by calling him a "paedophile" -- thereby (so Ms. Orr believes) uttering the final word on the matter and condemnation of the artist for all time. In fact, Ms. Orr's call for an end to "leniency" is nothing more than an attack on ideas, a cry of paranoid intolerance that is characteristic of what has become an almost permanent state of panic surrounding child abuse. It has nothing to do at all with the actual protection of children.<br />
<br />
As to the two remaining charges of conviction, Mr. Ovenden maintains that these are false. They involve a single model. One of the charges involves getting into a bath with her (at about age 6) and asking the girl to wash his "John Thomas." The other is cupping her chest from behind while she was clothed (at age 10) and saying "come on, let's have a feel." There are good reasons in the context of the trial to disbelieve these accusations -- reasons that will be elucidated during appeal, and of course discussed on this blog. In the meantime, Mr. Ovenden the artist is very much alive.<br />
<br />
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15634435116714830373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5914132379232520232.post-72978470301268442442013-07-02T16:34:00.000-07:002013-07-03T19:28:21.126-07:00Ovenden Sentence to Be Reviewed, But a Sentence for What?The Attorney General announced today that his office would be reviewing Graham Ovenden's sentence, which some have complained is "unduly lenient." As previously discussed here, "leniency" is not in itself a reason to revise a sentence. Rather, as the CPS guidelines regarding sentence review state, a sentence may be revised upward only if "it falls outside the range of sentences that the judge could reasonably have considered appropriate."<br />
<br />
Those who complain about leniency do so either out of sheer ignorance as to the counts for which Mr. Ovenden was convicted or as a matter of political advocacy that has the unfortunate effect of moving the U.K. ever-closer to the vindictive mentality that prevails in the United States with regard to sex offenses - a vindictiveness that is, one should not hasten to note, not embraced by any other member of the European Community.<br />
<br />
Previous discussions of the counts of conviction on this blog were somewhat in error and will be corrected shortly. They were nothing, however, like the errors committed by the mainstream press, which has consistently claimed that Mr. Ovenden dressed up his models and undressed, then molested them while he painted or photographed them. These were lies advanced by the prosecution, but they did not prevail at trial.<br />
<br />
Five of the seven counts were in relation to Graham Ovenden photographing two models, Maud Hewes (Counts 10, 11 and 12) and the model who will be referred to as Model X (Counts 1 and 2). Model X is the one who was photographed with a blindfold on for drawings that Mr. Ovenden was preparing. (The photograph is reproduced as Ref05 <a href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/how-press-lied-about-graham-ovendens.html" target="_blank">here</a>.) She is also the model whose written statement was reproduced in the introduction to <i>States of Grace </i>(reproduced <a href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/graham-ovendens-states-of-grace-and.html" target="_blank">here</a>)<br />
<br />
What happened during these photography sessions? According to the evidence, and the judge's instructions, NOTHING HAPPENED other than the taking of photos. There was no molestation, no allegations of touching, no manipulation of the models into particular poses, no inappropriate comments.<br />
<br />
<b>The Photography Counts</b><br />
<br />
<i>Count One (Indecency with a child, section 1(1) Indecency with Children Act 1960 ("1960 Act"))</i><br />
<br />
<u>Judge Cottle's instructions</u>: "Count 1 relates to a particular occasion [Model X] recalls when Defendant stuck tape over her eyes and photographed her naked. To convict Defendant of the allegation in this count, you will have to be sure that such an event occurred and secondly, that the act of taking a nude photograph of her in those circumstances was an act that right minded people would regard as an obviously indecent act towards her. Defendant says that he never stuck tape over her eyes, although he may on one occasion have blindfolded her and taken a photograph of her clothed and blindfolded in the process of pursuing an artistic project. ... Therefore you have a question of fact to decide. If you are not sure that the event described by [Model X] occurred you will find D not guilty. If you are sure it did occur, are you sure that Defendant committed an act towards [Model X] that right minded people would regard as obviously indecent. If you are sure of that you will find Defendant guilty."<br />
<br />
<u>Verdict</u>: Guilty (unanimous).<br />
<br />
<u>Supporting evidence</u>: The model's testimony regarding a photographic session that allegedly occurred between 22 August 1972 and 21 August 1973 was the sole evidence on the count. There were no photographs evidencing this alleged act. As to the photograph of Model X with a blindfold (and in which she is not naked) , the judge instructed the jury that: "You will recall that when being cross examined a photograph was produced and shown to [Model X]. This is not a photograph upon which this count is based; this photograph is not a photograph of the event that [Model X] was describing."<br />
<br />
<i>Count Two (Indecency with a child, 1960 Act)</i><br />
<br />
<u>Judge Cottle's instructions</u>: "In relation to Count 2 there is no dispute that Defendant took a photo of [Model X]as a young child lying on her back across the rocks, naked. Defendant says that this was not indecent. The question that you must ask is whether or not you are sure that right minded people would regard the taking of a photograph in those circumstances as something that was obviously indecent towards her. If you are sure of that you will find Defendant guilty; if you are not sure you will find him not guilty."<br />
<br />
<u>Verdict</u>: Guilty (by majority, 10-2).<br />
<br />
<u>Supporting evidence</u>: As with Count 1, this conduct was alleged to have taken place between 22 August 1972 and 21 August 1973. There were no photographs introduced that supported the theory that the model was photographed lying on the rocks. In fact, Model X was photographed sitting, not lying, on the rocks. Two of those images (one published in <i>States of Grace</i>), neither of which showed her genitalia, were submitted to her during trial and she described one of them as "lovely." <br />
<br />
<i>Counts Ten, Eleven and Twelve (Indecency with a child, 1960 Act)</i><br />
<br />
<u>Judge Cottle's instructions</u>: "There is no dispute that over a number of years when [Maud Hewes] was aged between 8 and 14, Defendant took photographs of [her]; they included naked photographs and her genitalia were exposed. You have been provided with two examples of such photographs.; [Hewes] says that she was between 8 and ten when these particular photographs were taken. Count 10 relates to the period when [Hewes] was aged between 6 and 8, Count 11 to the period between the ages of 9 and 11 and Count 12 to the period between the ages of 11 and 14; to convict Defendant of the offence alleged you have to be sure that on at least one occasion during the period particularised Defendant committed the offence. The issue on each one of these three counts is the same as in relation to Counts 1 and 2, namely, are you sure that taking a photograph of a young child naked with her genitalia exposed was an act that right minded people would consider to be obviously indecent towards the child. If you are sure it was you will find Defendant guilty, if you are not sure it was you will find him not guilty."<br />
<br />
<u>Verdict</u>: Guity on all 3 counts (unanimous)<br />
<br />
<u>Supporting evidence</u>: The two photographs exhibited by the prosecution show Ms. Hewes sitting with her legs open. These photographs were printed by the police from Mr. Ovenden's negatives, and in such a manner as to emphasize the genitalia. Mr. Ovenden himself never printed those images. The jury did not view the image of Ms. Hewes that became famous after it was determined not to be child pornography under U.S. law. (It is reproduced <a href="http://novelactivist.com/12944/graham-ovenden-2-the-persecution-of-the-models/2/" target="_blank">here</a>.) In the late 2000s, while the the police were busy visiting Mr. Ovenden's former models and pressuring them to testify, and while the CPS was trying to decide what charges to bring against Mr. Ovenden, that image of Ms. Hewes toured Europe as part of a show mounted by the Musée de l’Elysée in Lausanne. It was also published in the European edition of <i>Controverses: Une histoire juridique et éthique de la photographie</i> (2008).<br />
<br />
In cross-examination, Ms. Hewes agreed that she consented to the taking of the photographs and was not ashamed by them. She agreed that she was supportive of Mr. Ovenden and his work for many years, including into the 1990s. She agreed she made statements supportive of Mr. Ovenden to the police in 1993 and in a television documentary in 1997, but she could not remember specifics. The defence did not introduce these statements into evidence. (The police claim they lost the file containing her statement from 1993 and the copy of that statement reproduced on this blog was not then available to the defence.)<br />
<br />
<b>The Alleged Molestation Counts</b><br />
<br />
As previously recounted on this blog, JB alleged two incidents of "molestation." I use that in quotation marks because they are incidents that are wholly invented and arose not because she only realised many years later what had happened to her, but because Mr. Ovenden was locked in a battle with his soon-to-be-ex-wife and his son, Edmund Ovenden. JB is married to Edmund's best friend. She is the web master for Mrs. Ovenden's website.<br />
<br />
<i>Count Seven (Indecency with a child, 1960 Act)</i><br />
<br />
<u>The Alleged Crime</u>: indecency with a child between 29 October 1980 and 28 October 1981, when JB was six years of age. The count alleged that the Defendant climbed naked into a bath she was occupying with another girl and that he was aroused and invited them to wash his "John Thomas."<br />
<br />
<u>Verdict</u>: Guilty (10-2, by majority)<br />
<br />
<i>Count Nine (Indecent assault, section 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956)</i><br />
<br />
<u>The Alleged Crime</u>: indecent assualt between 29 October 1984 and 15 September 1985, when Mr. Ovenden was alleged to have approached her from behind and cupped his hands over her breasts (although she claimed she was clothed at the time) and said "come on let's have a feel."<br />
<br />
<u>Verdict</u>: Guilty (10-2, by majority)<br />
<br />
<u>Supporting evidence</u>:<br />
Although the count stated that she was six years of age, JB testified that she was actually unsure when the bath incident was supposed to have taken place. Also, she testified that she didn't realise until some years later that Mr. Ovenden was erect when he got into the bath. Even if one assumes that JB believes the incident to have occurred, this manner of "recollection" has all the hallmarks of a confabulation, which will be covered in a separate post. The British Psychological Society has also stated that recollections to alleged events below the age of 7 should not be the basis for criminal charges unless there is corroborating evidence. The fact that JB's mother testified that JB told about the bath incident (but not the breast-grabbing incident) when JB was around 15 or 16 is not corroboration that the bath incident did in fact occur.* Indeed, JB and her mother told different stories about the bath incident. The only point of certainty regarding the second incident is that within several months to a year following it, JB voluntarily posed fully nude for Graham Ovenden. We know that because the image, taken in 1986, was published in <i>States of Grace.</i> No allegations were brought that Mr. Ovenden committed indecency by taking photographs of her.<br />
<br />
*(It was previously mentioned here that JB's mother testified that JB told her about both incidents, but the draft of Prosecutor Ramsay Quaife's opening argument clarified that point: "[JB] did not make any complaint at the time [of the incident]. However, [JB] says that she did tell her mother, [ ], about the bath incident when she was about 15 or 16 years old and you will hear from her mother than she recalls her daughter saying something about it to her." Thus, JB didn't claim to have told her mother about the breast-grabbing incident or the tasting game -- both indecent assaults, had they actually occurred -- and JB's mother didn't testify that her daughter mentioned them. Presumably that would have been entirely too much for the jury to swallow.<br />
<br />
<b>The Dismissed Charges</b><br />
<br />
The allegations made by JB and another model, LD, that Mr. Ovenden tricked them into performing fellatio (via the "tasting game") were rejected by the jury. There were a handful of other charges, including child cruelty and indecent assault, but when the alleged victims were called to testify, they denied the prosecution's claims and Judge Cottle was compelled to dismiss those charges. There were six different indictments in the case, the final one being brought in mid-trial, when Judge Cottle suggested that the indecent assault charges denied by Ms. Hewes should be converted to "indecency with a child" based on the mere fact of photography. Finally, there were allegations made by a fifth alleged victim, Donna Berry. She made all kinds of <a href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/we-regard-this-as-true-and-honest.html" target="_blank">wild claims</a>, but not even the CPS believed them and so they never went to trial.<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion</b><br />
<br />
The charges of conviction that Judge Cottle was faced with at sentencing are the charges of conviction fully described above. Although there is much to criticise in Judge Cottle's behavior both at trial and during sentencing, the sentence he handed down was well within the appropriate range, taking into consideration the nature of the charges, sentencing levels at the time the incidents are alleged to have occurred, Mr. Ovenden's age, and the fact that he hasn't photographed any children in over two decades. Judge Cottle was correct not to consider the agenda-driven hysteria of the so-called victim advocates and the paranoid rantings of neo-Nazis like David Icke, Chris Spivey and their followers. One wonders whether the same can be said of the Attorney General.<br />
<br />
<br />
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15634435116714830373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5914132379232520232.post-18726090712717884452013-06-24T09:25:00.000-07:002013-06-24T18:32:52.788-07:00The Art of Graham Ovenden: Anatomies of Innocence, Part 3<a href="http://postimg.org/image/tvtdivf2x/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Graham Ovenden Lise (oil)" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/tvtdivf2x/Graham_Ovenden_Lise_oil.jpg" /></a><i>Anatomies of Innocence (Part 3 - Final)</i>.<br />
by <b>Jerrold Northrop Moore</b>.<br />
<br />
Copyright © 2009 by Graham Ovenden. Reprinted with permission.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/xyar73di1/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="10 Graham Ovenden Tree near Combe (1977)" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/xyar73di1/10_Graham_Ovenden_Tree_near_Combe_1977.jpg" /></a>From 1975 the Ruralists had shared their holidays. They took two or three Landmark Trust cottages in the remote hamlet of Coombe, fifty miles north of the Ovendens' extending house, and close to the Cornish coast at Morwenstow. This new place showed Ovenden a new luminosity. The softer brightness of sea air extended his painted lights again. A watercolour, <i>Tree near Coombe</i> (1977) evokes a rain-washed tree stem rooted amid rocks whose wetness reduces them (with a few middle-ground bushes and distant hills) to soft near-planes of colour.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/jt4y5a4gp/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="11 Graham Ovenden Morwenstowe After the Storm" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/jt4y5a4gp/11_Graham_Ovenden_Morwenstowe_After_the_Storm.jpg" /></a>He also began making camera studies of sea and land at Sharpnose point off Morwenstow. Most of his photographs there show the sea at flat calm: that affords greatest contrast with the headland's rocky profile. Flat calm water also offers a maximum reflection of light.<br />
<br />
This formula was soon enriching Ovenden's oil paintings. A rough sea, like a thick impasto of paint, would break up and disperse the light which it is always Ovenden's goal to preserve. His only pure seascape without any land shows its flat calm water with shapes, confined to the clouds above. (Painted for a 1984 exhibition devoted to Elgar, it is called <i>The Enigma</i>.)<br />
<br />
Painting land directly at the flat sea's edge, he often faced a strand equally flat. That would need something further to make a picture. And here came an unusual case of Ovenden's landscapes touched by his reading. In 1982-83 he found himself enthralled by Walter de la Mare's <i>The Connoisseur and other Stories</i>. One story was called “All Hallows” after a lonely cathedral rising beside a western sea. Its landward side is guarded by nearly impenetrable hills, through which a solitary walker makes his way in late afternoon. Descending, he enters to find the vast interior haunted by a single verger. In the gathering darkness the verger shows him secret places in the fane - where ruinous masonry seems to be under repair by forces not at all divine.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/i999hqrrt/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Ovenden All Hallows ( The Sea Cathedral) (1983)" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/i999hqrrt/Ovenden_All_Hallows_The_Sea_Cathedral_1983.jpg" /></a>Ovenden painted a large <i>All Hallows (The Sea Cathedral)</i>. Sharp angles define deadwhite surfaces with slits for windows - all deeply shadowed in blue back-light from the western sea and sky. The building's hardness elicits by its contrast some softness in the surrounding horizontal planes of nearly treeless ground at the coast. So it shows man's monstrosity imposed on nature.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/ucel5b2u1/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Ovenden A Sea Tower (1985)" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/ucel5b2u1/Ovenden_A_Sea_Tower_1985.jpg" /></a>A series of seaside monoliths followed. For a London show the Ruralists were to paint Biblical subjects, Ovenden chose <i>The Tower of Babel</i>: on a canvas four feet by six and a half, a blank windowless shaft rises on a green but barren coast (1984-85). A <i>Sea Tower</i> on a purple strand (1985) sharpens the building's intrusive profile to a brutal point (left). A second <i>Tower of Babel</i> (1986) halves the canvas dimensions of the first, but doubles its tower bulk in a shaft of stark blue and stark white. The monstrous point finds faint enlarging echo in clouds above it – hinting perhaps that the artist feels himself amid mirrors.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/prseqdj4p/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Ovenden Residence of the Philosopher Kempe" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/prseqdj4p/Ovenden_Residence_of_the_Philosopher_Kempe.jpg" /></a>A better answer had already suggested itself in another de Ia Mare story from the same book. In 1984 Ovenden had painted <i>The Residence of the Philosopher Kempe</i>. Kempe has spent his hermit's life seeking to prove the existence of the soul. He is sought out, in his all-but-inaccessible tower behind high coastal hills, by another solitary traveller through the evening. Ovenden's painting shows Kempe's tower house not on the sea strand but amid hills above. It is thus set between the earth and sky, day and night – almost lost amid darkening hills whose far sides hold last sunset rays from an ocean sky. The painting technique is as broad as in the seaside monoliths. But now that the land has regained hegemony, dark shadowy blues and greens hold touches of red below the pale sky.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/w85yu7h21/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Ovenden The Druid's Grove (1983)" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/w85yu7h21/Ovenden_The_Druid_s_Grove_1983.jpg" /></a>And thus the colours of light, near the centre of Ovenden's art almost from its beginning, are re-enthroned. It is the true way for this painter to integrate the sea into his landscape, because it is the true counterpoint: nature's erections, more than man's, illuminated by the flat calm sea.
These years had also seen Ovenden's development of a land-theme which rooted back to his student expeditions about Dartmoor: more than one tree stem sharing a common crown. In <i>The Communion of Trees</i> (1980) two tree stems lean towards each other – a virtually supernatural sight. He would return to it again and again. In <i>The Druid's Grove</i> (1983) several trees support a single pyramid of foliage (left). The co-operative stems grow again from a single area of colour.<br />
<br />
Was there, in all this merging, a subconscious attempt to reconcile and repair the integrity of the Ruralist group? It had partly fragmented in 1981, when Peter Blake's wife Jann Haworth had suddenly left him. Blake was so devastated that, on the edge of a nervous breakdown, he felt himself forced to return to his own roots in London. Now David lnshaw wanted to follow Blake. It left the Ovendens and Arnolds to fly the Ruralist flag.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/fvrbqqdcp/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Ovenden Dartmoor, Evening (1983)" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/fvrbqqdcp/Ovenden_Dartmoor_Evening_1983.jpg" /></a>The next years saw Ovenden's rich colours explored through later and later lights. <i>Dartmoor, Evening</i> (1983) travels back again over his old painting grounds to explore last panoplies in a rich red field held between foreground and middle-ground. It emerges grandly from surrounding areas of mauve, orange-browns, and greens ranging from light to dark: all but the red field seemingly back-lit from the pale sky.<br />
<br />
And so to an exploration of darkness and moonlight. A nocturne of 1982, <i>Sentinels of Silbury</i>, showed its moonlight behind clouds. The next year brought a direct confrontation in <i>Full Moon</i>, superbly luminous below a canopy of trees. Finely painted though it is, several distant fields and the top of the foreground tree canopy remain too highly coloured for nature in the fullest moonlight.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/cg3sux5i1/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Ovenden The Orchard Moon (1995)" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/cg3sux5i1/Ovenden_The_Orchard_Moon_1995.jpg" /></a>A dozen years later, the problem was memorably solved - by applying the formula seen in many of Ovenden daylight pictures. <i>Orchard Moon</i> – now recognised as an iconic image of Ruralist painting – keeps its distances in softest blues, gradually increasing colour intensities and contrasts as we come forwards. Foreground colours may still exceed what the eye would see in actual moonlight. But the formula is true, and therefore powerful.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/uzi38kp3t/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Ovenden Red Moon (2000)" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/uzi38kp3t/Ovenden_Red_Moon_2000.jpg" /></a>Ovenden's moonlight reached farther, to touch the surreal. A small <i>Red Moon</i> (1999) shines supernaturally just above seaside hills. This moon's harvest red illuminates a distant solitary tree in gold which also touches another hill top farther off. Here is no hint of Pop art (which this picture could so easily have projected) but the lights of earth momentarily transcending diurnal experience.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/atel9otg9/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Ovenden Gloaming Towards the Cornish Coast" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/atel9otg9/Ovenden_Gloaming_Towards_the_Cornish_Coast.jpg" /></a>The Philosopher Kempe landscape led Ovenden to another superb series, painted over many years, of distant sea lights illuminating coastal headlands. <i>Gloaming towards the Cornish Coast</i> (2000) recomposes his late evening, Morwenstow photograph of 1997 with colours of astonishing subtlety. It was dubbed by one too-casual observer 'The Black Picture'- until Ovenden pointed out that there is not a stroke of black anywhere. Close examination reveals minutely variegated glazes of shadowy blues, deep greens fringed with light as the eye moves back and back to pursue the light's source. It comes from a low sun hidden behind the nearest hill, yet still enriching the visible sea as it bathes a distant headland opposite and the sky in glazes of ivory, lemon yellow and faintest orange, pink and purple.<br />
<br />
Soon after of <i>The Red Moon</i> and <i>Gloaming towards the Cornish Coast</i> were finished, the writer was lucky enough to witness the kindling moment of another vision. In April 2001 the Ovenden's visited me at Broadway, on the edge of the Cotswolds. Late one afternoon our car emerged on a short stretch of road crossing a high hill. To our right, between trees, opened a vast prospect westwards over the Vale of Evesham. Yet our attention was taken by a colour of sky I had never seen (and have not seen since): an unbroken sheet of grey cloud turned pink by a sinking sun behind – whose lower edge just emerged in dull gold.<br />
<br />
We stopped to look, and I said to Graham: “There is an Ovenden vision if ever I saw one. What a pity we haven't a camera with us.” He answered: “Let's just look at it for a couple of minutes.” After perhaps ninety or a hundred seconds he said: “That's all right. We can go on. I have it here,” pointing to his forehead.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/6yb774aah/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Ovenden Evening Fall, Broadway (2002)" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/6yb774aah/Ovenden_Evening_Fall_Broadway_2002.jpg" /></a>I saw none of the painting's progress. The finished picture appeared in a Ruralist exhibition that September as <i>The Evening Fall</i>. The foreground trees and distant hills are of Cornwall. But the grey-pink sky with its lower edge of sun are exactly as we saw them above Broadway. The artist's memory had held that unique colour – to recreate it perfectly for us to enjoy again and again - and to share with those who never saw the sight in nature.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/5kjkbtb15/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Ovenden Receding Rain, Bodmin Moor (2003)" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/5kjkbtb15/Ovenden_Receding_Rain_Bodmin_Moor_2003.jpg" /></a>Later years have brought excursions less physical than spiritual. One is seen in broad strokes of rain against rain-soaked moorland and sky in <i>Receding Rain: Bodmin Moor</i> (2002), refining a small oil study of forty years earlier. Another lies in plenary developments of deliberately limited colours. <i>Barley Splatt Pond, Early Morning</i> (2006) reveals a breathtaking range of blues through morning mist backing crisp trees of gold (actually orange-yellow-green) in image and reflection (below).<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/o1dz2mqzd/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Ovenden Barlysplatt Pond, Early Morning (2006)" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/o1dz2mqzd/Ovenden_Barlysplatt_Pond_Early_Morning_2006.jpg" /></a></div>
* * *</div>
<br />
It is not for an observer to sum up a career still evolving. Final thoughts are best left to the artist himself. In a recently recorded conversation he speaks of the kinship of vision to technique:<br />
<blockquote>
I'm an old-fashioned craftsman, and I believe that the doing is all-important: doing as well as it's humanly possible to do it. In a beautiful piece of cabinet-making this is an immense pleasure. When you reach the levels of Rembrandt and Michelangelo, there you meet a very very potent alchemy of technical virtuosity with human communication.<br />
<br />
It's no coincidence that the great works of the world are also consummate works of technical virtuosity. If we were able to listen to Mozart playing his own music, or Chopin playing his, I'm certain we would feel the same thing.<br />
<br />
Music of all the arts has the greatest perspective. I'm talking not only about Claudean visual perspectives in landscape, but spiritual perspectives. People sometimes talk about playing music to death: but I think you play it to life.</blockquote>
So Graham Ovenden has played and continues to play on his perceptions and experiences, and his memories of them, to create the visions which infuse his landscape painting.<br />
<br />
(<i>End</i>.)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/xbuojwr2x/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Green Fuse" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/xbuojwr2x/Green_Fuse.jpg" /></a>Jerrold Northrop Moore is the author of <i>Green Fuse: The Pastoral Vision in English Art,1820-2000</i> (Antique Collectors' Club Ltd, 2006). The book analyzes the lineage of English pastoral art from Samuel Palmer to the Brotherhood of Ruralists.<br />
<br />
Available at <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Green-Fuse-Pastoral-1820-2000/dp/1851495320/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1372090601&sr=8-1&keywords=moore+green+fuse" target="_blank">Amazon.co.uk</a> and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Green-Fuse-Pastoral-1820-2000/dp/1851495320/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1372090594&sr=8-1&keywords=moore+green+fuse" target="_blank">Amazon.com</a>, among other places.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15634435116714830373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5914132379232520232.post-54386805280053541812013-06-21T15:04:00.001-07:002013-06-24T09:07:38.949-07:00The Art of Graham Ovenden: Anatomies of Innocence, Part 2<a href="http://postimg.org/image/teerghna1/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Graham Ovenden Mabel" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/teerghna1/Graham_Ovenden_Mabel.jpg" /></a><i>Anatomies of Innocence (Part 2)</i>.<br />
by <b>Jerrold Northrop Moor</b>e.<br />
<br />
Copyright © 2009 by Graham Ovenden. Reprinted with permission.<br />
<br />
Graham Ovenden’s formal education began at an old fashioned Dame School in Alresford, followed by large schools in Southampton. There was no art instruction until his parents accepted his destiny as an artist and allowed him to enter Southampton College of Art at seventeen in 1960. His most valued teacher there was the head of print making, James Sellars (1927-2000). Sellars was also a considerable painter in tempera, pastel and gouache. His teaching bore directly on the landscape side of things. Ovenden recalls:<br />
<blockquote>
Like all artists of true substance, James Sellars held to his inner visions. His intellect was well honed both in writing and in teaching, yet there was no dry formality. The richly and intensely observed “portraits” of his Test Valley temperas are as seen and felt as any in English landscape. (Below right.)</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/jtzq7cnbt/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="James Sellars (landscape)" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/jtzq7cnbt/James_Sellars_landscape.jpg" /></a>
He always did his own work with us, so you became part and parcel. Quite stern: that was something I thrived on, because I was always a hard worker. But he would also listen to criticism - for I didn't stand shoulder to shoulder with him in certain areas like Matisse, which he deeply loved.</blockquote>
One Sellars enthusiasm struck deep in the young Ovenden: the art of <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Samuel_Palmer" target="_blank">Samuel Palmer</a>. (Years later Ovenden was able to return the favour by securing a commission for Sellars to write the first full-length biography of Palmer to appear in modern times.)<br />
<br />
Ovenden's first surviving oil paintings reach back to his time with Sellars at the Southampton College of Art. Their subjects already occupy the ground his landscapes have held ever since: hills and valleys, trees and fields, skies and horizons entirely lonely. From the first (and in marked contrast to much Sellars's work), Ovenden's places are glowingly coloured - as if they would relight the golden glow of gas-lighting in the first house at Alresford.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/mdvd1gavt/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="06 Graham Ovenden (untitled landscape)" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/mdvd1gavt/06_Graham_Ovenden_untitled_landscape.jpg" /></a>Two small oils from around 1960 hold reflections of Sellars's bicycle expeditions with his pupils westwards into Dorset and the moorlands of the Purbeck peninsula about Swanage.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/5c2izcw0p/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="05 Graham Ovenden (untitled landscape)" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/5c2izcw0p/05_Graham_Ovenden_untitled_landscape.jpg" /></a>Both are hotly coloured, to catch the brilliant sunlight near the coast: yellows concentrate towards orange, thence moving into reds and light purples. The estuary picture shows a presence hardly ever to reappear in Ovenden's mature landscapes - the sails of a tourist boat. Both pictures follow the broad brush work of Sellars's art. But the mound in the estuary picture reaches towards the “stumpwork embroidery” textures of the early Samuel Palmer.<br />
<br />
Several tiny landscape studies in oil, around 1962, extend experiments in finer brushwork. One uses colours in very soft focus to shadow forth larger forms. Others contrast Sellars's long brush-strokes through foreground grasses with middle-ground trees and bushes rendered in Palmerish dappling; while Ovenden’s softest focus is kept for distant hills, horizons and skies. <i>A Landscape with Moon</i> of 1963 (the year before he left Southampton College) moves more deliberately towards Palmer's contrasted areas of worked textures.<br />
<br />
Ovenden spent 1964-65 as an enforced gap year while waiting for a scholarship to the Royal College of Art in London. He supported himself by employment with a builder's merchant. The head of a section there was a man of some sophistication, who introduced his wife and daughter Lorraine. The 10-year old <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGi0WRLTmBvdA-ZJrD5vnP-H0gdFG4tyhzgyupzxwfa-cjvB9__-gHbyHOXHPjADLEZnzxKj65dXBbsCRD7dlwFHe18UCyeoyrA2rN67eoG7-Vr6gPvggt7669i6Jz41EOlDpt3Iox5lyT/s1600/graham_ovenden.jpg" target="_blank">Lorraine</a>, with her parents' consent in that less guilty era, became Ovenden’s model for a new series of formal nude camera studies.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/vmxjbkjrt/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="07 Graham Ovenden (untitled landscape)" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/vmxjbkjrt/07_Graham_Ovenden_untitled_landscape.jpg" /></a>Such photographs, as well as his pencil drawings of girls, celebrated discoveries in smooth tones and textures. To bring them to his landscapes, in the same year Ovenden began a series of monochrome studies of Dorset moorlands in pen, conte and wash. Looking at these drawings one could, if so inclined, read a mons veneris breaking one horizon, a penis head dominating the hills of another. The mature artist retains no memory of any deliberate sexual presentations in these drawings: but the artist who drew them was twenty-one.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/shcxld15l/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="08 Graham Ovenden (untitled landscape)" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/shcxld15l/08_Graham_Ovenden_untitled_landscape.jpg" /></a>To expand his landscape for vision, Ovenden turned westwards to Dartmoor. Putting his bicycle in the train to Plymouth, he headed out of the city to stay with his mother's aunt and uncle in their large house on the southern edge of the moor. Its reaches of secret valley and distant tor opened new chances to extend his landscape towards the female figure - this time in maturity. Graham's visits to Dartmoor, for a month or six weeks each summer, were to continue until the end of his time at the Royal College of Art in 1968. Several tor-studies around 1964 - 65 take his brushwork back in rougher directions- beyond Palmer's 'stumpwork' to the threshold of Van Gogh.
Aggressive brush work was much in fashion. But it could nullify a quality which Ovenden was coming to value above all others: luminosity, in the reflection of light through colours.<br />
<blockquote>
I discovered that if you use impasto - thick, three-dimensional application of oil paints - to any great extent, then when light falls on the picture, it is broken up by falling on the various angles of the impasto surface.
That reduces colour values. The impasto painters then try to remedy the loss of colour by increasing crudity.</blockquote>
Ovenden wanted unimpeded colour through unimpeded light. It is the luminosity which meets the eye when looking at the sky - the source of light. Here his teacher was <a href="http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/artists/joseph-mallord-william-turner" target="_blank">Turner</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
Turner's impasto in his oils was never hugely thick, and so his oils achieve luminosity. His oil painting really comes from watercolour techniques: probably subconsciously, his watercolour techniques guided his oil painting.
Ovenden's first written paper at the Royal College of Art was on Turner's watercolours.</blockquote>
He sought the same luminosity in his paintings and drawings of figures: “To draw a girl child, you have to be able to draw almost like <a href="http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/h/holbein/hans_y/2drawing/index.html" target="_blank">Holbein</a>.” The goal of such drawing had been defined by the young Samuel Palmer in a sequence of contrasts noted in his sketchbook:<br />
<blockquote>
1st, the firm enamel of a beautiful young face, with<br />
<br />
2nd, going down from the forehead smooth and unbroken over the shoulders, Hair, wondrous sleek, and silkily melting...into<br />
<br />
3rd, a background of the crisp mosaic of various leaved young trees thinnishly inlaid on the smooth sky.
Everything in this sequence springs from the bright skin of youth.</blockquote>
Palmer's note met Ovenden's eye only later. Yet it encapsulates something his art had recognised from at least the time when the boy had begun to photograph East End children. “Light and luminosity,” he observes today, “are the symbols of our spirituality.” Spirituality has always about it the hint of innocence. Allowing any insistent technique to overtake light stands for Ovenden as an ultimate perversion - equivalent to harnessing innocence to the demands of mature sexuality.<br />
<br />
The entire ensemble of Ovenden's mature techniques is directed to the service of light and luminosity. He applies his oil colours straight from the tube. For the past thirty years and more, his whole “palette”' has consisted of five tubes of permanent colours: cadmium red, cadmium lemon, titanium white, viridian, cobalt blue (with occasional use of cyrillian blue). Having laid in his design in watercolours, the best translucence and reflective power lies in applying each mixed hue as a thin glaze. That is allowed to dry thoroughly before he applies any further hue (also thinly) over the first.<br />
<br />
Some of this understanding was already his when the twenty-two-year-old Ovenden entered the Royal College of Art in 1965.There he found opposite counsels prevailing. He had no wish to trowel thicknesses of premixed colours in the fashion demanded by nearly all the College teachers then. Several of them were quite ready to use Ovenden's paintings of girls to bolster their discomfort with his unconventional techniques - and their disapproval of his insistence on subject matter before aggressive technique. Standing against the prevailing winds turned Ovenden into a fighter when necessary. It sharpened self-reliance and self-knowledge side by side.<br />
<br />
The outstanding exception to nay-saying among the Royal College teaching staff was Peter Blake (b.1932). Blake's own painting was influenced by Pop art: that gave prominence to subject matter in his work unusual among the College teachers. Beyond this, Blake's soft deep voice and his quiet presence exuded strength and gentle judgment. Soon he began to play a vital part in helping Ovenden to hold onto what he had already achieved – in the face of most persistent cross-questionings aimed at denigrating his ideals.<br />
<br />
Blake was certainly interested in the girls of Ovenden's subject matter. But it was Ovenden's landscape painting that began to turn teacher-pupil formality almost inside out - as Blake looked over Ovenden’s shoulder saying: “I have to keep coming and looking at the way you paint landscapes.”<br />
<br />
Altogether, Ovenden remembers, Peter Blake gave him the courage not to be afraid of being precise. It was less any specific technical training than a reassurance that subject matter remains at the centre of visual expression. The human presence - whether shown in landscape or rendered only in the high finish of the artist's work - is a traditional English formula. Blake's interest throughout Ovenden's three years at the Royal College served as a constant reminder of the tradition.<br />
<br />
Less than a year out of the Royal College, in March 1969, Ovenden married the artist Ann Gilmore. Soon they started a family. By 1973 they judged that he had gained sufficient presence with the London dealers to be able to move to the country. “I'd wanted to get back to the country ever since I'd stepped out of it,” he recalls: “I need to be surrounded by nature.” The choice fell on Cornwall, at the edge of Bodmin Moor. It extended the inspiration of Dartmoor.<br />
<br />
In the upper reaches of a small valley with its own stream, Ovenden set about building his dream house. Much as he valued the chances his parents had given him, there were to be no more cramped quarters. The new house would be a mansion – the only major Gothic Revival house raised in England since the Second World War. Much of “<a href="http://www.countrylifeimages.co.uk/Search.aspx?s=barley%20splatt" target="_blank">Barley Splat</a>t” (the traditional name of the property) was built over the next decade from Ovenden's plans – a lot of it with his own hands.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/i0wtj1255/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Sophie and Jenny Dyke (1974)" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/i0wtj1255/Sophie_and_Jenny_Dyke_1974.jpg" /></a>Within a year of the move to Cornwall, he began to paint pictures of a kind new in his art. A double portrait of their friend Jenny Dyke and her six-year-old daughter Sophie is dated 1974. Smooth skin framed with long hair is matched by a long-lined Cornish landscape behind them – all worked in clear luminosities. Two or three solid blocks of colour about them nod towards Cubism. Ovenden observes now:<br />
<blockquote>
If you look at my figure painting, you'll notice there's a lot of structure - verticals, horizontals and that type of geometry goes in. As often as not, the figures will stand into the geometry. The geometry is also there in the landscape, but more subtly.</blockquote>
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/701oe09w9/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Graham Ovenden The Old Garden (1976 78)" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/701oe09w9/Graham_Ovenden_The_Old_Garden_1976_78.jpg" /></a>These hints of abstraction opened ways between Ovenden's figures and his landscapes. Yet no mere formula could challenge his subject matter. Cubism recedes into a dark hedge (end-stopped by a gatepost) in the most famous of his early ensembles of girls in rich landscapes. <i>The Old Garden</i> (1974, 1976-1978) juxtaposes its excluding hedge-front with wild moorland grasses (across a shadowy stream (right). About the stream two girls raise their own contrasts of expression, dress and undress, fingering their melodies as finely as any Lewis Carroll photograph. (Alice in Wonderland has proved a theme of lifelong fascination for Ovenden.)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/qfcg7436h/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Graham Ovenden Peter & Juliette Blake (1976 8)" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/qfcg7436h/Graham_Ovenden_Peter_Juliette_Blake_1976_8.jpg" /></a>The most celebrated Ovenden portrait-in-landscape was shown at the Royal Academy in 1976. Behind that exhibition lay a remarkable story. The subjects in his double portrait are Peter Blake and his daughter Juliette. Blake had moved with his wife, the sculptor Jann Haworth, and their young family to Wiltshire. There he had been welcomed with exhibitions in Bath and Bristol. For a mixed show of “Peter Blake's Choice,” he sought out other artists in the area including David lnshaw, Graham and Ann Arnold. Those three shared the wish to paint country subjects with fine techniques, and they often used thin glazes. It was so contrary to prevailing fashions that lnshaw and the Arnolds had formed a tiny “Brotherhood.” Blake's mind instantly went to Graham and Annie Ovenden in Cornwall. In March 1975 they all met at Blake’s house, and that day formed “The Brotherhood of Ruralists” (a word chosen by their friend, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurie_Lee" target="_blank">Laurie Lee</a>).<br />
<br />
Peter Blake, recently made a Royal Academician, was to hang the Academy Summer Exhibition for 1976. He half-promised the “Ruralists” a wall of their own work, if each would paint a picture to show his feelings for the group. Graham Ovenden so valued this extension of his own ideals that he made his Academy picture a double portrait of Blake and his daughter – in their Wiltshire garden before an old brick wall overgrown with plants and weeds and flowers.<br />
<br />
In all of Ovenden's portraits-in-landscape, both elements are rendered with equal richness. Yet the balance could not be kept. His landscapes were more and more made from diverse impressions, remembered and reshaped toward new syntheses. The girls in his art, by contrast, remained mostly prepubescent or on the cusp. So their ideal, in the nature of things, steadily opened a distance from the artist's accumulating years and experience.
Thus pressure mounted for Ovenden to separate his figure-paintings from his landscapes. Since the later 1970s he has painted only the very occasional girl in an elaborated landscape. The majority of his paintings are firmly one or the other.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/xt10xk1zt/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="09 Graham Ovenden The Burning Bush" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/xt10xk1zt/09_Graham_Ovenden_The_Burning_Bush.jpg" /></a>Still human anatomy lent its lines and volumes to Ovenden landscapes. In <i>The Burning Bush</i> (a small intense oil-with-chalk of 1975), one of the main roots extends an astonishing likeness of human leg or even full-length figure towards the rich stalks of a Samuel Palmerish harvest.<br />
<br />
Palmer had been especially forward in using paper itself as a base of luminosity in his watercolours. Paper provides Ovenden with an equally effective luminosity through the thin glazes of his oils. <i>The Burning Bush</i> shows secret lights everywhere. They appear in the upper corner of blue sky and fleecy cloud merging to softest horizon. Increasing definition leads the eye downwards and forwards to a climax in the brilliant yellow of the bush.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/6yrqkl82h/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Graham Ovenden The Obelisk (1979)" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/6yrqkl82h/Graham_Ovenden_The_Obelisk_1979.jpg" /></a>Sometimes an Ovenden landscape half fills with a single colour (thus far reminiscent of the solid colour blocks in some of his portraits). Such an area appears in <i>The Obelisk</i> (1979, the first of several paintings inspired by an obelisk on Bodmin Moor). Here richest yellow spreads up, in soft buttock-like shapes, through nearly two-thirds of the picture. The yellow is so powerful that it calls out purples in the middle ground to mediate back to the greens of trees and blues of farthest hills and sky. Atop the last horizon the needle-like obelisk rises as if to mark a point for new definition.<br />
<br />
(End of Part 2.)Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15634435116714830373noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5914132379232520232.post-41850517927362314542013-06-19T19:17:00.000-07:002013-06-21T15:20:20.109-07:00The Art of Graham Ovenden: Anatomies of Innocence, Part 1<a href="http://postimg.org/image/dyu3f8t95/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Graham Ovenden Lollie whistles for the wind" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/dyu3f8t95/Graham_Ovenden_Lollie_whistles_for_the_wind.jpg" /></a><i>Anatomies of Innocence (Part 1).</i><br />
by <b>Jerrold Northrop Moore</b>.<br />
<br />
Copyright © 2009 by Graham Ovenden. Reprinted with permission.<br />
<br />
Graham Ovenden's memories reach back more than sixty years now; and he celebrates memory as a creative resource. He recently observed to me: “Once a memory is engaged by the imagination, you can make it concrete and very vivid. Time-scale is not something which has a great deal of relevance to it.”<br />
<br />
His first home was on the edge of the little Hampshire town of Alresford – “still one of the most beautiful English county towns,” he reckons. The house itself was a two-down, two-up end of terrace cottage, already too small for the growing family. Graham had arrived as a second child in 1943, after an elder sister. The small spaces inside the cottage encouraged outdoor adventure from the earliest:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"If you went down to the bottom of Dene Road, where we lived, it comes to a dead end at the shallows of the little River Alre. I can remember as a child being most intrigued by the beautiful clarity of the water flowing through that chalk country: every morning with the water weeds – very very beautiful forms continually ebbing and flowing. There's a physical freshness about it.<br />
<br />
"Now I am an insomniac and suffer from headaches. When I look into those crystal clear streams, I return to a state where my head wasn't like that – when one was unfettered, unburdened, and could simply accept.<br />
<br />
"I still do, indeed, every day I look out the window. There is much that is joyous, much that is ravishing. But the mature obverse of that is a certain degree of anguish.<br />
<br />
"The little river flowing past the bottom of our road branched round in a large arc. It was, and still is, basically as it had been for centuries. If you walk along the bank to the right, you come to a fulling-mill, a black-and-white structure built across the water. Then it was almost derelict: that's terribly romantic."</blockquote>
Romantic because it invites visions of what might have been.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"If you walk to the left - the adventurous rout – you eventually reach Fob Down, and then right the way round past watercress beds to the Eel House: another building crossing the river on brick arches. Here they trapped eels in season (and still do).<br />
<br />
"So the commerce of the country was brought home to me very very early. A child of that age doesn't understand the aesthetics. One accepts things for what they are – their beauty. At Alresford I was the child in grace, totally."</blockquote>
He explored these places first in the company of a grandfather who had been a country baker. Soon Graham went alone:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"They always talk about the 1960s and 1970s as the opening of freedoms, particularly sexual freedoms. But I can tell you that the freedoms one had as a child just after the Second World War have had no equal since. No traffic on the roads: if you went anywhere, you cycled. And I was a great cyclist from the age of six onwards. So one got around and probably saw far more than the average child does today. All they see is from a television screen."</blockquote>
His early settings were not all pastoral. Opposite the Ovendens' cottage was the gasworks, busy but unguarded. Graham recalls:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"You could just wander in - even to where they were stoking the retorts. There was no internal lighting, only the great hell-fire glowing red retorts. To see them, and even to help pull the clinker out with the rakers, was excitement indeed to a young man of six.<br />
<br />
"I look back on it and see the beginnings of my fascination with vivid reds and oranges."</blockquote>
Later he would use these hot colours to climax his visionary landscapes.<br />
<br />
The Ovendens’ cottage was itself lit by gas. It gave a warm, golden light – less searching than electric bulbs, more conducive to shadow – contrasts of every subtlety. Graham was in the last generation to know from his beginnings this special interior light.<br />
<br />
Inside the cottage his mother, an accomplished pianist, taught music through keyboard skills to each of her children in turn. “It was,” Graham remembers, “a necessary part of one's childhood.” He enjoys it still through his own playing of Bach and Beethoven, Schubert and Schumann. But when at seven he was given a set of oil paints in little round drums, he found his own expression.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I can remember the joy of being able to manipulate a body-colour, and to do things which you couldn't do in any other medium. Oil paint was a special revelation.<br />
<br />
"I remember being told to go to bed about nine o'clock in the evening, having sat there the whole afternoon and the whole evening painting away in a state of real excitement. I was painting landscapes – the slightly romantic things that children will do."</blockquote>
In 1951, when he was eight, the family moved to the northern edge of Southampton. The new home was larger, and lit by electricity. Here the boy encountered a new emotion – some loss of his own past. “I've missed Alresford, certain aspects of it, all my life.”<br />
<br />
The Southampton house lay along another unpaved road leading to industrial remains. It was an abandoned brickworks with pottery kilns. This site was vast, yet here too the children explored at will – from underground tunnels to slides down forty-foot cliffs remaining from the clay extractions.<br />
<br />
Graham's father, an engineer who had worked for Barnes Wallis during the War, was in need of new employment to support his growing family. Taking Graham down to the Docks, they met an unforgettable sight: the last of the great four-stack transatlantic liners, the Cunard-White Star Aquatania, in her final call on the way to the breakers' yard. Here was another aspect of the past – previously unknown to Graham, yet like the country of Alresford slipping helplessly astern.<br />
<br />
“At the age of eight, nine, ten, this is where me begins to come to terms with art.” The first of these terms was a dawning understanding that art was more than simple transcripts of experience. It began when his father brought home a book rescued as war-salvage from a bombed-out rectory. German Romantic Artists contained black-and-white reproductions, among which Graham picked out the pictures of Caspar David Friedrich. Handling the book now, he sees first hints of his own hill and moorland visions:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Friedrich is the great master of painting mountain landscapes. I'm quite amazed that I can look at them and be inspired and awed in the way that I am when I look into Palmer's 'Valley of Vision.' (It's a different vision, but he has a personal identification with that sort of terrain.)<br />
<br />
"Friedrich still has an identification with that time in my life: the great mystery – the great seeing beyond the horizon – the edge of the sea. All of Friedrich's finest paintings have that very poetic quality."</blockquote>
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/qhjvnb509/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="01 Graham Ovenden (1954, age 11)" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/qhjvnb509/01_Graham_Ovenden_1954_age_11.jpg" /></a>In 1954, when he was eleven, Graham painted a fully-fledged landscape – and sold it. (It is reproduced here at left, lent back for the purpose by the son of the original purchaser).<br />
<br />
The eleven-year-old's picture shows fully for the first time an influence that was to dominate his painting for the next half dozen years, and that is with him still - the art of Claude Lorraine. Here is Claude's formula of foreground trees, with a space opening between them.<br />
<br />
In this very early work, the distant goal is perhaps less hidden than unresolved. Nonetheless, the young artist's pathway stands open, and his painting technique is fully up to rendering the multifarious tree forms, their lights and shadows.<br />
<br />
The mature artist reflects:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Claude is one of the most seminal figures in landscape painting. His paintings are profoundly wonderful experiences. There is the image of the Golden Age, the Garden of Eden, held and made concrete - almost as if one's most ecstatic dreams were caught and held.<br />
<br />
"From childhood I was aware that painting had this quality about it. Though Friedrich was closer to my own physical ideals of painting, Claude had the more potent influence on me. He taught me that painting is not just about picture-making – that there are other levels lying within the painting which you could express.<br />
<br />
"I think that's a point of departure for any artist. Roger Fry and the whole of his philosophy doesn't really do that. It stops at the marks you make on the canvas – rather than the marks becoming an entrance, a gate opening into the great paradise..."</blockquote>
With pocket money from delivering newspapers on his cycle, he found his way into second-hand shops with stacks of old gramophone records. He was so electrified with Bach performances by the great harpsichordist Wanda Landowska, that at twelve, in 1955, he built from scratch his own harpsichord. Its lid and case he decorated with ideal landscapes painted with some accomplishment in the manner of Claude Lorraine.<br />
<br />
He began to ask where Claude Lorrain's inspiration had come from, and who had preceded him. Looking back, Ovenden observes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"There are certain precedents to Claude. One of them is Leonardo. Leonardo paints the most amazing landscape - an artist whose sense of eye and understanding of structure in nature was second to none."</blockquote>
He cites <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Leonardo_Da_Vinci_-_Annunciazione.jpeg" target="_blank">The Annunciation</a>, thought to be mostly an early work by Leonardo: “both figures and landscape painted with great delicacy, precision and refinement.”<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Though it's a very formal landscape, I feel one of the most breathtaking passages in the whole of Western art. It's a profoundly moving, mysterious landscape, where the veil of atmosphere lies.<br />
<br />
"I love the formalisation of it. It's the sort of thing you get in Flemish painting - where the Garden of Eden has been organised, if you like. One feels very safe in those paintings. (In the art and the world we live in now, there's so much static going on: so much news – bad news usually). Safety in that sense is a very difficult quality to achieve."</blockquote>
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/70z60s9w9/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="02 Graham Ovenden ( Untitled) (1955, age 12)" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/70z60s9w9/02_Graham_Ovenden_Untitled_1955_age_12.jpg" /></a>If art meant more than transcribing nature, it also meant more than copying the work of predecessors. The year of the painted harpsichord, 1955, saw Ovenden beginning to glimpse a goal for himself. A smaller square painting of 1955 (left) shows new unity and strength. It comes through more assured brushwork, leading away from tight classical formulas through bolder contrasts of light and shadow for the first time to a new dynamic composition which he still identifies as his own.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/x6qf3bqc9/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="03 Graham Ovenden (untitled photo, age 12)" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/x6qf3bqc9/03_Graham_Ovenden_untitled_photo_age_12.jpg" /></a><a href="http://postimg.org/image/vdnif055l/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="04 Graham Ovenden (untitled photo, age 12)" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/vdnif055l/04_Graham_Ovenden_untitled_photo_age_12.jpg" /></a></div>
A quicker means of fixing his impressions had come with a Kodak Brownie camera given him when he was nine. At twelve he took his first photographs known to survive, developed and printed at home. In one composition an old harrow stands half buried in weeds: the huge spoked wheel makes a foreground focus for thick summer air over fields back to their horizon of hedgerow trees. It is, the mature Ovenden reflects, “probably an example of my enduring fascination with nature encroaching on man's works.” Nature taking back her own – a healing process.
Another photograph of this time gives the vegetable world a strong hint of the animal. His close-up study of a huge ancient tree-bole is trimmed at the edges to enforce its resemblance to a gigantic torso: raised on squat bandy legs, with huge arms pollarded by the print-edge, it powerfully suggests a great ape rejoicing in its strength.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/xu33y2rdl/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Graham Ovenden Childhood Streets p23" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/xu33y2rdl/Graham_Ovenden_Childhood_Streets_p23.jpg" /></a><a href="http://postimg.org/image/gfivpsu8p/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Graham Ovenden Childhood Streets p15" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/gfivpsu8p/Graham_Ovenden_Childhood_Streets_p15.jpg" /></a>Around this time the budding artist was taken to visit a cousin in the East End of London. Here terraces of ruined dwellings and warehouses still showed the War's bomb damage. Yet against those wrecks of the past came lively girls playing - from toddlers to adolescents like himself, with knowledge beyond their years:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"They seemed to be the logical foil for those vast and monumental works of man in the East End.I couldn't have been less interested in the great buildings of the West End. It was the back streets, the perspectives of long-terraced houses intermingled with factories and strange derelict back yards. The child fleetingly passes in front of it all: the melodic line against the great architectural structure of the music."</blockquote>
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/923hqua6x/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Graham Ovenden Childhood Streets p32" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/923hqua6x/Graham_Ovenden_Childhood_Streets_p32.jpg" /></a><a href="http://postimg.org/image/kshf882zd/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Graham Ovenden Childhood Streets p43" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/kshf882zd/Graham_Ovenden_Childhood_Streets_p43.jpg" /></a>The fourteen-year-old in 1956 felt an irresistible wish to take his camera there. He was earning enough from his newspaper rounds to find the return fare (and to pay a friend to do the weekend rounds):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I used to catch the early train on a Saturday. I would sleep rough over Saturday night – factory vents are valuable places to sleep because of the warm air coming out – and come back by the last train Sunday. I went at all seasons – probably twenty to twenty-five weekends a year."</blockquote>
(The photographing weekends were to go on for eight years – until his admission to the Royal College of Art made living in London obligatory and “negated the mystery of visiting it.”)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/eg29ydzx5/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Graham Ovenden Childhood Streets p47" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/eg29ydzx5/Graham_Ovenden_Childhood_Streets_p47.jpg" /></a><a href="http://postimg.org/image/c00gkjhuh/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Graham Ovenden Childhood Streets p57" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/c00gkjhuh/Graham_Ovenden_Childhood_Streets_p57.jpg" /></a>The mystery may have had its roots at home in his own childhood. When Graham was six, his next younger sister Lesley had died of pneumonia. Asked whether his fleeting impressions of her could have touched off his interest in photographing little girls, the mature Ovenden answers:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"It's not something I have ever sat down and analysed. As a very young child, one doesn't understand the nature of death: children appear, and then they go away. But I think, with the sense of loss as one grows away from the state of innocence and 'grace', it could well be. It could well be."</blockquote>
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/iezhh7ok9/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Graham Ovenden Childhood Streets p59" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/iezhh7ok9/Graham_Ovenden_Childhood_Streets_p59.jpg" /></a>Lesley had not followed him and the younger Ovendens as they moved through childhood and towards maturity. The half-ruined East End neighbourhoods where the little girls still played sharpened the edge of innocence.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I think probably from the earliest age I was partly aware of ghosts. I don't mean ghosts in the sense of gothic horror-haunt: but the fact that life was a passing, fleeting moment."<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/pwdaa63h5/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Graham Ovenden Childhood Streets p62" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/pwdaa63h5/Graham_Ovenden_Childhood_Streets_p62.jpg" /></a>"Every landscape and every environment in which I find myself is haunted in that sense. I am aware of the presence of past individuals – not specifically, but as a whole. When I'm in a landscape, one is aware not only of the physical perspective, but the perspective of the time. And also the timelessness."</blockquote>
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/4nzlsqp09/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Graham Ovenden Childhood Streets p65" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/4nzlsqp09/Graham_Ovenden_Childhood_Streets_p65.jpg" /></a>As he became expert at anticipating momentary compositions of the East End girls in constant animation, the adolescent photographer found himself more and more attracted to the smaller figures. They were the girls farthest from his own age: so they might revive in his camera an innocence already appealing to the adolescent artist as belonging to his own past.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Nobody ever said to me 'You're too young to be doing this.' There was none of this stupid political nonsense that goes on now - that behind every dark shadow is a paedophile. It’s one the great corruptions of the last two hundred years."</blockquote>
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/4ci5fz8k9/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Graham Ovenden Childhood Streets p75" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/4ci5fz8k9/Graham_Ovenden_Childhood_Streets_p75.jpg" /></a><a href="http://postimg.org/image/vodehbdax/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Graham Ovenden Childhood Streets p90" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/vodehbdax/Graham_Ovenden_Childhood_Streets_p90.jpg" /></a>The mature Ovenden identifies the real guilt “not in him who takes the fig-leaf off to reveal nature's truth, but in him who puts the fig-leaf on to conceal it.”<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"This passion for girls in their season of spring begins very very early. I think I can understand the sort of imagery Dickens had of women – the angel child."</blockquote>
Soon his photography of the East End girls led him back to his first medium:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I suddenly realised it was possible to expand the instant of time to something other. By the age of fourteen or fifteen I started seriously drawing them.<br />
<br />
"I had to work hard at drawing the human figure. I still had no formal instruction. I simply sat down and worked away at it, throwing acres of paper away in the process. It's the way I've done everything: if there was a problem to be solved, there was only one person to solve it.<br />
<br />
"As an artist, one becomes quite excited when one is sufficiently accomplished actually to be able to put down one's thoughts and responses in pencil and paint. So the photography and painting were growing side by side."</blockquote>
Laying side by side the two themes in his art – landscape and the figure – the young man began to explore their interconnections within himself. The mature Ovenden reflects:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"One's art is bound to change formally as one gets older: but in essences, no. Not one iota changed since the days of tiddler-fishing in the shallows of the Alre.<br />
<br />
"One of the reasons I draw and paint little girls is that I love long hair and its rhythms. The parallel to that is looking into those wonderful trout streams which you get in chalk country. The water is clear as a bell: looking at the weeds in it, one sees the continual ebbing and flowing rhythms. And as I say that, immediately the child running down the road with its hair flowing behind it comes to mind."</blockquote>
So the fascination of other childhoods deepened the landscape of his own life's beginning at Alresford. The innocence of earliest consciousness, lost in gathering experience, could be recaptured through memory and imagination. In their expression, past and present – innocence and experience – might rejoin each other as two halves of the apple. Why reconstitute the apple? To see life whole from its beginning.<br />
<br />
Ovenden's upbringing included regular church attendance (twice on Sundays), with frequent chances to ring the bells. But his art from earliest times was and is about earthly life. In his Garden, life touches full maturity only when remembered innocence finds its place within growing experience. It is not the “fortunate fall” of Milton's Paradise Lost – nor any unfortunate fall either. There is no fall in Ovenden's art, because there is no guilt. It is a diptych where either panel matures understanding of the other.<br />
<br />
Here is an English understanding older than Milton. Graham Ovenden's art revives in secular terms an apposition seen in the contrasting panels of the fourteenth-century <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Wilton_diptych.jpg" target="_blank">Wilton Diptych</a>. Innocence is there on the right, taking form in the Virgin Mother and Holy Child surrounded by angels and attendants (one of whom holds a standard bearing the Banner Cross of St. George). The Child looks and gestures left – towards his mature form as Christ, opposite.<br />
<br />
On the left panel the mature Christ presents - to the image of his own innocence opposite – the kneeling figure of the King of England in the person of Richard II. The King is supported by the English royal saints: Edward the ring-giver to St John the Baptist in front, Edmund the martyr behind.<br />
<br />
So innocence and experience face and explicate each other. It is the achievement of Graham Ovenden's art to have renewed this old ideal for our time.<br />
<br />
(End of part 1.)<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15634435116714830373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5914132379232520232.post-27681302963750469712013-06-17T20:13:00.001-07:002013-06-17T20:14:53.739-07:00The Art of Graham Ovenden and Statements of Support<a href="http://postimg.org/image/mtc3nf7kp/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Graham Ovenden The Communion of the Trees (oil" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/mtc3nf7kp/Graham_Ovenden_The_Communion_of_the_Trees_oil.jpg" /></a>Through his trial and sentencing, Graham Ovenden has continued to enjoy the support of many friends who, knowing him well over the years, quite rightly disbelieve the charges and dispute that Mr. Ovenden's work is "indecent," except perhaps under an outmoded and arbitrary standard that is held -- in bad faith -- as objective and so-called 'right-minded.' Indeed, any determination of "indecency" of images of nude minors will necessarily be driven by the rhetoric of moral panic and the tabloid mentality so prevalent today. The latter are phenomena that carry their own serious harms. This topic will be taken up in detail in a future post.<br />
<br />
The next several posts, however, will be devoted to Graham Ovenden, the artist. Some ill-informed people have set out to convince the world that Graham Ovenden is not an artist whose work should be taken seriously. The art itself, of course, tells a very different story: this is not only work that should be taken seriously, but it will endure.<br />
<br />
<i>Statements of Support</i>.<br />
<br />
Robin Hanbury-Tenison, British explorer, who was interviewed by the <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2304791/How-art-establishment-helped-paedophile-painter-Graham-Ovenden-away-20-years.html" target="_blank">Daily Mail</a> on 05 April 2013:<br />
<blockquote>
Among [Graham Ovenden's] his staunchest defenders are the art-loving explorer and author Robin Hanbury-Tenison, 76, and his wife Louella, a former High Sheriff of Cornwall. Indeed, an Ovenden portrait of one of their sons — fully clothed — hangs in the sitting room of their manor house.<br />
<br />
‘I simply do not believe Graham is capable of the allegations made against him,’ declares Mrs Hanbury-Tenison. ‘They are not credible in my view.’<br />
<br />
Her husband adds: ‘These accounts are coming from women who are now in their 40s. One wonders why it has taken so long. I find it outrageous that there is shock-horror at him having painted little girls naked in the Sixties and Seventies. For this to be compared with the gross activities of people like Jimmy Savile or the appalling pornography on the internet — it just defies belief.<br />
<br />
‘The blindfolding of a child [for art] — yes, I can see what he was trying to do in representing innocence and justice.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/76kua1tsp/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Graham Ovenden The Secret Garden" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/76kua1tsp/Graham_Ovenden_The_Secret_Garden.jpg" /></a>‘But it is the last gasp of puritanism to be concentrating on somehow making that innocence of childhood into something vulgar.’<br />
<br />
As for Ovenden’s pictures of children, the great explorer says that the European art world is ‘laughing at Britain over its obsession with this matter’, adding: ‘As Oscar Wilde said, there is “no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodical fits of morality”.</blockquote>
The day before sentencing, Mr. Hanbury-Tenison solicited the support to David Hockney and received a short reply:<br />
<br />
03 June 2013<br />
<br />
Dear David,<br />
<br />
Many, many years ago you came to breakfast here at my farm on Bodmin Moor with my great friend from university, Anthony Page, who I still see from time to time.<br />
<br />
A close neighbour and also a very good friend is Graham Ovenden. I'm sure you know about the trouble he has been having, pursued disgracefully by ignorant police, who cannot tell the difference between art and pornography. If you haven't seen it already, do look at the very impressive true story of what has been going on here: http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.co.uk.<br />
<br />
Graham is being sentenced in Plymouth tomorrow and we fear the worst, because the whole case has been a disgrace, and the judge appears very biased. His case is already going to Appeal and when that happens I believe that not only will Graham be completely exonerated, but the whole art world will rally round and point out the utter stupidity of regarding childhood nudity as something to be ashamed of. It is the age of the fig leaf all over again!<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/x4ogg2za1/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Graham Ovenden Shropshire Ancient Chestnuts 01" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/x4ogg2za1/Graham_Ovenden_Shropshire_Ancient_Chestnuts_01.jpg" /></a>I do hope you agree and support him.<br />
<br />
With best wishes,<br />
Robin<br />
<br />
Robin Hanbury-Tenison<br />
Cabilla Manor<br />
Bodmin<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
* * *</div>
<br />
05 June 2013<br />
<br />
Dear Robin Hanbury-Tenison,<br />
<br />
Your message for David Hockney was forwarded to him.<br />
<br />
His reply is as follows:<br />
<br />
I agree<br />
David Hockney<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
* * *</div>
<br />
David Hockney also stood by Graham Ovenden in 1994, when the Metropolitan Police were unjustly pursuing Mr. Ovenden the first time. (The letter is hand-written.)<br />
<br />
April 6, 1994<br />
<br />
Dear Graham:<br />
<br />
Thank you for your letter. The story I read in the Sunday Telegraph last January first made me furious and than after a little thought just intensely sad.<br />
<br />
Twenty-five years ago I was stopped at London Airport and told some magazines I had were pornographic. I persisted with my arguments with them and only got them back after many officials had said they were pornographic, - each one paid more than the previous one to make better decisions - nor did until it got to the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the head of Customs) who realised I would win the case and gave them back to me.<br />
<br />
Sadly I'm told nothing has changed, -- they could still do the same thing at London Airport. - So much for my ranting and raving all those years, -- people don't complain enough in England, and there's more censorship in England than there is in Spain. To me real English people should feel ashamed of this, -- but they don't seem to care.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/ykzyy826x/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Graham Ovenden Samantha" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/ykzyy826x/Graham_Ovenden_Samantha.jpg" /></a>I know how awkward the philistine police can be, we seem to live in an age of cultivated ugliness, the idea that naked children are not sexy or beautiful is to me obnoxious and sick, and unfortunately people are very naive about pictures, they now seem to confuse them with reality.<br />
<br />
I suspect that the police that are dealing with you are really rather sick, with obsessive minds concentrating on lust not beauty which they will have an inability to see.
It will never be a perfect world. I know about human frailty, but artists must point out the beauty., and there will always be small petty minds with myopic vision.<br />
<br />
Don't get too disheartened and keep on painting what you like, and like what you paint (Ruskin).
Let me know if I can help other than shouting philistine at official England.<br />
<br />
Much love,<br />
<br />
David H.<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15634435116714830373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5914132379232520232.post-49978684949088551932013-06-12T18:57:00.002-07:002013-06-12T20:01:32.913-07:00A correction, and a note about Graham Ovenden's "lenient" sentenceThis blog previously misreported that one of the two "indecency" charges for which Graham Ovenden was convicted consisted of JB (sometime prior to age 6) washing his "John Thomas." In fact, whether she did (assuming it happened at all) was never established. As Judge Cottle pointed out at sentencing, the "crime" was in the asking. Judge Cottle went on to state that "asking a girl to touch him while they were in a bath together – could today be treated as inciting a child to engage in a sexual act, carrying a maximum jail sentence of 14 years."<a href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-correction-and-note-about-graham.html#endnote1" name="reference1"><sup><small>1</small></sup></a><br />
<br />
Judge Cottle intended this disingenuous little lie to express the extent of his contempt for the defendant, but it was soon turned against the judge himself by victim "advocates" and conspiracy theorists. If the offence would earn 14 years, they cried, why a suspended sentence?<br />
<br />
First, Judge Cottle was well aware that the 14-year sentencing maximum is only effective for offences committed on or after 14th May 2007. Second, that maximum would only apply where the sexual activity alleged is penetrative:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Section 10: Causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity</b><br />
<br />
The elements of the offence are:<br />
<ul>
<li>(A) aged 18 or over intentionally causes or incites another person (B) to engage in an activity</li>
<li>the activity is sexual, and</li>
<li>either (B) is under 16 and (A) does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or</li>
<li>(B) is under 13.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The offences in sections 9 and 10 are indictable only with a maximum sentence of 14 years <i>where penetration occurs</i> within subsection (2) of those sections<a href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-correction-and-note-about-graham.html#endnote2" name="reference2"></a>. [Emphasis added.]</blockquote>
Third, the 14-year maximum could only be reached in the event of aggravating factors, none of which were even alleged in Mr. Ovenden's case. (The factors include whether the offender ejaculated or caused victim to ejaculate; whether there was a history of intimidation or coercion; whether the offence involved use of drugs, alcohol or other substance to facilitate the offence; whether the offender made threats to prevent victim reporting the incident; abduction or detention; and whether the offender was suffering from a sexually transmitted infection and was aware of it.)<a href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-correction-and-note-about-graham.html#endnote3" name="reference3"><sup><small>3</small></sup></a><br />
<br />
Finally, retroactive application of sentencing guidelines is prohibited by paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the U.K. is a signatory:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. <i>Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.</i><a href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-correction-and-note-about-graham.html#endnote4" name="reference4"><sup><small>4</small></sup></a> [Emphasis added.]</blockquote>
At the time the criminal offence in Mr. Ovenden's case was allegedly committed, the governing law was the Indecency with Children Act 1960, which carried a maximum term of two years for imprisonment on an indictment. (A summary offence earned a maximum term of up to 6 months or a fine of up to £400 or both.)<a href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-correction-and-note-about-graham.html#endnote5" name="reference5"><sup><small>5</small></sup></a><br />
<br />
Under these circumstances -- including the law in force at the time, the nature and gravity of the offence, the character of the defendant and the likelihood of re-offending -- it is obvious that no custodial sentence is mandated in this case.<br />
<br />
So what is the talk about the Attorney General reviewing the sentence? Just talk. According to the CPS guidelines regarding sentence review,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The Attorney General has a power to refer to the Court of Appeal any sentence which appears to be so lenient that it damages public confidence <i>because it falls outside the range of sentences that the judge could reasonably have considered appropriate.</i> ... The Court does not engage in "tinkering" with sentences, merely because they are marginally lower than might be expected, having regard to the sentencing guidelines or case law.<a href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-correction-and-note-about-graham.html#endnote6" name="reference6"><sup><small>6</small></sup></a> [Emphasis added.]</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<b>Endnotes</b><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5914132379232520232#reference1" name="endnote1"><sup><small>1</small></sup></a>Morris, Steven, "Graham Ovenden walks free after judged no longer a sexual threat." The Guardian, 4 June 2013. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/04/graham-ovenden-judged-no-threat<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5914132379232520232#reference2" name="endnote2"><sup><small>2</small></sup></a>Rape & Sexual Offences, Section 2, Chapter 10: Causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/soa_2003_and_soa_1956/index.html#a23<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5914132379232520232#reference3" name="endnote3"><sup><small>3</small></sup></a>CPS Sentencing Manual, S8. Causing or Inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity (discussing aggravating factors). http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s8_causing_or_inciting_a_child_under_13_to_engage_in_sexual_activity/<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5914132379232520232#reference4" name="endnote4"><sup><small>4</small></sup></a>Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_7_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5914132379232520232#reference5" name="endnote5"><sup><small>5</small></sup></a>Indecency with Children Act 1960, Timeline, Indecent Conduct Towards Child, paragraph 1. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/8-9/33/section/1/1991-02-01?timeline=true<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5914132379232520232#reference6" name="endnote6"><sup><small>6</small></sup></a>CPS Sentencing Manual, Referral of Unduly Lenient Sentences. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_-_general_principles/#a20<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15634435116714830373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5914132379232520232.post-85633723121087182412013-06-09T17:38:00.005-07:002013-06-09T18:17:13.852-07:00Dangerous Beauties: the figure painting of Graham Ovenden<a href="http://postimg.org/image/ukb9uor2x/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Graham Ovenden, Ophelia (1979 81)" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/ukb9uor2x/Graham_Ovenden_Ophelia_1979_81.jpg" /></a>by <b>Joanne Harris</b><br />
© Joanne Harris 2007<br />
<br />
<br />
No-one who has encountered the serene and luminous landscapes of Graham Ovenden, with their extraordinary quality of light, can doubt this artist’s mastery in aspects of colour, texture and form. Pure colours applied in brush-strokes so small as to appear almost airbrushed onto the canvas bring to life extravagant trees, mysterious obelisks, wild, apocalyptic skies. But it is with his figure painting – which consist almost exclusively of young girls – that Graham Ovenden truly astonishes, presenting us with a series of unique and challenging portraits that manage at the same time to awe, to intrigue and in some cases, even to shock with their depiction of the pre-adolescent girl in her truest, most touching and sometimes, her most troubling aspects. <br />
<br />
As <i>Ophelia</i> (1979/81), she has a peculiarly adolescent look that is half-tragic, half-defiant. I suspect this is what my daughter would call “emo;” reflecting as it does a kind of operatic angst that teenagers manage to do so well. Her head is flung back imperiously as she wades through a river of spring-green, and there is a reddish smear across her mouth, like an unaccustomed trace of lipstick, borrowed for the role and later forgotten. The effect is rather touching; for, as in all adolescents, behind the dramatic pose and the air of defiant assurance, there is a tremendous vulnerability, a need to express individuality as well as the conflicting need to blend in – as indeed, this figure blends quite literally into her background, half-emerging from the greenery like Alice through the looking-glass. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/ugcv0ow7t/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Graham Ovenden, Alice" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/ugcv0ow7t/Graham_Ovenden_Alice.jpg" /></a>Aspects of Alice, the ultimate child-heroine, are one of this artist’s perennial subjects. This is not surprising; all of his dream-children have a looking-glass quality; a duality that sets them apart from the everyday world. His own <i>Alice</i> (1969/70) manages to combine a sweetly infantile chubbiness with a smile of tremendous – and possibly sinister – mischief-making potential. <br />
<br />
Indeed, there is a keen, but often overlooked sense of humour in many of Ovenden’s paintings. His “little maids” are playful, sometimes brooding, sullen, even downright troublesome; not yet adult, though not-quite children, they fix us with the unsettling gaze of visitors from another world. It is a somewhat difficult gaze to meet; part-challenge, part-complicity, it hints at secrets once shared, at half-forgotten memories of a time in our own lives when things were at the same time simpler and immeasurably more complicated than they are today. Innocence is only one part of childhood. There are darker territories, and through these portraits we are able to glimpse the multiple landscapes of childhood, like fragments of a fairy-tale that unsettles almost as often as it enchants. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/4da2yq8t5/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Graham Ovenden, Wuthering Heights" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/4da2yq8t5/Graham_Ovenden_Wuthering_Heights.jpg" /></a>For Alice is only one of the many faces of Ovenden’s vision of pre-adolescence. The child-heroine re-appears as Cathy in Ovenden’s version of <i>Wuthering Heights</i>, a scandalously young Cathy to a seemingly much-older Heathcliff, with all the implicit connotations of lost childhood, lost innocence, lost love, lost time. Like Keats, Graham Ovenden seeks to depict the ephemeral nature of beauty; the fleeting moment given extra poignancy by virtue of its transience. As a result, many of his portraits have a distinctly haunted look, a fact that the artist, a lover of ghost stories, is himself quick to acknowledge. Part of this is due to the colour schemes favoured by the artist; the flesh tones tinted green or mauve, the brooding shadows, the languid, feline poses of the subjects themselves. Part of it is the way the girls look out at their audience, their eyes appearing to see much further than the constraints of the picture-frame. Part of it is also perhaps the feeling that somehow the artist has trapped something living within the canvas, some fragment of the subject’s soul, like a butterfly under glass. <br />
<br />
Many of his portraits are nudes. <a href="http://p1.storage.canalblog.com/17/42/362748/85379183_o.jpg" target="_blank"><i>Lorraine, 1964</i></a>, a portrait of breathtaking beauty and poignancy, depicts a young girl of about nine standing in profile against a dim background into which her dark hair merges like a shadowy cloak. Her youthful, slightly S-shaped pose is reminiscent of one of Degas’ little dancers, but with her arms almost lost in shadow, and the right reflecting in broad panels onto her skin, giving prominence to her ribs and collarbones, she seems more akin to a tree – a silver birch, perhaps, or a weeping willow – than to a human being at all. <br />
<br />
As <a href="http://postimg.org/image/xbujlapll/" target="_blank"><i>Eve</i> (1985)</a>, this identification process emerges even more strongly. The young girl’s semi-cruciform pose, one outstretched arm bearing the fruit, serves to identify her with the tree against which she stands, with herself as a tender fruit which, like the apple in her hand, already contains the seeds of its own dissolution. It is an exquisitely beautiful portrait. Though unashamedly sensual, there is nothing lascivious about the girl’s pose, and she looks out at us with a forthright gaze of one who is entirely at ease with herself and her world. Her beauty is not quite human; there is something feral in her eyes that suggests a blissful ignorance, not only of sin and corruption, but of the very nature of innocence itself. These things are in the eye of the beholder. In the world of this painting, virtue and vice are irrelevant. The child and the tree are inseparable, like a dryad and its guardian; and as for the apple of knowledge – well. It is up to the spectator himself to take the fruit or to decline it. <br />
<br />
This is the artist at his most challenging. For in a world where – deplorable – even to acknowledge the physical beauty of children is to invite suspicion and censure, Ovenden has always refused to conform. The sensuality that permeates his work and that colours his extraordinary landscapes is also apparent in his figure paintings. In spite of his allegiance to such artists as Millais, Hughes and Holman Hunt, his depiction of childhood is the complete antitheses of that comfortable Victoria ideal. <br />
<br />
Ovenden’s girls are a mystery; a palette of contradictions. They are supremely unselfconscious. They stand, slouch, sprawl, squat in positions that are uniquely childlike; and yet they are aware of their magical, mystical power, a power compounded both of wisdom and innocence. Nabokov called it “demonic.” Freud would have seen it as a natural expression of prepubescent sexuality. Jung would have spoken of archetypes, and of our innate ability to project onto others the darkest aspects of one’s own subconscious, allowing them to assume the blame. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/bdy2rial5/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Graham Ovenden, Lolita Series, The Final Reproac" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/bdy2rial5/Graham_Ovenden_Lolita_Series_The_Final_Reproac.jpg" /></a>Ovenden’s portrayal of <i>Lolita</i> seems to reflect this point of view. Completed between 1973 and 1975, it takes the form of a series of astonishing pencil drawings (famously reviled by Nabokov), showing Lolita nude, recumbent, seductive, thoughtful, post-coital, and lastly, in <i>The Final Reproach</i>, representing both victim and judge, the girl’s pointing finger and accusatory stare conveying her contempt and hatred for the one who seduced her. It is an uncomfortable topic upon which to dwell, both for the artist and the audience, and Lolita’s gesture condemns the fictional Humbert, but anyone who looks at these portraits with the slightest trace of guilty in his heart. <br />
<br />
For Ovenden’s children are dangerous, for all their apparent vulnerability. Dangerous and powerful, like wild animals in repose that might at any moment, attack. They may be sleeping beauties as yet. But they are on the point of awakening. And when they awaken – to knowledge, to adulthood – Lolita’s ambiguously pointing finger becomes not simply a reproach, but a threat, even a command – judge ye not, lest ye be judged. <br />
<br />
Some things are just too beautiful to be entirely risk-free. The paintings of Graham Ovenden are among their number.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
* * * </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
Written in March 2007, copyright © Joanne Harris 2007, reprinted with permission of Mr. Ovenden and the author. <i>Links not accompanied by images contain images of nudity.</i><br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15634435116714830373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5914132379232520232.post-91145637477464724762013-06-08T12:31:00.000-07:002013-06-09T06:41:31.863-07:00Graham Ovenden’s States of Grace and Judge Cottle’s Lies<a href="http://postimg.org/image/unb8bmbkp/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="sog page45" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/unb8bmbkp/sog_page45.jpg" /></a>The event that precipitated the desire of the Metropolitan Police to “get” Graham Ovenden was almost surely the publication of Mr. Ovenden’s photographic study, <i>States of Grace</i>. That was also when the Metropolitan Police began targetting Maud Hewes, for it was her appearance at a hearing in New York, in May 1992, that was largely responsible for the decision by the United States Department of Justice to withdraw its opposition to the book and permit publication to go forward. <br />
<br />
Although none of the images in <i>States of Grace </i>were in contention at Mr. Ovenden’s trial in 2013, the three (never-published) photographs in contention at the 2013 trial share at least one issue in common with the images in <i>States of Grace</i>: Mr. Ovenden’ intention in creating them. (As noted previously on the blog, two of the three images in contention at the 2013 trial were never printed by Mr. Ovenden but were, as the saying goes, lost on the cutting room floor, then printed – badly – by the police to emphasise the genitalia.) <br />
<br />
Addressing Mr. Ovenden at his sentencing, Judge Graham Cottle claimed, without any actual evidence, that the “true purpose behind what you were doing… was undoubtedly sexual...There can be no doubt that at the time you had a sexual interest in children. You maintained that it was an artistic interest in the female form.” This bold-faced lie about Mr. Ovenden’s work is contradicted by the content of Mr. Ovenden’s photography in general, as well as by the unstinting support that the subjects of the 3 images gave to Mr. Ovenden’s depictions of them when they were well into adulthood. Surely in their mid-20s, the two were old enough to have discerned any supposed untoward meaning or intent in their images or in the sessions during which those images were created. Both women testified at trial that they were never abused by Mr. Ovenden. Both said they felt safe and confident to be nude in front of the camera and the images reflect that.<br />
<br />
Judge Cottle’s inappropriate imposition of his own moral view of the photographs was to be expected, considering some of the egregious judicial errors he committed at trial. For example, solely for purposes of “dirtying up” Mr. Ovenden and providing the jury with a negative context in which to view Mr. Ovenden’s photographs, Judge Cottle permitted introduction of non-photographic collages depicting hardcore sexual conduct which had been deleted from Mr. Ovenden’s computer but about which there was nothing criminal – and nothing related to Mr. Ovenden’s photography of his young models. (They were interim images for a series entitled “As Through a Glass Darkly,” discussed previously on this blog.) In fact, when the case first went to trial, the 3 photographs weren’t specifically charged, but were the basis for “specimen” photographic charges. However, in the midst of trial, when the prosecution conceded that it had no case with respect to one witness because she denied that Mr. Ovenden ever abused her, Judge Cottle asked the prosecution to bring “substitute” charges. That was how the 3 photographs came to be the subject of criminal charges of “indecency.” With the “specimen” counts covering the same images, Mr. Ovenden was essentially convicted twice for the same “offence.”<br />
<br />
Against Judge Cottle’s claim that Mr. Ovenden tricked his models into posing for him under the guise of Art is a long history. There are the statements, in adulthood, of the two models whose images were deemed “indecent,” as well as descriptions of Mr. Ovenden’s work by Mr. Ovenden and many others throughout the past four decades. When Mr. Ovenden angrily accused Prosecutor Ramsay Quaife of being “visually illiterate” during the trial, he was talking about Mr. Quaife’s inability or refusal to understand Mr. Ovenden’s work in artistic terms. That inability or failure also applies to Judge Graham Cottle. Statements made by the models, Mr. Ovenden and various writers and critics through the years are not some grand conspiracy to enable Mr. Ovenden to take lewd photographs or fool museums and galleries into showing child pornography. Rather, they are true statements about the work. <br />
<br />
Because the publication of <i>States of Grace</i> was the genesis of the persecution of Mr. Ovenden and his models in the U.K. (This writer doubting very much that those entrusted with enforcing the 1978 Protection of Children Act cared very much about the Hetling affair<a name="reference1" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/graham-ovendens-states-of-grace-and.html#endnote1"><sup><small>1</small></sup></a>), a good place to begin the inquiry of what Mr. Ovenden’s photography means is in telling the story of the publication of <i>States of Grace</i> and its defense.<br />
<ul>
<li>Publisher’s Note from <i>States of Grace</i> </li>
<li>Addendum to the Publisher’s Note</li>
<li>Proffer of Graham Ovenden (via an affidavit filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York) </li>
<li>Supplementary Statements of Graham Ovenden (via letter predating preparation of the proffer) </li>
<li>Proffer of photography critic A.D. Coleman (via affidavit) </li>
<li>Proffer of Maud Hewes (via affidavit) </li>
<li>Excerpt from Amicus Curiae brief filed by the American Civil Liberties Union Arts Censorship Project and the New Your Civil Liberties Union</li>
<li>Introduction to <i>States of Grace</i> </li>
</ul>
<br />
<b>Publisher’s Note from <i>States of Grace</i>, pp. 80-81</b><br />
<br />
“The publication of <i>States of Grace</i> is an event that has not gone unnoticed by would-be censors in the United States. In October of 1991, a set of proofs for the book was seized by the U.S. Customs Service and held for over seven months. Despite the fact that the images contained in <i>States of Grace</i> are tender and sympathetic, the U.S. government asserted in February 1992 that the book contained depictions of minors engaged in "sexually explicit conduct" and was therefore illegal to import, sell or own. During a court hearing one month later, a federal prosecutor identified page 54<a name="reference2" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/graham-ovendens-states-of-grace-and.html#endnote2"><sup><small>2</small></sup></a> as containing the sole offending image in the book. As anyone can see, the image does not depict any sexual conduct at all. On May 28, 1992, a hearing was held, attended by the subject (then 18 years of age) depicted in the offending image, as well as eminent photo-historian and critic, A.D. Coleman. Both witnesses prepared statements and were ready to testify. Neither received remuneration for their efforts, although the travel costs of the subject, a British citizen, were paid.<br />
<br />
“The subject's declaration is worth repeating here: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I have known Graham Ovenden as a family friend for fourteen years — since I was four years old. I have modeled for Graham on numerous occasions -- in fact, too numerous to count -- for both his photographs and paintings. I have modeled for him both clothed and fully nude, both alone and with other children.... The portrait which the United States has charged as indecent is a portrait of me as I was eight years ago. I am not acting in a sexual way in the picture and Graham never asked me to be sexual or treated me as a sexual object. The accusation that the image is obscene' is, to me, an accusation that I am 'obscene,' something to which I take offense.</blockquote>
“A.D. Coleman's prepared statement confirmed the fact that <i>States of Grace</i> simply contained no images depicting a 'lascivious exhibition of the genitals,' an act prohibited under U.S. law. Representatives of the American Civil Liberties Union were also present in the courtroom to support their brief in opposition to the government's attempt to censor <i>States of Grace</i>. (The ACLU Foundation Arts Censorship Project filed its brief on behalf of itself and numerous artists, museum and gallery directors, curators, critics, and booksellers.) As to the image on page 54, the ACLU brief stated: '[W]hether viewed individually or as part of the entire book, Ovenden's portrait appears plainly to be a photograph with genuine artistic, not pornographic intentions, and thus a constitutionally-protected work of art.' <br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/3qr93asrd/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="sog page22" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/3qr93asrd/sog_page22.jpg" /></a>“Despite the government's claim, and as the publisher's lawyer, Alan Silber, cogently argued, there is nothing lascivious or lewd about the images in States of Grace. These are beautiful images intended by the participants, in Ovenden's words, 'to make whole the transient experience of childhood.' The would-be censors also overlooked the more metaphysical side of <i>States of Grace</i>. As Ovenden attested in his affidavit filed with the court: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Symbolically speaking, we are dealing with feelings of the heart and the human yearning for Edenic simplicity - a state of grace, as it were, where there is neither sin nor corruption. The apple has yet to be eaten. The subject, of course, symbolizes this state in the photograph. At the same time, we see that the attainment of Eden is no easy task: the vulnerability of the child suggests, or rather confirms, the fragility of Eden, as well as its fleeting nature in the face of the concerns of the adult world and the demands of modernity. </blockquote>
“Ultimately no testimony was required at the May 27th hearing. In light of the subject's account of her experience, the statements proffered by Ovenden and Coleman, and the support of the ACLU and numerous individuals and organizations, the government reluctantly acknowledged defeat and returned the proofs.<br />
<br />
“The images in <i>States of Grace</i> are multi-faceted and their meanings are multi-layered. They are neither immoral nor criminal. Most importantly, though, they must be seen, so that each viewer may discover for himself and herself the truths that lie within."<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Addendum to the Publisher’s Note</b><br />
<br />
The story told above is somewhat simplified, but essentially truthful. At the 27 May 1992 hearing, a representative for the United States Department of Justice, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) stated that it made no promises about what it might do in the future with respect to <i>States of Grace</i> because it could not foresee every "context" in which the photographs might arise. Due to this equivocation, Mr. Silber, the publisher’s attorney informed the CEOS each time that the book or page proofs were imported into the United States. (The letters were copied to both the federal judge and the federal magistrate who oversaw the case and hearing.) One such letter, sent on June 5, 1992, advised the CEOS representative that<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In order to accomplish this penultimate stage [of reviewing final proofs for <i>States of Grace</i>], I have instructed my client to have the final proofs sent to him from Hong Kong via Federal Express in care of my office on or about June 12, 1992. In doing so, neither I nor my client have any intent to violate any provision of federal law. The images contained in the final proofs are exactly the same images as were voluntarily returned by your office to my client on May 28, 1992. Thus, if the government has any objections to my client’s receipt of this package, please inform us by the close of business on June 10, 1992. </blockquote>
In each instance, the CEOS returned a letter advising the publisher and his attorney that the “United States Department of Justice does not give advisory opinions” and to proceed at their “peril” – but in each instance, the Department of Justice permitted the material to be imported. Copies of the book were imported in 1992, 1993 and 1994 without incident. In 1995, the book was held by United States Customs for two months, but the United States Attorney in charge of the case determined that the book was not contraband and admitted its importation into the United States as part of a commercial shipment. <br />
<br />
The United States is not the only country to have officially permitted the importation of <i>States of Grace</i>. On 21 May 1998, <i>States of Grace</i> was admitted to New Zealand under the classification, “Unrestricted,” meaning suitable for all audiences.<a name="reference3" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/graham-ovendens-states-of-grace-and.html#endnote3"><sup><small>3</small></sup></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Proffer of Graham Ovenden (April 1992)</b><br />
<br />
As the American hearing focused on a single image, Mr. Ovenden addressed it directly, but the artistic concerns are the same with all of his photographs.<br />
<br />
“My intention in taking this photograph was multi-faceted. I have known the subject of the photograph, Maud, since she was very young and have photographed her from that time until she was well into her teens, as I have photographed other children, including my own daughter. She was the model for numerous of my paintings (including my paintings on the theme of “Alice in Wonderland”) which have hung in museums and galleries throughout Britain and her likeness appears several times in the monograph of my work [entitled <i>Graham Ovenden</i>] published by St. Martin’s Press. <br />
<br />
“To be quite honest, I was rather shocked to learn that [the photograph in question] was considered lascivious and contrary to law in the United States. It hung in my show at the Olympus Gallery in 1984 and I have never considered it to be a work which concerns itself with sexuality in any untoward way or which focuses on Maud’s sexuality. My intention was to depict her as she was both physically and spiritually. I don’t differentiate the two. Both must be presented compassionately in an integrated fashion. Furthermore, to focus on only one aspect of the physical – for example, sexuality – would not only do an injustice to the subject, but would be insufficient artistically. <br />
<br />
“Thus, this photograph is a portrait. It is a portrait of Maud during a physically and spiritually transient time of her life – just prior to pubescence – and it was my intention to make concrete and whole this transient experience. Thus, I think it would be improper to characterize the photograph as one aimed at depicting the genitals. Any sexuality that is depicted is part and parcel of the organic whole, not separate in any way. <br />
<br />
“On another level, however, this is not a photograph of a girl at all, but a formal work of art, involving aesthetic considerations far beyond the mere depiction of nudity and involving symbolism which transcends the subject matter. On a formal level, there is the pure geometry of her pose, which was chosen by her. Though she is in an obviously relaxed and natural position, her pose gives her a distinctly cylindrical form which sets up a careful counterplay with the texture of the paper on which the image is printed. The use of natural lighting also creates an interplay between line and shadow, contrasting softness with solidity. One will find these formalistic concerns in my paintings as well. <br />
<br />
“Symbolically-speaking, the image raises a number of issues which are of artistic and spiritual concern to me. Here we are dealing with feelings of the heart and the human yearning for Edenic simplicity – a state of grace, as it were, where there is neither sin nor corruption. The apple has yet to be eaten. Maud, of course, symbolizes this state in the photograph. At the same time, we see that the attainment of Eden is no easy task: the vulnerability of the child suggests, or rather confirms, the fragility of Eden, as well as its fleeting nature in the face of the concerns of the adult world, as well as those of modernity. I note that Mr. Coleman [see below] has also accurately assessed the photograph on a sociological level. <br />
<br />
“The aesthetic and artistic concerns attendant to the creation of this work and its very content preclude any “lasciviousness” in this image. If Maud had been clothed, there would be no argument. She is not engaging in any behaviour which is inappropriate for her age. She is providing us with a view into her soul and psyche, not offering her body for display. Disrobing doesn’t make the pose, or this image, indecent. I approached the photographing of the image in the same way as I approach my work in general, whether it be photography or painting – that is, with an intellectual detachment and neutrality by which I am able to make conscious aesthetic decisions in order to express an emotional artistic statement. <br />
<br />
“One must also consider that recording the image on film is still the beginning of the inquiry. The printing process which I employ with my photographs and the choices which present themselves in printing any given image involve difficult decisions and many hours of work. This particular photograph required printing the black-and-white negative onto x-ray film so that a large format contact print could be made. The print itself was created using a process known as “printing out,” in which the negative and paper are sandwiched between glass for exposure to the sun without the use of chemical developer. For this particular print, I used Ilford Gallery Matte black-and-white paper, which is no longer manufactured. The sun’s ultraviolet rays yield tones of purple, brick-red, pink and brown, which fix down into a more monochrome appearance. <br />
<br />
“The prints of my work on this paper are not only unique in the sense that each one differs from the other depending upon the degree of exposure to the sun and the strength of the sun’s rays – but irreplaceable. The printing-out process, which I discovered and developed with respect to this particular paper, is difficult to master and requires a great deal of patience, as well as trial and error."<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/myedzwb2x/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="sog page44" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/myedzwb2x/sog_page44.jpg" /></a><b>Supplementary Statement of Graham Ovenden (via letter predating preparation of the proffer) March 1992)</b><br />
<br />
“Focusing on sexuality is not the point of my work at all. Sexuality is merely another attribute of the person. The notion that one would separate out the sexual from who the person is, is ludicrous. It would be insufficient artistically. <br />
<br />
“If the figures in <i>States of Grace</i> were clothed, there would be no argument. Why then, when the clothing are removed, does it become problematic? Merely disrobing doesn't give the image or the model herself a sexual intent. <br />
<br />
“Because of this moment of childhood which is so fleeting within the context of a lifespan, for those who are fortunate enough to be able to create imagery there is, I feel, a strong moral obligation actually to hold and make concrete such imagery. Of course you can look at such images out of context if you come at them with preconceptions. An example would be to take an innocent family snapshot and place it within the context of a porn magazine. Then put it in an arts journal. The thing itself remains neutral; the meaning one gets from the image is simply that which one lays upon it. If the image is considered obscene, that is the responsibility of the person observing it. <br />
<br />
“The feelings I had personally in creating these images were neutral feelings, not erotic ones. The creation of my work is an intensely intellectual process which precludes focusing on such things as an intention to arouse sexually. The creative process, which involves thinking about the meaning of what I'm doing from taking the photograph itself to rendering it on paper, precludes any lascivious intent. My work utterly fails as pornography. <br />
<br />
“Anyone looking at this work and seeing a work of pornography misses the fact that the child is not the art. This is not just a photograph of a girl, but a process. The model's posing is a miniscule part of that process. One needs to look at the entire alchemy of the work. <br />
<br />
“My work also does not overlook the fact of sexual vulnerability, which is very real. Some of the darker images allude to this vulnerability which should not be read as sexual invitation. Does my work show sexuality? I wouldn't choose that word, and I want to take away the tendency to compartmentalize in this way. "Sexuality" is part and parcel of the organic and spiritual self, and inseparable from it."<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Proffer of photography critic A.D. Coleman (May 1992)</b><br />
<br />
“As a start, one might ask: What is the photographer’s attitude toward his subject? How is the photographer describing this girl? The answers to these questions like in an analysis of the actual physical space that the girl is occupying. Could she have gotten into the position she is in without the photographer’s assistance? Is there any visual evidence that she has been placed there by the photographer or some other person? <br />
<br />
“There is no visual cue in the photograph to suggest that the subject is not familiar with the space within which she is depicted. The scene appears to be very natural, as if she had rested on just that spot on other occasions. There is no indication in the photograph that the girl is not at ease in this space. Within the space of the photograph, the girl has made herself as comfortable as possible. The proper assumption would be that she adopted the pose herself – hence her appearance of being physically relaxed and emotionally at ease. <br />
<br />
“The photographer’s attitude may also be inquired of by analyzing the focal point of the photograph, which should be analyzed in a variety of aspects, no one of them necessarily more important than the other… In the photograph at issue, the brightest area would be the illumination coming from the window – the only lighting in the photograph is this natural light – and we should look next to the face, which makes reference to the window in being illuminated by it. The entire image is in uniform focus – the girl is in focus from head to toe, as is the wallpaper behind her. There is nothing in particular which is proximate to the edge of the picture frame. Initially, what we see is this girl, the light coming from the window, and her body in relation to the window. The girl’s genitals are definitely not a focal point in the photograph. <br />
<br />
“If one studies the photograph further, we see what Ovenden is conveying symbolically. We see a girl depicted in a protected space where she is warm enough and comfortable enough to be nude. The relaxation of her body posture denotes this space as warm, dark and inviting. The photographer is not in very close proximity to the model, so that she would not have to be immediately aware of his presence. As the viewer, we’re given the impression of having the privilege of observing this girl, unbeknownst to her, in a very private moment. This is the <i>theater</i> of the image. But there is also the photographer and the collaboration of the girl with the photographer. She clearly feels comfortable with him and trusts him. While she would not have known how the image would look, one can see that she knew who she was there with and what that space was. If that had caused her any discomfort or fear, that could be read from her body language or facial expression. <br />
<br />
“It would be exceedingly difficult to ascribe an intention on the part of the photographer to elicit a sexual response in the viewer or to titillate. What clues validate that conclusion? The image is unquestionably at the girl’s sexuality. All nudes necessarily address the subject of sexuality in some way. This depiction seems to be about this girl in a safe, indoor, home environment. The window serves as the hint of a world outside and she appears to be reading that outside world with a bit of ambivalence. Maybe it’s not all safe out there. The girls senses her own femaleness, her nascent emergence into adolescence, but at the same time wants the comparative safety of childhood which that space offers. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/w8qi3flsp/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="sog page70" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/w8qi3flsp/sog_page70.jpg" /></a>“In relation to the other photographs in the book, the lack of intent to arouse any sexual desire becomes even more apparent… With respect to the images of <i>States of Grace</i>, there aren’t many in the project in which genitalia are visible, in which they’re optically highlighted in any way. That occurs in only a minority of images. This would suggest that the genitalia are not the central issue in the work, including in this photograph. The photographer has in two instances eliminated the genitals by spotting out or etching out, which clearly indicates that Ovenden is operating on an aesthetic basis in depicting his subject matter. The fact that he has removed them in some and not in others suggests that this wasn’t the focus of his work. Moreover, were the genitals of particular importance, he might have used a myriad of techniques to highlight the genitals. There were many photographic options. For example, by changing lenses or position or moving in closer he could have called attention to the girl’s genitals. Instead, he shows her as a full individual with a face, attached to a body."<br />
<br />
Mr. Coleman wrote that essay in 1992, but it is relevant to Mr. Ovenden’s 2013 trial, where one of the charges of conviction, 2 images depicting Maud Hewes, were printed (badly) by the police in order to emphasise the genitalia; and where those two images and a single image of another model were found “indecent” wholly outside the context of Mr. Ovenden’s other work of those models and outside the context of his photographic work in general. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Proffer of Maud Hewes (May 1992)</b> <br />
<br />
“I have known Graham Ovenden as a family friend for fourteen years – since I was four years old. I have modeled for Graham on numerous occasions – in fact, too numerous to count – for both his photographs and paintings. I have modeled for him both clothed and fully nude, both alone and with other children. When I modeled for Graham, I would make up the poses and he would shoot them. Sometimes he made minor suggestions regarding how or where I would be looking – for example, he might ask me to have a contemplative expression – but the poses were of my choosing. <br />
<br />
“The portrait which the United States has charged as indecent is a portrait of me as I was eight years ago. I am not acting in a sexual way in the picture and Graham never asked me to be sexual or treated me as a sexual object. The accusation that the image is “obscene” is, to me, an accusation that I am “obscene,” something to which I take offense. <br />
<br />
“I can only ask the court to leave my image unmolested and to cease interfering with the publication and distribution of this book, which contains five images of me in total."<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/ph030kwt5/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="sog page58" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/ph030kwt5/sog_page58.jpg" /></a><b>Excerpt from <i>Amicus Curiae</i> brief filed by the American Civil Liberties Union Arts Censorship Project and the New York Civil Liberties Union (May 1992)</b><br />
<br />
A “friend-of-the-court” (<i>amicus curiae</i>) brief supporting the publication of <i>States of Grace</i> was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Arts Censorship Project on behalf of itself and an “A-List” of arts organizations and individuals in America: <br />
<ul>
<li>
National Association of Artist’s Organizations (a national organization of 511 individual artists and arts organizations) </li>
<li>
Eric Fischl (painter) </li>
<li>
Allen Ginsberg (the late poet) </li>
<li>
Dennis Barrie (then-Director of the Cincinnati Contemporary Arts Center, who successfully defended himself in an Ohio state court against child pornography charges related to two images of minors taken by Robert Mapplethorpe) </li>
<li>
David A. Ross (then-Director of the Whitney Museum of American Art and a founding member of the Federal Advisory Committee on International Exhibitions which guides the National Endowment for the Arts and the United States Information Agency) </li>
<li>
Carlos Gutierrez-Solana (former Director of the Visual Arts Program of the New York State Council on the Arts, and former Executive Director of Artists Space, the New York organization devoted to emerging artists and emerging ideas in contemporary art) </li>
<li>
Martha Wilson (Founding Director of the Franklin Furnace (“On A mission To Make The World Safe For Avant-Garde Art”) </li>
<li>
Barry Blinderman (former director of New York’s Semaphore Gallery, Director of Illinois State University Galleries and part-time professor of Art History at the College of Find Arts, Illinois State University) </li>
<li>
Philip Yenawine (then-Director of Education at The Museum of Modern Art and consulting curator at the Institute for Contemporary Art (ICA), Boston, Massachusetts.) </li>
<li>
Robert Atkins (art critic and author, historian and curator) </li>
<li>
Lawrence Rinder (curator and art critic) </li>
<li>
Galerie St. Etienne (a New York City gallery specializing in the work of 20th century German and Austrian expressionists, among them Egon Schiele, Gustav Klimt and Oscar Kokoschka) </li>
<li>
A Photographer’s Place Bookstore, New York City</li>
<li>
Camera Obscura Gallery, Denver Colorado (which has shown the work of Jock Sturges, Walter Chappelle, David Hamilton, Joel Meyerowitz and George Platt Lynes) </li>
</ul>
The inclusion of these organizations and individuals on the brief did not necessarily signify that they endorsed Mr. Ovenden’s work, but it did mean that they took it seriously as a bona fide work of art, not indecency. The argument was primarily a legal one, addressed to the criteria of American law, while drawing from the statements of Ms. Hewes, Mr. Ovenden and Mr. Coleman.<br />
<br />
The excerpt from the brief:<br />
<br />
“The Supreme Court in <i>New York v. Ferber</i>, 458 U.S. 747 {1982), ruled that child pornography is not protected by the First Amendment because of the compelling government interest in preventing the 'sexual exploitation and abuse of children.' <i>Id</i>. at 757. 'Where a definable class of materials bears so heavily and pervasively on the welfare of children engaged in its production, we think the balance of competing interests is clearly struck and that it is permissible to consider these materials as without the protection of the First Amendment.' <i>Id</i>. at 764. <br />
<br />
“The need to protect children from sexual exploitation and abuse is thus at the core of legitimate governmental regulation in this area. The Court in <i>Ferber </i>recognized the dangers of censorship where definitions of child pornography are not strictly limited to visual depictions of children engaged in actual sexual conduct. <i>See</i> 458 U.S. at 764. Thus, although material need not meet the <i>Miller v. California</i> obscenity standard to qualify as child pornography, it must visually depict children engaged in sexual conduct, i.e., 'performing sexual acts or lewdly exhibiting their genitals.' <i> Id</i>. at 763. <br />
<br />
“The lesson of <i>Ferber</i> is that where a child has not been sexually abused or exploited, there can be no basis for criminalizing a visual depiction of the child. Accordingly, a law that is not limited to depiction of actual sexual conduct, and that attempts to criminalize mere child nudity, would be unconstitutionally overbroad. <i>Osborne v. Ohio, </i>110 S.Ct. 1691, 1698 (1990). Indeed, such a law would sweep within its scope many significant works of Western art, where nudes, including child nudes, are plentiful. {9} The 16 photographs submitted by the Defendant, including the famous Edward Weston portrait of his son Neil, illustrate the variety of child nudes represented in legitimate art photography. {10}<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
{9} Art scholar Kenneth Clark has written that the nude is, 'after all, the most serious of all subjects in art; … it was not an advocate of paganism who wrote, ''The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us … full of grace and truth.'' K. Clark, <i>The Nude: A Study in Ideal Form</i> 29 (1956).<br />
{10} Two of the other artists represented, both major figures in American photography, are Robert Mapplethorpe and Jock Sturges. Both have been the subjects of unsuccessful censorship efforts by state or federal authorities. Mapplethorpe’s photographs were the subject of the celebrated obscenity - child pornography prosecution of Cincinnati Contemporary Arts Center Director Dennis Barrie in 1990. Barrie was acquitted. </blockquote>
“Sturges was the subject of a search in April 1990 in which federal agents seized thousands of photographs, including many nonpornographic nudes of children individually or in family groups. Despite a massive, 1 1/2-year investigation, a San Francisco grand jury ultimately refused to indict Sturges. <i> See American Library Assn v. Thornburgh</i>, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 1994, p. 31 n.6 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 19, 1992)<br />
<br />
“The most problematic part of the <i>Ferber</i> standard, of course, is the inclusion of 'lewd' or 'lascivious' 'exhibition of the genitals' within the definition of child pornography.<a name="reference4" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/graham-ovendens-states-of-grace-and.html#endnote4"><sup><small>4</small></sup></a> <i>See</i> 458 U.S. at 765; 18 U.S.C. §2256(2). The courts have struggled to identify the factors that distinguish 'lewd' or 'lascivious' exhibitions from constitutionally-protected depictions of nudity which, by definition, include the genital area of the human body. Many courts have adopted the six-factor test of <i>United States v. Dost</i>, 636 F.Supp. 828, 832 (S.D. Cal. 1986) {11}; <i>see</i>, <i>e.g</i>., <i>United States v. Villard</i>, 885 F.2d 117, 122 (3d Cir. 1989); <i>United States v. Wolf</i>, 890 F.2d 241, 245 (10th Cir. 1989); <i>United States v. Nolan</i>, 818 F.2d 1015, 1019 n.5 (1st Cir. 1987), although the Ninth Circuit, in reviewing the <i>Dost </i>decision, found the standard 'over-generous to the defendant.' <i>United States v. Wiegand</i>, 812 F.2d 1239, 1244, cert. denied, 484 U.S. 856 (1987). The critical point to keep in mind, however, whatever factors are considered relevant, is that the purpose of child pornography laws is to protect children from sexual exploitation. <i> Ferber</i>, <i>supra</i>; <i>Wiegand</i>, 812 F.2d at 1245 ('[t]he crime is the offense against the child'). If the child model is not being sexually exploited, then the image cannot legally constitute pornography. In the present case, based on the evidence submitted thus far {12}, amici believe it is unlikely in the extreme that the court could find that Ovenden photograph sexually exploits the child model. Five of the six <i>Dost </i>factors are probably not present at all, and the one that undoubtedly is present ('whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude') cannot by itself lead to a finding of child pornography. <i>Osborne v. Ohio</i>, supra. Nor does the government fare better under the <i>Wiegand </i>standard: it does not appear that the photographer organized the image 'to suit his particular lust,' <i>see</i> 812 F.2d at 1244, and the child is not 'photographed as a sexual object.' <i>Id</i>. <i>Cf</i>. <i>Faloona v. Hustler Magazine, Inc</i>., 607 F.Supp. 1341, 1343 n.4, 1355 n.44 (N.D.Tex. 1985) (child nudes with more explicit views of genitalia than in Ovenden's work do not constitute child pornography).<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
{11} The six factors are set out at pp. 9-10 of the defendant's brief. <br />
{12} This evidence includes the photograph itself, the statements of Ovenden, Maud Hewes and A.D. Coleman, the comparative photographs, and the other photographs in the Hong Kong package which are to be part of one work entitled <i>States of Grace</i>.</blockquote>
“Evidence submitted thus far reinforces the likely conclusion that the work is not exploitative. Ovenden states that the model, Maud Hewes, is the daughter of his friend and fellow painter, Joseph Hewes, and that his photographs of her have appeared in numerous galleries and museums. <i>Def.Br. & App</i>. at 18. {13} The particular work hung in his 1984 show at the Olympus Gallery. Id. It is a portrait, intended to 'depict her as she was, both physically and spiritually,' at a 'transient time in her life ... and it was my intention to make concrete and whole this transient experience.' <i>Id</i>. at 18-19. Ovenden also describes his formal concerns: the 'pure geometry of her pose,' her 'relaxed and natural position,' and the 'interplay between line and shadow' created by his use of natural light. Id. at 19. Finally, the artist explains the symbolic issues raised by the image: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Here we are dealing with feelings of the heart and the human yearning for edenic simplicity -- a state of grace, as it were, where there is neither sin nor corruption. The apple has yet to be eaten. Maud, of course, symbolizes this state in the photograph.</blockquote>
<i>Id</i>. at 19. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
{13} Maud Hewes' own statement, id. at 45, corroborates Ovenden's. She modeled for Ovenden on numerous occasions throughout her childhood. In the photograph in question, she says, 'I am not acting in a sexual way … and Graham never asked me to be sexual.' She emphasizes that she, not he, made up the poses. </blockquote>
“Similarly, art critic A.D. Coleman views the model's pose as comfortable and 'physically relaxed.' Id. at 28. The focal point is not the girl's genital area but her entire form as illuminated by the light coming in from the window. <i>Id</i>. at 28-19. The girl is in a safe, protective space. If her pose had 'caused her any discomfort or fear, that could be read from her body language or facial expression.' <i>Id</i>. at 29. {14} In sum, whether viewed individually or as part of the entire book, <i>States of Grace</i>, Ovenden's portrait of Maud Hewes appears plainly to be a photograph with genuine artistic, not pornographic, intentions, and thus a constitutionally-protected work of art. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
{14} That the image, on a symbolic level, is in part 'about the girl's sexuality,' because '[a]ll nudes necessarily address the subject of sexuality in some way,' id. at 29, does not mean that it is pornographic or exploits the child model. <i>Cf</i>. <i>Roth v. United States</i>, 354 U.S. 476, 487 (1957). </blockquote>
“For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's motion to suppress or for return of the Ovenden photographs should be granted."<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Introduction to States of Grace </b> (© 1990, reprinted with permission)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/44sl2wcux/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="sog page24" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/44sl2wcux/sog_page24.jpg" /></a>“Since the invention of photography, nude representations have been largely confined, on the one hand, to abstractions of form and light, and on the other hand, to images, the specific purpose of which is to arouse sexually or to suggest sexual desires and acts. With respect to the former, much nude photography has seemed but as excuse for public displays and enjoyment of (mostly) female nudity. There, the erotic power and beauty of the naked body is treated as if it were not a suitable subject for polite society and so formalism is substituted for clothing. With respect to the latter, there is often an idealization and objectification of participants -- as if sexuality were experienced and practiced, not by real people, but by mere symbols of desire. Nudity (or the subject herself) is thus manipulated to fulfill the irrational demands of fantasy. (Where the nudity being manipulated was that of children, legal restrictions were understandably instituted.) At the same time, photographs in this genre often have the effect of reinforcing cultural standards of beauty. Rarely have nude photographs embodied an intentional discourse between photographer and subject. Rarer still have they spoken directly to the social meanings of nudity and the nature of sexuality as it is constituted in Western culture. <br />
<br />
“The photographic work of Graham Ovenden stands in opposition to both the traditions of abstraction and objectification. Although Ovenden does speak to formal aesthetic concerns -- he is, after all, an artist, a master of form and light, geometry and juxtaposition -- abstraction and objectification have no place in his work. Rather, his work is a process of discovery of personhood in a very fundamental sense. Those formal elements found in Ovenden's photographs are not ends in themselves, but are there to communicate and accentuate the sense of wonder and mystery with which that process is imbued. All of this must be done with a great deal of care and solicitousness on the part of the artist and it can be said unqualifiedly of Ovenden that he is a trusted friend and teacher to his young subjects. <br />
<br />
“The sexuality and physical bodies of the young are not, to be sure, improper subjects for artistic study. In fact, many photographers of the past and today -- among them Robert Demachy, Frank Meadow Sutcliffe, Wilhelm von Gloeden, George Platt Lynes, Edward Weston, Wynn Bullock, Christian Vogt, Starr Ockenga, Joel Meyerowitz, Jan Saudek, Cynthia Macadams, Irina Ionesco, Bernard Faucon, Sheila Metzner, Will McBride, Jock Sturges, and Sally Mann, to name a few -- have produced work which has addressed these subjects to varying degrees. Many of the themes touched upon by these and other photographers speak to larger social questions concerning children and sexuality and are unique to the "child nude". (It should come as no surprise that stripping one's subject of clothing at the same time strips her of certain interpretive contexts while posing others.) Among these themes are innocence and vulnerability, sometimes more poignant in the naked state; the affirmation and celebration of the often sombre beauty of child sexuality; the emergence of the child into adulthood; the interpersonal dialogue between parents and children through which the child learns about love, self and sensuality; the social construction of sexuality; and the development of gender identity in patriarchal culture. Like Balthus, Ovenden has chosen young girls (and landscapes as well) as vehicles by which to communicate a wide range of artistic concerns and feelings, from the physical to the spiritual. If we focus here upon the relationship between artist and subject and the process of mutual self-discovery, it is only because these raise the most urgent questions and are paramount to understanding Ovenden's work. Like Robert Mapplethorpe, whose homoerotic and sadomasochistic-tinged work shocked some conservative audiences and caused a furor among American arts administrators, Ovenden is willing to look unflinchingly and passionately at themes which have created great consternation and feelings of uncertainty in both contemporary art and politics. But unlike Mapplethorpe, whose work was, in the words of one critic, "predicated on trespassing the boundaries of conventional mores," Ovenden's work is predicated on revealing a private world -- that of girlhood and his place in it as a privileged observer -- which undercuts conventional morality and renders it superfluous. Ovenden is not to shock, but to show what is. <br />
<br />
“Absent from Ovenden's work are the clichés too often seen in the work of sentimentalists: the stuffed animals and other accoutrements of girlhood, the facial expressions and poses which feign adulthood, the soft focus techniques which sentimentalize beauty and hide imperfections. Also absent are strident political statements or confrontations. All of these would be incongruous with Ovenden's artistic vision and would violate his sensibility. His subjects are neither idealized nor ideal. They are real girls, with all the faults, shortcomings, virtues and strengths of real people. Moreover, if they are beautiful in the conventional sense, they are so in spite of convention. "I have never seen a little girl that wasn't beautiful in her own way," Ovenden emphasizes. “By this, Ovenden does not mean that he is enthralled with every little girl he sees, but that he accepts the subjects of his work in all their humanity. Thus Ovenden is unwilling to sacrifice the integrity of his subjects in order to make an artistic, let alone a political, statement. His subjects are not adults, but neither are they to be treated as less than equals of the artist. Most importantly, they must be represented as who they are, who they may become, and what their relationship is to the world and to this artist whom they have permitted entry into their lives. <br />
<br />
“The deep regard with which Ovenden has treated his subjects in this process is indisputable. Thus, if the girls in Ovenden's photographs appear serious, reflective, or even wistful, it is due to the fact Ovenden takes his responsibility to his subjects very seriously and his subjects, in turn, recognize their own responsibility in the process. One former Ovenden subject, whose likeness appears in this volume, says of her experience as a child: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
There was a freedom about it -- not just being myself, but it showed other possibilities, different from everyday situations. It was nice to be accepted on the level that I was myself and he didn't used to say 'this is so-and-so and she is 10 years old.' In this sense, it was very adult.... <br />
<br />
Graham didn't pose me that much. He used to just let me do things and he used to say "that's OK". It was quite spontaneous. Sometimes he might have said "pick up your chin" or he might have said something emotive, like "look far away" or things like that. I never felt that he took away "me" as a person. <br />
<br />
One of the things that's very important, I feel, is that the work is very honest. However, erotic the pictures are, however they are provocative, they are honest pictures. We were there. We did those things. It's not like someone's faked it. I know that Graham's an artist, and not to take anything away from him, of course, but the thing is, the people are there. So, it exists and you can't pretend it doesn't exist and that sexuality doesn't exist. So the honesty, I think, is really important and I think people are just stuffy and have a lot of fears about what's okay and get confused about what's okay.... It was a very safe environment. </blockquote>
“Ovenden represents his young subjects outside the protected, insular world of childhood which most adults perceive as the child's realm of being, freed, if only for a brief moment, from adult demands and expectations. In doing so, Ovenden has revealed to us the richly inhabited inner world of his subjects, a realm of uncertainty, a time of testing and experimenting with power, with vulnerability, with sexuality, and with innocence, a world in which adult proscriptions on sexuality and desire have not been fully internalized and where romantic love has not mediated desire so as to dictate artificial modes of being -- in short, a state of grace. And what of the artist? He is renewed in the partaking of, and in bearing witness to, the process of discovery, the revelation of self mutually-experienced. Through his art, he is able to reflect upon that process, celebrate it with his subjects and, finally, share it with us. It is that process which is captured in the photographs contained in this volume."<br />
<br />
<br />
In subsequent posts, artist-on-trial will publish statements from writers and critics who have addressed Mr. Ovenden’s work, both photographic and non-photographic, and answer the question of what motivates someone, and Mr. Ovenden in particular, to devote a substantial part of their artistic oeuvre to the depiction of young girls. In the face of the presumptions, projections, anxieties and fears that surround this subject matter, addressing these issues has become essential.<br />
<br />
<b>Endnotes</b><br />
<br />
<a name="endnote1" href="#reference1"><sup><small>1</small></sup></a>For the Hetling affair, <i>see</i>, Steinbauer, Mary, “The Puzzling Case of the Faked Photographs,” <i>Life Magazine</i>, July 1981, pp. 10-14; and “Francis Hetling’s Victorian Waifs,” <i>The Museum of Hoaxes</i>, http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/photo_database/image/francis_hetlings_victorian_waifs/<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote2" href="#reference2"><sup><small>2</small></sup></a>Page 54 of <i>States of Grace</i> is the image of Maud Hewes reproduced in grayscale on the Australian website, <a href="http://novelactivist.com/12944/graham-ovenden-2-the-persecution-of-the-models/2/" target="_blank">Novel Activist</a>. The original is a “sun print,” examples of which are reproduced above. The sun prints do not reproduce well via scanning, which loses the richness and almost ethereal glow of the originals. <i>This image of Ms. Hewes was NOT in contention or even in evidence at Mr. Ovenden’s 2013 trial.</i><br />
<br />
The photographs from <i>States of Grace</i> shown here were chosen to highlight the beauty of Mr. Ovenden’s work without running afoul of potential censorship by the provider. I use “censorship” in its formal legal sense, because even though the provider is a business, not a government entity, it is in some ways at least as powerful as many governments in controlling content. (Moreover, unlike government entities, short of High Courts, that is, its decisions are non-appealable and final.) On the other hand, these images are representative of the content of at least a third of 64 images in<i> States of Grace</i>. There are 13 images in which the genitalia or pubic area of a model are visible or partially visible; 32 images in which one or more aureoles are visible (like one of the images shown here); a number of images in which the buttocks are visible in profile in addition to a breast being visible; and 3 images with a three-quarter or direct view of the buttocks. <br />
<br />
<a name="endnote3" href="#reference3"><sup><small>3</small></sup></a>During the same month, New Zealand Customs also admitted as “Unrestricted” <i>Evolution of Grace</i> (Jock Sturges), <i>Innocence in the Mirror</i> (Angelo Cozzi), the books <i>Hamilton’s Movie Bilitis</i> and <i>Dreams of a Young Girl</i> (David Hamilton), and <i>Chrysalides: Photodreams</i> (Mauro Bertoncello). <i>David Hamilton’s Private Collection</i> and <i>Twenty-Five Years of an Artist</i> were classified as “Banned,” even though those books enjoyed wide distribution throughout Canada, the United States, Britain and Europe, and <i>Twenty-Five Years of an Artist</i> was published in Britain in 1993 by Aurum Press. Such decisions by governing authorities only underscore the fact that what is at play is not a genuine concern with protecting minors but, as one of Mr. Ovenden’s models noted about some people’s perceptions of this subject matter, “moral confusion.” “Classified Books from 1963 to 31 July 2009,” which was available in the form of an Excel spreadsheet, downloadable from the New Zealand Office of Film & Literature Classification. (The author retained a copy.) <br />
<br />
<a name="endnote4" href="#reference4"><sup><small>4</small></sup></a>United States federal law does not criminalize depictions in which breasts or buttocks of minors are visible.<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15634435116714830373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5914132379232520232.post-7314314033106836972013-06-05T15:20:00.003-07:002013-07-03T11:37:21.515-07:00Attorney general to review whether Ovenden sentence is too lenientAccording to the BBC, the attorney general will review the 12-month suspended sentence received by Graham Ovenden to determine whether it is too lenient.<a name="reference1" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.ch/2013/06/attorney-general-to-review-whether.html#endnote1"><sup><small>1</small></sup></a> If the attorney general believes that it is, the sentence could be referred to the Court of Appeal for further review and, provided the Court of Appeals finds a juridically valid reason for doing so, revision. ("Leniency" is not in itself a reason to revise a sentence.)<br />
<br />
The disgraceful handling of Mr. Ovenden's case by the press has without a doubt created concern in the attorney general's office. The BBC continued its libelous reporting in the above-cited article, by repeating the lie that Mr. Ovenden "abused four children - now all adults - between 1972 and 1985 while they modelled for him." As the information on this blog makes manifestly clear, the two acts of "molestation" for which Mr. Ovenden was convicted pertained to a single witness and had nothing to do with photographing or painting. The other counts of conviction relate to 3 photographs of two of the witnesses -- both of whom were steadfast in their support of Mr. Ovenden's depictions of them some twenty years ago when they were in their 20s.<br />
<br />
We are confident here that once the attorney general realises the true nature of the conviction, the sentence will stand until the conviction itself is properly overturned on appeal.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Endnote</b><br />
<br />
<a name="endnote1" href="#reference1"><sup><small>1</small></sup></a>"Graham Ovenden sex crimes: Review into suspended sentence." <i>BBC News</i>, 05 June 2013. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-22782376<br />
<br />
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15634435116714830373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5914132379232520232.post-91284966851507080692013-06-04T07:26:00.002-07:002013-06-04T14:59:39.664-07:00Graham Ovenden sentenced, avoids prisonGraham Ovenden was sentenced today at Plymouth Crown Court to twelve months, suspended for two years. For those unfamiliar with court sentencing that means Mr. Ovenden will not do any jail time unless he commits a new infraction during the next two years.<br />
<br />
In the wake of his sentencing, the British press, with the sole exception of <i>The Guardian</i>,<a name="reference1" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/graham-ovenden-sentenced-avoids-prison.html#endnote1"><sup><small>1</small></sup></a> continued to libel Mr. Ovenden, citing as facts contentions of the prosecution relating to charges that were either dismissed during the trial or disbelieved by the jury and resulted in Mr. Ovenden's acquittal. The <i>BBC</i> wrote:<br />
<blockquote>[Mr. Ovenden] was described in court by prosecutor Ramsay Quaife as "a paedophile" who abused four children - now all adults - between 1972 and 1985 while they modelled for him.<br /><br />
The jury heard Ovenden's portraiture formed part of a ruse for abusing girls.<br />
<br />
He made his victims dress in old fashioned clothing before removing it and committing indecent acts, the court was told.<a name="reference2" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/graham-ovenden-sentenced-avoids-prison.html#endnote2"><sup><small>2</small></sup></a></blockquote>
The <i>Western Morning News</i> also regurgitated claims made by prosecutor Ramsay Quaife during trial, adding that "All four of the claimants are now adult women. Their allegations go back some years, but at the time they were all girls."<a name="reference3" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/graham-ovenden-sentenced-avoids-prison.html#endnote3"><sup><small>3</small></sup></a><br />
<br />
The headline at <i>The Daily Mail</i>, on the other hand, was a leap into pure fantasy: "soft sentence that even surprised a pervert: Judge FREES artist who sexually abused three children as young as six while they posed for his paintings."<a name="reference4" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/graham-ovenden-sentenced-avoids-prison.html#endnote4"><sup><small>4</small></sup></a><br />
<br />
Notwithstanding the prevailing gutter press mentality, here is the truth: two of the four witnesses told the jury that Mr. Ovenden <i>never</i> abused them. The two other witnesses told the jury a story about being blindfolded and abused, dressed and undressed, but the jury disbelieved them and acquitted Mr. Ovenden. They convicted Mr. Ovenden of 2 minor charges related to a single witness, but those alleged incidents had nothing to do with sessions for photography or painting. The remaining charges pertained to the alleged character of 3 photographs, not the sexual abuse of minors.<br />
<br />
Judge Cottle claimed at the sentencing hearing that those 3 photographs (two of which were printed by the police to emphasise the genitalia) were typical of Mr. Ovenden's work, but there was no evidence before Judge Cottle or the jury to support such a claim. Judge Cottle also speculated that the girls who came to be photographed by Mr. Ovenden
<blockquote>had no understanding at that time of the true purpose behind what you were doing, a purpose that was undoubtedly sexual...There can be no doubt that at the time you had a sexual interest in children. You maintained that it was an artistic interest in the female form. The jury disagreed...<a name="reference4" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/graham-ovenden-sentenced-avoids-prison.html#endnote4"><sup><small>4</small></sup></a></blockquote>
The statement was disingenuous for two reasons. First, law and jurisprudence require that the jury <b>not</b> take into account any intent, whether sexual or innocent, so if the jury did "disagree" with Mr. Ovenden, they acted outside the law -- and without the benefit of a full defense of the photographs within the context of Graham Ovenden's oevre, because Judge Cottle would not permit such a defense.<br />
<br />
Second, there was simply no evidence in the case, or anywhere, that the "true purpose" of Graham Ovenden's photography was "sexual." This is simply moralist hyperbole. The two models in the 3 photographs determined by the jury to be "indecent" -- those were the same two who said they were never molested by Mr. Ovenden -- defended Mr. Ovenden's work and the practice of his photography well into their twenties. Even at trial, one of them would only say that the image of her that was part of the charges was "not me," while the other did not disavow her earlier support, but said that she now believes that children should not be photographed in such poses. It is worth pointing out that 20 years ago she told a court: "When I modeled for Graham, I’d make up the poses and he’d shoot them. He never asked me to be sexy and I never tried to...."<br />
<br />
When the BBC interviewed Mr. Ovenden on the courthouse steps after the sentencing, its reporter sounded like a petulant schoolboy reading a script he'd just been handed, not a professional journalist. Here is part of the exchange:
<blockquote><i>BBC</i>: "Isn't it just time to be honest and straight and true and say "I'm sorry"?"<br />
<br />
<i>Graham Ovenden</i>: "No, isn't it about time that the media started being honest and straight and true and stopped this mindless witch hunt which is going on at the moment."<br />
<br />
<i>BBC</i>: "What have we done wrong in reporting a jury's verdict against you?"<br />
<br />
<i>Graham Ovenden</i>: "Well, in regards to jury verdicts, I mean, are you so naïve as to think that in a jury, that in fact, truth always lies?"<br />
<br />
<i>BBC</i>: "So everybody is wrong apart from you."<br />
<br />
<i>Graham Ovenden</i>: "Well, since I'm about twenty times more intelligent than most people, I think that would be a very reasonable assumption."<a name="reference5" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/graham-ovenden-sentenced-avoids-prison.html#endnote5"><sup><small>5</small></sup></a></blockquote>
Mr. Ovenden might have said that no, not "everybody" is wrong apart from him. He was not convicted by a unanimous jury on the two minor counts involving JB. (Those were the only counts having to do with supposed sexual contact with a minor.) And in any event, the unanimous verdict declaring 3 photographs to be "indecent" is hardly indicative of a consensus by "everybody." <br />
<br />
Mr. Ovenden's appeals continue.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Endnotes</b>
<br />
<a name="endnote1" href="#reference1"><sup><small>1</small></sup></a>Morris, Steven, "Graham Ovenden gets suspended sentence for child sexual offenses. <i>The Guardian</i>, 4 June 2013; http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/04/graham-ovenden-suspended-sentence-sexual-offences<br /><br /> Although generally truthful about the charges for which Graham Ovenden was convicted, <i>The Guardian</i>'s reporting was hardly a model of objective journalism.
<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote2" href="#reference2"><sup><small>2</small></sup></a>"Graham Ovenden sex crimes: Artist gets suspended sentence." <i>BBC News</i>, 4 June 2013; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-22763701<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote3" href="#reference3"><sup><small>3</small></sup></a>"Disgraced artist Graham Ovenden given suspended sentence for child sex offences." <i>Western Morning News, This is Cornwall</i>, June 04, 2013; http://www.cornishguardian.co.uk/Disgraced-artist-Graham-Ovenden-given-suspended/story-19181467-detail/story.html<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote4" href="#reference4"><sup><small>4</small></sup></a>Cooper, Rob, "The soft sentence that even surprised a pervert: Judge FREES artist who sexually abused three children as young as six while they posed for his paintings." <i>Mail Online</i>, 04 June 2013. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2335744/Internationally-renowned-artist-sexually-abused-children-young-posed-paintings-walks-free-court.html<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote5" href="#reference5"><sup><small>5</small></sup></a>Artist says case is 'witch hunt.' <i>BBC</i>, 4 June 2013. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22768106Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15634435116714830373noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5914132379232520232.post-37262755064068497042013-06-03T14:12:00.000-07:002013-06-03T17:03:18.722-07:00"We regard this as a true and honest account."<a href="http://postimg.org/image/m50tgzuop/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Ref 01 Minty Challis" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/m50tgzuop/Ref_01_Minty_Challis.jpg" /></a>Donna Berry was four years of age in 1970 when she was casually photographed, clothed, not nude, in Graham's Ovenden's flat in London, where he lived with his wife, Annie. The flat consisted of a kitchen/dining area, a very small bedroom and a sitting room where Mr. Ovenden painted and took photographs. The image reproduced here shows Ms. Berry seated on the floor. Pat C., the mother of another model, is the person seated on the couch nearby. Ms. Berry was not alone. It was Pat C. who brought Ms. Berry, together with her own daughter, Lorraine, age 6, to be photographed by Mr. Ovenden. Mr. Ovenden wasn't particularly interested in photographing Ms. Berry due to her age and took only about half a dozen images of her that day. (In Mr. Ovenden's words, four-year-olds' faces are, in general, not structurally developed enough to make them interesting from the standpoint of his artwork. Indeed, conspicuous by its absence from Mr. Ovenden's work are any images of girls under the age of about five or six.) Three years later, Pat C. brought her daughter and Ms. Berry, who was then 7, to Barley Splatt for a five-day vacation. However, no photographs were taken during that visit.<br />
<br />
In November of 2006, based on uncorroborated allegations lodged by Ms. Berry, the Metropolitan Police raided the Ovenden home at Barley Splatt and arrested Mr. Ovenden. Ms. Berry was the only alleged victim who ever "came forward" in the Ovenden case and the sole witness upon which the 2006 search and arrest warrant was based. Ultimately, the Crown Prosecution Service dropped Ms. Berry from the case. Nonetheless, the Met made use of her.<br />
<br />
Ms. Berry's statement consisted of six pages of rambling accusations that included the "taste test," i.e., that in 1970, when she was four years old, Mr. Ovenden blindfolded her and put his penis in her mouth under the guise of having her taste different things. She also stated that Mr. Ovenden photographed her naked with her legs spread and that she was subjected to mind control. Although the Met signed off on Ms. Berry's statement with the words "We regard this as a true and honest account," someone on the force had to have known that the accusations lacked credibility from a criminal justice standpoint. So eager were they to get Mr. Ovenden, however, that any professional concerns were brushed aside. The raid was carried out, complete with frogmen who were there to dredge the pond and a disused mineshaft on the property if the need arose, and Graham Ovenden was arrested.<br />
<br />
Although Ms. Berry's statement to the police has not been publicly divulged, she has made all of those allegations and much more in numerous forums online during the pendancy of the cases against Mr. Ovenden in 2009, 2010 and 2013. (Only the 2013 case ended in convictions and Ms. Berry was not part of that case.) Like Operation Yewtree,<a name="reference1" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/we-regard-this-as-true-and-honest.html#endnote1"><sup><small>1</small></sup></a> the Ovenden case raises numerous questions regarding the Met's practice of "trawling" for victims. But it also raises serious questions of professional ethics in both using someone whose testimony is known to be juridically unreliable as a pretext to conduct a raid and arrest, and then coaxing subsequent witnesses to adopt similar stories. The Met and their investigators used Ms. Berry for their own purposes to carry out their vendetta against Mr. Ovenden, and when it became obvious that they could not rely on Ms. Berry's testimony, they dropped her. As Ms. Berry, writing under her <i>nom de guerre</i>, Minty Challis, stated in a comment she left on 08 April 2013, on <i>The Guardian</i>'s website poll, "Should the Tate have removed Graham Ovenden's prints?," "im more damaged by the c.p.s. and people calling me a lier and the proceeder of getting him to court than the abuse now."<br />
<br />
<b>Ms. Berry's Online Comments</b><br />
<br />
Ms. Berry's claims were not only taken seriously or given validity by the Met and the CPS, but she has been given a voice on anti-child abuse forums and websites devoted to vast, worldwide conspiracy theories involving Satanism, mind control and paedophilia, including one that is virulently neo-Nazi. <i>The Daily Mail</i>, which criticized her as an "agitprop activist" and a "rent-a-cause rebel," nevertheless devoted three separate articles to her on October 21, 2012, noting that she "has made it onto the front pages of the majority of national newspapers."<a name="reference2" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/we-regard-this-as-true-and-honest.html#endnote2"><sup><small>2</small></sup></a><br />
<br />
In order to understand Ms. Berry's accusations against Graham Ovenden, it is necessary to see her online posts and their path to the present day. All misspellings, capitalizations, punctuation, etc., are as in the original, as the reader will see via the links provided. The reader should not conclude from this, however, that Ms. Berry is not intelligent. To the contrary, she is a very intelligent woman who not only is well versed in political action and propaganda, but also knows how to appeal emotionally to her audiences.
<br />
<br />
Note:"[...]" indicates that the post has been edited for inclusion here.<br />
<br />
<i>14 April 2001 - IndyMedia UK</i><br />
"artist grayham ovenden was arrested 7 years ago,and cleared of child abuse.not one of hes child models was allowed to atend or give evidence,no justice!ACALF WAS FORMED BECAUSE OF A NEED FOR AN INDEPENT BODY TO TAKE DIRECT ACTON AGAINST PEOPLE IN POWER WHO ABUSE CHILDREN.NEWS OF THE WORLD HAS STATED THAT OVENDEN IS WITH OUT A DOUBT GUILTY AS HE ASSOCIates with known child abusers.............."<a name="reference3" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/we-regard-this-as-true-and-honest.html#endnote3"><sup><small>3</small></sup></a>
<br />
<b>Author's note</b>: No case was mounted against Mr. Ovenden in the 1990s. Rather, the CPS ordered the Met to drop its investigation after it failed to uncover any evidence of wrongdoing on Mr. Ovenden's part and after numerous artists came to Mr. Ovenden's defense. No former child model made any allegation or complaint against Mr. Ovenden during the 1990s, either publicly or to the police.<br />
<br />
<i>13 July 2003 - IndyMedia UK</i><br />
"[...] As to the comment about the gallery in which a mother artist put naked pictures of her own children in, I will tell you the same as was said to the world press, the pictures themselves I do not find pornographic. Having been in naked art myself as a child, being left in a room with a male photo artist with no adult present, in my case did lead to sexual abuse and many obsessesed with my pictures found me and abused me as well over the years."<br />
<br />
"I’m not saying that all artists who photograph children are abusers, some are, but we have a problem that branches out of art. There are a lot of unbalanced mind out there who can not control themselves. Art is ok, abuse is not, ta ALICE OWTA WONDERLAND.MINTY. You realy should look at the Stop Child Rape web site."<a name="reference4" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/we-regard-this-as-true-and-honest.html#endnote4"><sup><small>4</small></sup></a><br />
<sup><small> </small></sup>
<br />
<b>Author's note</b>: Ms. Berry's claim that she was photographed naked and then pursued and abused by many others who saw her photos over the years has no corroboration. No nude images of Ms. Berry as a child have ever been found. As for the "Stop Child Rape" website recommended by Ms. Berry, it is no longer online, but can be viewed using the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. The website was "dedicated to exposing and solving the problem of our Worldwide Masonic-run Government's, Ritual Child Abuse & Murder Network."<a name="reference5" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/we-regard-this-as-true-and-honest.html#endnote5"><sup><small>5</small></sup></a><br />
<br />
<i>27 February 2008</i> -
<i>IndyMedia UK</i><br />
[Ms. Berry's posts are responses to the messages headed "State-protected paedophile ring in Jersey?" and "Paedophile Freemasons involved in cases of child abuse in UK"]<br />
"at last!<br />
its grate to see this topic on indi,ive tried for 10 years to include this topic on our any capitalist marches no one wanted to know,so its good to see it,bless,anti child abuse liberation front,minty challis.x."<br />
<br />
"yes not all masons are kidy feelers,a few send me letters how they do not agree with wat was done to me,we got masons fighting masons, believe!!!!look at,www.stop child rape.minty.x. minty challis"<a name="reference6" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/we-regard-this-as-true-and-honest.html#endnote6"><sup><small>6</small></sup></a>
<br />
<br />
<i>13 November 2008 - IndyMedia UK</i><br />
"gaham just been charged for child porn that i found on net hes faceing the cps [Crown Prosecution Service]; well i stayed patent and look at the result,i spent years looking at hes sites and got him,one of hes sites direct link to hes other art,child porn,i was never lying just would have taken at least 48 hours to explain,yet none of you had the time,so you never got the full story,shame on you,now thats all in the past and waiting to hear if me and the 8 other children,will be taking him to court we are believed by higher inelegance,but they brought in a fuking law 2 years ago (which i did try get all ya attention on)that you can only take ya abuser to court up to 8 years after the abuse and as ours is over 30 years ago we having to fight hard,now all differences aside,weve done the trees we done the animals now its
the youth!!!get in touch for the march of a million youth,(lets remember it was people in high positions of power that abused us),our time is now,bless all minty.x. minty challis"<a name="reference7" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/we-regard-this-as-true-and-honest.html#endnote7"><sup><small>7</small></sup></a><br />
<br />
<b>Author's Note</b>: Mr. Ovenden was never connected to the Internet and was never accused of anything having to do with Internet child pornography. Rather, he was unsuccessfully charged for collage works that contained no actual child pornography, which works were recovered from the cache of his computer using forensic software. There were also never "8 other children" making allegations. As of November 2008, only Ms. Berry and CM had made any allegations.<br />
<br />
<i>On or after 18 August 2008</i> - <i>Minty Challis MySpace page, opened 18-08-08</i><br />
"I WAS PUT INTO CARE AT THE AGE OF 13 AND LOCKED UP IN WHAT THE GOVERNMENT CALL "ASSESSMENT CENTERS" TILL AGED 15... SHAME IS NO-ONE EVER ASKED ME WHAT MY PROBLEMS MIGHT BE, HENCE THE CONTRADICTION OF THE WORDS "ASSESSMENT CENTRES". HAVING GOT MYSELF A JOB, A ROOM AND A PLACEMENT IN THE ADELAIDE CENTRE/SCHOOL, I WALKED INTO SOCIAL SERVICES TOLD THEM I WAS SELF SUFFICIENT AND GOT MYSELF OUT OF CARE!! I SPENT 8 YEARS ON THE STREETS OF CENTRAL LONDON, HIDING FROM THE PEOPLE WHO ABUSED ME AS A CHILD, I AGAIN GOT MYSELF OFF THE STREETS AND NOW HAVE GIGGED FOR 15 YEARS WITHOUT CHARGING MONEY IN ORDER TO AVOID BEING CONTROLLED BY THE MUSIC INDUSTRY. [...] I AM CURRENTLY RUNNING THE 'ANTI CHILD ABUSE LIBERATION FUND' (A.C.A.L.F.) AND AM INVOLVED WITH THE SOUTH LONDON CEASE FIRE CREW... ARE YOU REAL READY FOR THE REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!! MINTY.X. THE PROGRAM THEY ARE USING TO CONTROL US IS CALLED THE ALICE IN WONDERLAND PROJECT.IT IS AN OFFSHOOT OF PROJECT MONARCH,MK ULTRA..........PEOPLE IN AMERICA HAVE TAKEN THE C.I.A.TO COURT AND WON THEIR CASES,SO IT IS NOT CONSPIRACY!!! BLOGS.TO BLESS THE YOUTH.MINTY.X.X.X get these guys to London!!!!we love em,truth!!!!!!!!"<a name="reference8" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/we-regard-this-as-true-and-honest.html#endnote8"><sup><small>8</small></sup></a><br />
<br />
<b>Author's Note</b>: Here Ms. Berry refers to the mind control project that she mentioned in her criminal complaint to the Met in 2006.<br />
<br />
<i>21 August 2008 - GoPetition</i><br />
"Petition signature comment by minty challis<br />
Date: August 21, 2008<br />
Petition: The Megan Williams Case<br />
Petition signer's comment:<br />
i was kidnapped 8 days at 8 years old,and put in videos of child porn,im meditating for Megan.talking healed me not there system councilers as i don't trust them but to other survivors etc.with all my heart bless you,minty.x..x.x.x...x"<a name="reference9" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/we-regard-this-as-true-and-honest.html#endnote9"><sup><small>9</small></sup></a>
<br />
<br />
<b>Author's note</b>: Ms. Berry's alleged kidnapping at 8 years of age is not an allegation she made against Mr. Ovenden but against someone whom she refers to as Mr. Rothschild. Her claim that she was "put in videos of child porn" remains uncorroborated. (Given the state of video technology in 1974, it is also improbable.)<br />
<br />
<i>23 November 2008 - Bebo.com</i><br />
"Minty Challis said:<br />
hi i was abused and kidnapped at 8 for 8 days and put in child porn,contact me i have songs from years ago that i wrote,there not weepy,fuking aving it,caused a few riots to,myspace.com/mintychallis....my MARCH OF A MILLION YOUTH 18TH JULY,09, myspace.com/stop_the_killin,,,,,facebook mintychallis,ill get the songs on the pages soon as,we are the,,,ANTI CHILD ABUSE LIBERATION FROUNT COME JOIN!!!!! A.C.A.L.F.X.X..X.X"<a name="reference10" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/we-regard-this-as-true-and-honest.html#endnote10"><sup><small>10</small></sup></a>
<br />
<br />
<i>2008-2009 - Youtube</i> (<i>entries on Minty Challis Youtube account captured on June 1, 2013</i>).<br />
"Donna El Berry replied to a comment from ffairlane57 4 years ago<br />
i was abused by pigs and government higher intelligences have found the child porn on net to prove it,i was kidnapped for 8 days at 8 years old for sex,and it hasn't made me hate all pigs,but truth be known they are ordered to batter us,but were not all crusty skum, some of us have good reason not excuses,big up good pigs fuk of bad ones same as all groups good and bad,minty.x"<br />
<br />
"Donna El Berry commented 4 years ago<br />
hi i run the anti child abuse liberation front and ive never heard that rod [Rodney King] was a child abuser sorry don't belove it,bless Rodney king, blairs a peado so go bash him,minty.x."<a name="reference11" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/we-regard-this-as-true-and-honest.html#endnote11"><sup><small>11</small></sup></a>
<br />
<br />
<i>31 October 2009 - Baby Art Blog</i><br />
"got away said<br />
hi art is ok abuse is not,he did abuse us,he changes the pics,you all sound like good people, and alot of naked art is ok,ie the mum who put her kids pics in gallery,shes cool,but he hurt me bad wen i was 4,and many more have come forward,bless you all,and hope you understand,.x.x.<a name="reference12" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/we-regard-this-as-true-and-honest.html#endnote12"><sup><small>12</small></sup></a>
<br />
<br />
<i>20 February 2010 - Causes.com</i><br />
"About:<br />
to get justice for all survivers of sexull child hood abuse by people in positions of power,there days are numberd...bless,x"<br />
"A.C.A.L.F. was set up as an independant body because of an ever growing need to protect children,,,we are sick and tired of people in positions of power dealing with these cases,,as they are the same people who are committing these offences..we are also WOSA,,PEOPLE WHO AS KIDS WERE FILMED,PHOTOGRAPHED,RAPED,AND WHOS PICTURES WERE POSTED ON A CHILD PORN SITE CALLED WONDERLAND,,IT NOW HAS BEEN SHUT DOWN,,We along with the children of tomorow,,ask these people in there positions of power to now stand down,,or except the fact you will be taken down as in Belgim,,,you had fun with many millions of us we are now one and we do NOT intend to commit suicide,go mad,or forget... thankyou,Alice OWTA Wonderland(Minty challis,bless,X<a name="reference13" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/we-regard-this-as-true-and-honest.html#endnote13"><sup><small>13</small></sup></a><br />
<br />
<b>Author's Note</b>: "Wonderland" refers to the Wonderland Club, shut down by the British National Crime Squad in 1998.<a name="reference14" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/we-regard-this-as-true-and-honest.html#endnote14"><sup><small>14</small></sup></a> There is no evidence that Ms Berry was ever photographed, raped and had her images posted on that or any other website.<br />
<br />
<i>Mid-2010 </i>- <i>Reverbnation.com</i><br />
"DJ,BURNDEM (almost 3 years ago)
I am also, Miss Jus Dis, M.C,Liberty..ON MY RECOMMENDATIONS LIST,,BUT AM BLOCKED OUT BY THE ZIONIST HACKERS,,,ALSO IM LOCKED OUT OF MY MYSPACE ACCOUNT,BUT FEEL FREE TO GO HAVE A LOOK,ITS GOT MY HISTORY THERE,myspace.com/mintychallis,,,,BLESS,X"<a name="reference15" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/we-regard-this-as-true-and-honest.html#endnote15"><sup><small>15</small></sup></a><br />
<br />
<b>Author's Note</b>: The comment was captured on June 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
On <i>August 8th or 9th, 2010</i>, - <i>Despiertate</i><br />
<br />
<b>Author's Note</b>: Ms. Berry appeared at a "Rally against Child Abuse" at Trafalgar Square together with David Icke,<a name="reference16" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/we-regard-this-as-true-and-honest.html#endnote16"><sup><small>16</small></sup></a><sup><small>16</small></sup></a> among others. The videoclip of Ms. Berry speech was deleted from Youtube, but a transcription, translated into Spanish, appears on the website, <i>Despiertate</i>. Portions of that transcript are included here, re-translated back into English. Given both earlier and later postings by Ms. Berry, there is no reason to believe that the transcription and translations in any way misrepresent what she said that day.<br />
<br />
"Ok, my name is Minty Challis. In 1970 I was abused by David Mellor, Mark Hayworth, Peter Blake, a famous artist, and Graham Ovenden. My pictures are in a gallery around here, naked at age four with my legs open." [...]<br />
<br />
"Do you remember the 13 people people who died in Soho watching a pornographic movie Sorry: we lit the fire." [...] <br />
<br />
"The first time I went to Gaza, I asked Hamas for a rocket. I said to them, 'Please, would you permit me to bomb Mr. Rothschild, who abused me when I was four years old? Please, would you permit me to shoot him?' Do you know what they said? 'No. Maintain the peace! The Messiah will return as female energy.'" [...] <br />
<br />
"Part of military training is to double over someone fourteen years of age and simulate violating them. It's part of the instruction of the English army." [...] <br />
<br />
"Those who hope to go to Israel and help this girl, see how many more are abused there by the Zionists, because we must confess that above the paedophile ring are them." [...] <br />
<br />
"The program of mind control used against us, as we all know, is 'Alice in Wonderland,' the same name as my naked pictures when I was four years of age, which are in every gallery in London. Moreover, they are distributed throughout the world. In every gallery of the world you can enter and ask: 'May I see the nude pictures of Alice in Wonderland, 1980?' And there I am, with my legs spread and everything. I tried to stop these pictures. They prohibited me from entering all the galleries. I am prohibited from entering in this gallery here! In fact, I am forbidden to leave England. They took my passport for seven years." [...] <br />
<br />
"Ok, so I went to France in 1994 and was filmed for television, was singing, giving a concert, and someone told me that they were filming for television, so then I said, 'Good, I'm from the United Kingdom, and 8 politicians abuse me as a girl - I can't get my case heard!' They took my passport on my return from France and refused to give it back to me. The woman who tried to get a passport for me so I could go to Gaza last year, she received a telephone call that said 'She is a terrorist, we don't want her leaving the country.' A terrorist, because I was abused? Because I lead the Anti-Child Abuse Liberation Front?" [...]<br />
<br />
"Twenty years ago I did mind control, I was Alice in Wonderland, and people have told me that mind control is something that doesn't exist. Even my own family threw me out of the house." [...]<br />
<br />
"They hypnotized me as Alice in Wonderland; I was four years old!" [...]<br />
<br />
"Why is there an affinity between Gaza and me? Because the leaders of the paedophile ring are in Israel! They are called Rothschild y they are called Rockefeller! Rothschild organized my kidnapping when I was 8 years old. I was kidnapped for 8 days. I was given heroin and used in pornographic films, that have now been discovered." ]...]<br />
<br />
"As many women were involved in my abuse as were men." [...]<a name="reference17" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/we-regard-this-as-true-and-honest.html#endnote17"><sup><small>17</small></sup></a><br />
<br />
<i>September 21, 2011 - Subverted Nation</i><br />
"this is so true, i was abused and kidnapped by these sick pedos at 4 and 8 years old, thank you to people now LEARNING and posting, XXXX"<a name="reference18" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/we-regard-this-as-true-and-honest.html#endnote18"><sup><small>18</small></sup></a><br />
<br />
<b>Author's Note</b>: Ms. Berry's comments were directed to an article on this a neo-Nazi and Holocaust-denial website about an Internet child pornography ring that resulted in the arrest of 22 people from around the world in 2008. <i>Subverted Nation</i> wrote:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
It's obvious this wasn't just your garden variety group of sickos trading a few pics on the net...The whole operation stinks of jews... It was run like a jew business, and it's a typical jew business model for sure. Not to mention it's an area where jews are the majority, because their doctrine is the only one on earth, that not only condones, but encourages sex with children. [...] [I]t's like I keep saying, the depravity of the jew knows no bounds. [...] [Children] are not safe with jews walking our streets [...] You can scream Nazi all you want, but there was a good reason Germany enacted laws to confine these critters, and just look at how infested they are with disease today. I say this tie we get rid of these demonic souls once and for all. No more jews living among non-jew populations, not even on the same land mass...for as long as mankind shall last.<a name="reference19" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/we-regard-this-as-true-and-honest.html#endnote19"><sup><small>19</small></sup></a></blockquote>
<i>June 2012 </i>- <i>Youtube (</i>Donna El Berry <i>posted 1 year ago</i>)<br />
"2nd.responce to xFADrelxs. im not a benefit sponger,i had an opp in 200 they removed a foreign body from my belly i lost an overy,no doctors believed me all my life then they scanned me and i had a major opp,(and was apologized to for many years of none belief,100 they had to cut it from my bowels my bladder and all other internal things as it was sticky and attached,can you imagine the pain i had all my life from this?"<a name="reference20" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/we-regard-this-as-true-and-honest.html#endnote20"><sup><small>20</small></sup></a><br />
<br />
<b>Author's Note</b>: The comment was captured on June 1, 2013.<br />
<br />
<i>January 17, 2013 - Novel Activist</i><br />
"minty says:<br />
the thing is why were the child models alone with him with no adult there as he paid the parents adults to go have tea in harrords wile he took naked pics of them Lorraine has had to have many years of counseling just for that she says he didn’t touch her but the modeling left her with complexes so much so she changed her name etc."<a name="reference21" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/we-regard-this-as-true-and-honest.html#endnote21"><sup><small>21</small></sup></a>
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/88eszvuah/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Pat C letter" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/88eszvuah/Pat_C_letter.jpg" /></a><b>Author's Note</b>: Mr. Ovenden never paid any of his models, their parents or anyone else. Nor did he send parents to Harrods (or anywhere else) while he took nude images. Ms. Berry's statements above that Lorraine C. (referred to in the first paragraph of this article) "had to have many years of counseling" and that "modeling left her with complexes so much so she changed her name" is contradicted by two facts: First, in an email sent by Ms. Berry to this author on May 29, 2013, Mr. Berry admitting that she "lost touch with lorrain when i was 11 as my mum moved away from her mum." Second, Pat C.'s letter to Mr. Ovenden in December 2004 would not have been written by someone who believed her daughter was damaged by him. (The police are also in possession of a letter from Lorraine C. thanking Mr. Ovenden for a print of one of her images that he sent her.)<br />
<br />
<i>06 April 2013 - Zoompad's Blog</i><br />
<br />
<b>Author's Note</b>: The following comment was not by Ms. Berry, but recounts what Ms. Berry was heard to say. Evidently, the writer of the comment believed what Ms. Berry told her. However, there were never any images of Ms. Berry in the Tate Gallery -- or any other gallery or museum.<br />
<br />
"When I went to the child abuse victims get together a couple of years ago, [...] I met Minty, the lady who was in the newspapers later over the Dale Farm eviction, I had a chat with her and she told me they had got her picture in the Tate Gallery, that Ovenden had abused her and taken her picture as part of his Malice in Wonderland collection. I hope she's ok and well, if she's reading this blog, I am very glad for her that the horrible pictures have been taken down [...]"<a name="reference22" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/06/we-regard-this-as-true-and-honest.html#endnote22"><sup><small>22</small></sup></a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/wq6wnrwux/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Minty Guardian comment" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/wq6wnrwux/Minty_Guardian_comment.jpg" /></a><i>08 April 2013 9:40am - The Guardian</i><br />
"Donna El Berry<br />
what is painful for us he abused is this,wile the pics were taken we were being abused this is hidden as the pics are changed a bit with bright colors etc,so its like a complex i feel everyone can see me naked,sounds mad but thats the psychological damage from hes abuse.i wish all the pics of us were removed not just from the Tate,every day he sells pics of me and the other abused girls,some for over £.2000 EACH THIS MAKES ME SICK WILE I HAD A DISTURBED LIFE FROM HIM AND HES SICK FANTICS I LIVED ON THE STREETS ETC, never able to reach my full potential staved for many years etc he feeds of my pics. for 30 years i was called a lier etc bullied to the point of suicide.now i can slowly start my life ,shame is im 47 and not eating cos of hes sick food games and abuse i have not much left of me to have a life,i dedicated my life to proving hes a abuser and abused us,its took me 40 years of demos riots and complete press harassment and lies written about me,the papers all called me a lier last year now they are all jumping on the band wagon, not one of them has apologized,im more damaged by the c.p.s. and people calling me a lier and the proceeder of getting him to court than the abuse now,love to all,always protect you kids as abuse damage is life long,peace."<br />
<br />
(The comment was posted on <i>The Guardian</i> website poll, "Should the Tate have removed Graham Ovenden's prints?," but removed by shortly after it was posted due to complaints about its veracity.)<br />
<br />
<i>May 30, 2013, email from Minty Challis to Bruce Wagner</i><br />
"[...] [Mr. Ovenden] put me naked on a hight stall and blind folded me,he had put bowels of diferent foods and when i was bliind folded he made me tast the foods one by one on hes wlly,i have had problems eatting all my life,i my self know that becaue i do not remember what foods was in the bowels when some thing has the same textures i cant eat,hence nearly starving to death all my life, i wouldnt have baths with out cloaths on till i was about 16 years old,then i worked out it was a complex from bieng photoed nude, obiosly my sub concane thought nude ,camra,as soon as i put 2 and 2 together i was ablue to bath naked [...]"<br />
<br />
- "i was just always telling police i was abused,me and lorrain usto go to the police station and say we were abused and they usto say,do you want to see the horses ,they never did anything,i was always telling people he abued me,there must be lots of places that had been tolled, police have most of that"<br />
<br />
- "mark haworth booth,ill telll you how that came about,i went to pat [C.'s] house years ago to punch her,as my mum tried to blame it all on pat taking me to grayham,i knocked on her door she opened the door and said sorry,(my mum never said sorry)so i forgave pat and stayed at her house 1 week ,pat said hes ruined your and lorrains life and tolled me lots,she said he wanted you for hes alice in wonderland project(which i now know is the mind control program they put me in,mkultra,alice progect)so then i looked at the vxa for the pics of me,as i had a
feeeling to go print room and ask for alice pics,(thanks pat) i got there a lad was there that day,i got the pics and the boy said,hay thats you now in that pic but its got 1970 on it! i said pls say nothing this man abused me and im shure they have been folowing me all my life,he said you can contact mark haworth booth ,hes not here today,or you might know him as howerd, that esent shivers down my spine,when we went to knightsbright to grahams studio there was another abuser there him and grayham shared the kids,hes name was howerd! there more on that one,obiosly me bieng me i then studed howed(mark),,i did again complain when he was arested first time in uk, the police were crap,now david mellor,i have a slight memory of him bieng there at times at grayhams studio, so me bieng me googled david mellor and mark haworth booth as one google i got a boook they did together years ago,it was called definitan of little boys musles,it was nude kids boys flexing there muslces,yuk!i was with kevin javes at the time and we were on net togther,,kevin worked for panarama,he lives in usa now.so again i had a wittness to me finding this book,then i knew for shure david was in it with them,all sounds a bit mad,but to wright it i dont do as well as saying it [...]"<br />
<br />
"[T]he police in my case said the defence were going to use the vid [of Ms. Berry's speech at Trafalgar Square] to make me look stupid,so i asked the girll who put it up to take it down,they didnt for 3 mouths till ii threatened thenm with leagle action [...]"<br />
<br />
<b>Author's Note</b>: The account of the "taste test" offered in Ms. Berry's May 30, 2013 email contains details that were absent from her statements to the Met. As already stated above, the claim that Pat C. told Ms. Berry that Mr. Ovenden ruined her and Lorraine C.'s life is contradicted by Ms. Berry's email admitting that she lost contact with the C.'s and by Pat C.'s letter to the Ovendens in December 2004. Again, no nude pictures of Ms. Berry exist because none were ever taken. Mr. Ovenden did produce a number of "Alice" drawings and paintings, but Ms. Berry is not in them and they were created prior to 1970.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/eonrpz2u1/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Alice 01 (1969 1970)" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/eonrpz2u1/Alice_01_1969_1970.jpg" /></a><a href="http://postimg.org/image/57xyjcizd/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="GO But there isn't any wine 1969" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/57xyjcizd/GO_But_there_isn_t_any_wine_1969.jpg" /></a>The "Alice" series that was available for view at the Tate Gallery and its website (and which can now be seen <a href="http://notthetate.blogspot.com/">here</a>) was begun in 1968 during Mr. Ovenden's final year at the Royal College and completed by 1970 when it was exhibited along with works by Peter Blake at the Waddington Gallery. There were 8 screen prints in the series, all modeled on Sally J, the daughter of Mr. Ovenden's frame maker, who does not resemble a four-year-old or Ms. Berry in the slightest. Nor do any of those drawings depict nudity. The second Alice series were a group of paintings modeled after a girl named Belinda, whom Mr. Ovenden photographed in 1968 and 1969. One of those paintings was used as the cover of a 1976 LP entitled "Malice in Wonderland" by British blues/rock/funk band, <a href="http://www.discogs.com/Paice-Ashton-Lord-Malice-In-Wonderland/master/38066" target="_blank">Paice Ashton & Lord</a>.<br />
<br />
Perhaps the Met did tell Ms. Berry to take her Trafalgar Square speech offline in 2010 when the CPS was preparing a case against Mr. Ovenden based on Ms. Berry's 2006 allegations, but it is a fact that when Mr. Ovenden's barrister, Robert Linford, asked for copies of the historical psychiatric reports regarding Ms. Berry, the CPS refused to hand them over until forced to do so. The reports are notable only for the fact that they contained no claims by Ms. Berry that she had been abused in 1970 by Mr. Ovenden or anyone else.
<br />
<br />
Ultimately, CM and JB adopted their own version of Ms. Berry's "taste test" story. Was it the Metropolitan Police who prompted them? Testimony by another witness, shown in an earlier post with a white blindfold, suggests that this was the case. She indicated that she had been questioned repeatedly about blindfolding (although the Met didn't know at the time that she had been blindfolded for one of the Harry Lunn drawings) and could not explain to her inquisitors why she was blindfolded, although she was sure she was never abused. CM and JB, on the other hand, told the same story, with the same doubtful details, down to the sudden visual "revelation" of the alleged event many years after the fact. For this reason, and because on cross-examination they dissembled on important aspects in their stories which they hadn't thought through, they were disbelieved by the jury. As already mentioned here, Judge Cottle was disturbed enough by the similarity of their testimony to instruct the jury to consider, among other things, whether they had "been affected by someone to make similar but false claims." These stories and the claims of Ms. Berry are relevant now because they are indicative of how the case against Graham Ovenden has been constructed and prosecuted by the Met and the CPS from the very beginning.<br />
<br />
In the next post, we'll take a closer look at other accusations that should never have been prosecuted by the CPS: those by JB for which Mr. Ovenden was convicted by a vote of 10-2.<br />
<br />
<b>Endnotes</b><br />
<br />
<a name="endnote1" href="#reference1"><sup><small>1</small></sup></a>See, e.g., Furedi, Frank, "After Savile: policing as entertainment." <i>Spiked</i>: 29 April 2013. http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13580/<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote2" href="#reference2"><sup><small>2</small></sup></a><i>See</i>, Moir, Jan, "Minty the rent-a-cause rebel with a frothy latte," <i>Mail Online</i>, 21 October 2011, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2051662/Dale-Farm-eviction-Minty-rent-cause-rebel-frothy-latte.html; Reid, Sue, "The fantasist of Dale Farm: Why does the mother of gipsy camp activist Minty Challis say she's a deluded self-publicist?" <i>Mail Online</i>, 21 October 2011; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2052079/The-fantasist-Dale-Farm-Why-does-mother-gipsy-camp-activist-Minty-say-shes-deluded-self-publicist.html; and Pendlebury, Richard and Arthur Martin, "The truth about Minty, the crucifix-waving rebel for any cause you like." <i>Mail Online</i>, 21 October 2011. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2051282/Dale-Farm-The-truth-Minty-crucifix-waving-rebel-cause-like.html. <i> </i><br />
<br />
<i>The Daily Mail</i> is cited here not for the truth of what the articles contain, but to illustrate the fact that Ms. Berry is given voice in a wide array of forums.<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote3" href="#reference3"><sup><small>3</small></sup></a>Indy Media U.K., "acalfs victory over child abuser artists, Minty Challis, 14.04.2001. http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2001/04/2952.html<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote4" href="#reference4"><sup><small>4</small></sup></a><i>Id.</i> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2001/04/2952.html?c=on#comments<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote5" href="#reference5"><sup><small>5</small></sup></a>Stop Child Rape Network, http://wayback.archive.org/web/20050306014328/http://stopchildrape.info.<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote6" href="#reference6"><sup><small>6</small></sup></a>IndyMedia UK, "State-protected paedophile ring in Jersey?" and "Paedophile Freemasons involved in cases of child abuse in UK," http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/02/392266.html?c=on#comments<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote7" href="#reference7"><sup><small>7</small></sup></a><i>Infra</i>, note 3.<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote8" href="#reference8"><sup><small>8</small></sup></a>Minty Militant Charming Challis's page on MySpace, http://www.myspace.com/mintychallis, at lower right.<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote9" href="#reference9"><sup><small>9</small></sup></a>GoPetition: Changing the World, http://www.gopetition.com/petition-comment.php?cid=4017738<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote10" href="#reference10"><sup><small>10</small></sup></a>The Anti Peado Squad's Photos [sic], on Bebo, http://www.bebo.com/c/photos/view?MemberId=1758379385&PhotoAlbumId=1830555542<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote11" href="#reference11"><sup><small>11</small></sup></a>Donna El Berry, YouTube, http://www.youtube.com/user/mintychallis<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote12" href="#reference12"><sup><small>12</small></sup></a>Baby Art Blog, "graham ovenden on trial," http://www.pileup.com/babyart/blog/?p=379<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote13" href="#reference13"><sup><small>13</small></sup></a>causes: "Anti-Child-Abuse-Liberation-Front,,A.C.A.L.F," http://www.causes.com/causes/450378-anti-child-abuse-liberation-front-a-c-a-l-f/about<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote14" href="#reference14"><sup><small>14</small></sup></a>For information on the "Wonderland Club," <i>see</i>, Wikipedia, "Operation Cathedral," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cathedral<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote15" href="#reference15"><sup><small>15</small></sup></a>DJ, BURNDEM / Comments, http://www.reverbnation.com/page_object/page_object_comments/artist_884294. (The photo is of Ms. Berry.)<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote16" href="#reference16"><sup><small>16</small></sup></a>David Icke preys on people like Ms. Berry by using their emotional fragility in the service of his hate-filled, paranoid vision of the world. Mr. Icke's Wikipedia entry reveals an anti-Semitic undercurrent to his ideology, but he is probably more of an equal opportunity crackpot. Here are some typical excerpts from his website:</ br>
<br />
<blockquote>
Put it all together and the situation is as clear as can be: paedophilia and Satanism are the cement that hold the establishment control structure together in every country, and these 'national' networks connect together to form a global network of paedophiles and Satanists all watching each others' backs - while they continue to serve the Control System.<br />
[...]<br />
People don't realise how organised it all is. Satanists and paedophiles (and those doing their bidding in pursuit of power, money and sheer survival) are placed in the key public offices to hide their activities. I am talking presidents and prime ministers, too.<br />
[...]<br />
I have been naming the former British Prime Minister, the now late Ted Heath, since 1998 to be a child-killing paedophile Satanist and, in terms of his 'high-office', he is far from a rarity (see article below this one). I know others, including one who spent a long time in that position.<br />
[...]<br />
The mention of Father Bush is especially significant because I have been naming him in my books and on radio for years as a serial paedophile, child torturer and killer. I said it on a live BBC radio programme once, actually twice, and this fact appeared in some national newspapers.<br />
[...]<br />
The US government mind and sex slave, Cathy O'Brien, exposed Bush and many others in her book, Trance-Formation of America. Here she describes what Bush did on a regular basis to her daughter, Kelly:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
'Kelly's bleeding rectum was but one of many physical indicators of George Bush's pedophile perversions. I have overheard him speak blatantly of his sexual abuse of her on many occasions. He used this and threats to her life to "pull my strings" and control me.<br />
<br />
The psychological ramifications of being raped by a pedophile President are mind shattering enough, but reportedly Bush further reinforced the traumas to Kelly's mind with sophisticated NASA electronic and drug mind-control devices.</blockquote>
[...]<br />
Wherever you are in the world reading this newsletter - your country's political-intelligence-military network is doing exactly the same.<br />
[...]<br />
Scotland - one of the global centres for paedophila and Satanism</blockquote>
http://www.davidicke.com/articles/child-abuse-mainmenu-74/31148-paedophilia-and-satanism-the-fabric-of-the-web<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote17" href="#reference17"><sup><small>17</small></sup></a>Despiertate, "Concentracion en Trafalgar Square Londres," 9 de agosto de 2010, http://despiertate-pronto.blogspot.com/2010/08/concentracion-en-trafalgar-square.html<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote18" href="#reference18"><sup><small>18</small></sup></a>Subverted Nation, "Jew 'Honored' To Be Part of Global Child Pornography Ring," 30 May 09, http://www.subvertednation.net/jew-honored-to-be-part-of-global-child-pornography-ring/<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote19" href="#reference19"><sup><small>19</small></sup></a><i>Id</i>.<i> </i>For somewhat more accurate information on the Internet ring, <i>see</i>, <i>Seattle Times</i>, “Child-porn ring was sophisticated, March 5, 2008. http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2004261109_porn05.html<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote20" href="#reference20"><sup><small>20</small></sup></a><i>Infra</i>, note 11.<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote21" href="#reference21"><sup><small>21</small></sup></a>Novel Activist, "Graham Ovenden Update," September 14, 2012, http://novelactivist.com/11651/graham-ovenden-update/<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote22" href="#reference22"><sup><small>22</small></sup></a>Zoompad's blog, "Graham Ovenden," http://zoompad.blogspot.nl/2013/04/graham-ovenden.html<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15634435116714830373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5914132379232520232.post-30184108051771069062013-05-24T16:25:00.000-07:002013-05-24T16:37:48.582-07:00On Becoming an Offence to Public Morals<a href="http://postimg.org/image/pd3d7ik61/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Graham Ovenden A Little Sea Maid" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/pd3d7ik61/Graham_Ovenden_A_Little_Sea_Maid.jpg" /></a>In the wake of Graham Ovenden's conviction on two false charges related to one former "model" -- a woman who is both registrar and administrative/ technical contact for the website of Mr. Ovenden's estranged wife -- and five charges related to three "indecent" photographs depicting only nudity, Mr. Ovenden and his art have been heaped with scorn in the press and the blogosphere. Commentaries have ranged from crass derision and sneering (e.g., <i>The Daily Mail</i> and Jonathan Jones in <i>The Guardian</i>) to an almost neo-Nazi-like zeal and fervid hatred (e.g., Chris Spivey, Dave Knight and others of the ilk of Icke). (For those who don't know, David Icke is a conspiracy theorist who believes that Britain, and possibly the entire world, is ruled by reptilian paedophile satanists.) Naturally none of the writers or bloggers have any of their facts straight about Mr. Ovenden's case and know next to nothing about his art -- or much about any art, for that matter. That also goes for Mr. Jones, whose article about Mr. Ovenden's work and "1970s self-conscious decadence" revealed a breathtaking dearth of knowledge about both art and art history.<a name="reference1" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/on-becoming-offence-to-public-morals.html#endnote1"><sup><small>1</small></sup></a><br />
<br />
In response to Graham Ovenden's conviction, the Tate Gallery removed 34 of his (mostly early) works from public view, because the convictions, the Tate said, "shone a new light" on his art.<a name="reference2" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/on-becoming-offence-to-public-morals.html#endnote2"><sup><small>2</small></sup></a> Perhaps they will be restored once the Tate realises that the work shown did not depict any of the witnesses at trial (including the ones who recanted the sex charges that the police prepared for them) and was not made while Mr. Ovenden was molesting anyone. On the other hand, the Tate may decide, as Jonathan Jones believes, that the work is no longer art (or that it never was).<br />
<br />
Rachel Cooke had a good point when she wrote in the <i>The Guardian</i> on
Sunday,' 7 April, 2013, that "[w]hat was art in March must surely be art in
April."<a name="reference3" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/on-becoming-offence-to-public-morals.html#endnote3"><sup><small>3</small></sup></a> Never mind that she was misinformed about how Mr. Ovenden's trial actually turned out. "You can't un-art art," she wrote, "though Hitler had a go, when he decided that what was modern was also degenerate and set about destroying it and, far worse, those who made it."<a name="reference4" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/on-becoming-offence-to-public-morals.html#endnote4"><sup><small>4</small></sup></a><br />
<br />
Of course, when it comes to photographic work, you can "un-art art." According to the courts, the 1978 Protection of Children Act was intended to follow the dictates of public opinion and requires that, in any prosecution under the Act, the artist's intent, the context within which the images were created, and what the subjects of the images said about those images as young adults (and close in time to the images' creation) must not be considered. Thus it is hardly a surprise that, in 2013, images which the Crown Prosecution Service declined to prosecute during the 1990s should become the cause of a criminal conviction. That wasn't the only injustice: the application of "specimen" counts made it possible for the jury also to convict Graham Ovenden for photographs (depicting only nudity) that they never saw. <br />
<br />
Critics like Jones and other moralists who are smug about their "un-arting" of Mr. Ovenden's work and advocate, expressly or impliedly, its destruction, will surely miss the irony that their politically correct ideas land them at the same point as some of the worst ideologues and ideologies in history (and not just national socialism). To put an even finer point on it, one may cite the words of Thomas Mann in <i>Mario and the Magician</i>, a novella written in 1929 about the rise of fascism in Italy: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In a word, we became an offence to the public morals. Our small daughter -- eight years old, but in physical development a good year younger and thin as a chicken -- had had a good long bathe and gone playing in the warm sun in her wet costume. We told her that she might take off her bathing-suit, which was stiff with sand, rinse it in the sea, and put it on again, after which she must take care to keep it cleaner. Off goes the costume and she runs down naked to the sea, rinses her little jersey, and comes back. Ought we to have foreseen the outburst of anger and resentment which her conduct, and thus our conduct, called forth? Without delivering a homily on the subject, I may say that in the last decade our attitude towards the nude body and our feelings regarding it
have undergone, all over the world, a fundamental change.<br />
- Thomas Mann,
<i>Mario & the Magician</i> </blockquote>
The reader should not think that anyone is being accused of fascism here. Rather, the lesson lies in the fact that what Stephen Pinker refers to as the "Rights Revolution," a positive historical development that includes "a century long movement to prevent the abuse and neglect of children," has left, as an utterly unnecessary legacy, a code of etiquette with its own "puzzling customs, peccadilloes and taboos."<a name="reference5" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/on-becoming-offence-to-public-morals.html#endnote5"><sup><small>5</small></sup></a> That this code includes a dangerous streak aimed at dictating what people may represent and view in art is not in doubt.<br />
<br />
<b>Endnotes</b>. <br />
<br />
<a name="endnote1" href="#reference1"><sup><small>1</small></sup></a>Jones, Jonathan, "Graham Ovenden: artist thrived among 1970s self-conscious decadence." <i>The Guardian</i>, 2 April 2013; http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/02/graham-ovenden-artist-1970s-decadence <br />
<br />
<a name="endnote2" href="#reference2"><sup><small>2</small></sup></a>Bowie-Sell, Daisy, "Graham Ovenden prints removed from Tate." <i>The Telegraph</i>, 04 April 2013. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-news/9970830/Graham-Ovenden-prints-removed-from-Tate.html<br />
<br />
Most of the works that are now hidden away at the Tate, including the <i>Aspects of Lolita</i> series of aquatints from 1975, can be seen online, most notably at the website for the <a href="http://luna.albany.edu/luna/servlet/detail/UALBANYUAM%7E16%7E16%7E123512%7E110952?qvq=q:graham+ovenden;sort:Work_Location;lc:UALBANYVRL%7E6%7E6,UALBANYUAM%7E16%7E16,UALBANYSCA%7E14%7E14,UALBANYSCA%7E16%7E16,UALBANYVRL%7E3%7E3&mi=1&trs=13" target="_blank">Art Museum</a> at the State University of New York at Albany and the website called <a href="http://notthetate.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Not the Tate</a>, which was created the last time that the Gallery removed Graham Ovenden's work from public view.<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote3" href="#reference3"><sup><small>3</small></sup></a>Cooke, Rachel, "The idea of 'ethical art' is nonsense. We have to separate art from life.' <i>The Guardian</i>, Sunday, 07 April 2013; http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/07/graham-ovenden-art<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote4" href="#reference4"><sup><small>4</small></sup></a><i>Id</i>.<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote5" href="#reference5"><sup><small>5</small></sup></a>Pinker, Stephen. <i>The Better Angels of Our Nature</i>. Viking, 2011. (Kindle Edition, Location 8450-51.)<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15634435116714830373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5914132379232520232.post-79068979289498968442013-05-22T19:48:00.001-07:002013-05-23T14:10:12.093-07:00Graham Ovenden's Photographs vs. The Vile Mindset<a href="http://postimg.org/image/6w3g07gyh/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="go1" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/6w3g07gyh/go1.jpg" /></a>"For the Sake of the Children" was a documentary film that aired on British Television Channel Four on August 28, 1997. Written and presented by Nicky Akehurst, it covered a series of persecutions and prosecutions of various personages and photographers by the Metropolitan Police and New Scotland Yard squad during the mid-1990s, and raised the question of exactly whom the authorities were trying to protect when they seized photographs and books depicting nude minors.<br />
<br />
In the 2010's, it is almost difficult to imagine any mainstream media defending such images, at least without fretting over whether the images might perhaps emanate from or provoke an erotic thought. As sociologist Dr. Tiffany Jenkins stated in an article on scotsman.com, entitled "Vile mindset pollutes depictions of innocence," in which she criticises the Tate Gallery's decision to remove Mr. Ovenden's artworks from its website and from public access, people now perceive all images of nude minors "through abuser-tinted glasses.... No picture of a young child is untainted by this mindset."<a name="reference1" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/graham-ovendens-photographs-vs-vile.html#endnote1"><sup><small>1</small></sup></a><br />
<br />
As it happens, and we will return to this theme is future posts, Graham Ovenden's art is not some kind of celebration of erotic attraction to young girls. Nor is it, as prosecutor Ramsay Quaife maintained, "a ruse" for abusing girls.<a name="reference2" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/graham-ovendens-photographs-vs-vile.html#endnote2"><sup><small>2</small></sup></a> (This particular libel was disproved by the dismissals and acquittals on <i>all</i> the manufactured charges that Mr. Ovenden blindfolded and dressed up his models in order to molest and photograph them.) Mr. Ovenden's art depicting young girls is multifaceted. The paintings, drawings and graphic works of fictional subjects may engage the viewer on the themes of innocence and purity, sentimentality, corruption, defilement and danger, may play on archetypes like the angel-demon or the "seductress," or may represent the subjects as phenomena of other realms, supernatural or supra-natural phenomena existing outside of mere human corporeal existence. With respect to his photographs of young girls, however, the elements of danger and defilement are completely absent. This is because, first and foremost, Mr. Ovenden's photographs are a faithful dialogue with his subjects. For evidence of that fact, one should look no further than the clear-eyed statements made by Mr. Ovenden's subjects when they were young adults, not terribly far removed from their experiences of being photographed.<br />
<br />
Previous posts have contained some of those statements, but nothing so public as the interview of Emily Ovenden and Maud Hewes from the documentary, "For the Sake of the Children." The interview is extraordinary for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that Ms. Hewes, age 23 at the time of the interview, no longer views the photographs as an expression of self and a source of pride. (The film also displayed numerous photographs by Mr. Ovenden depicting nude children, including those of his daughter and Ms. Hewes.) Going by her trial testimony, it is difficult to know precisely how Ms. Hewes now views the photographs. However, it is apparent that she wishes they never happened. This emotional revisionism could stem from any number of causes, but one may speculate that it was largely made possible by the "vile mindset."<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/gyi82xvvd/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 0em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="go4" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/gyi82xvvd/go4.jpg" /></a>
from <b><i>For the Sake of the Children</i>.</b><br />
<b>Produced by Annie Dodds.</b><br />
<b>Directed by Bob Bentley.</b><br />
<b>Written and presented by Nicky Akehurst. </b><br />
<b>UK: October Films and Channel Four, 1997.</b><br />
(Asterisks represent material intercut during the interview.)<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>Emily Ovenden</i>: We've known each other since the beginning; we had a brilliant time!<br />
<i>Maud Hewes</i>: Yeah! Me too.<br />
<i>Emily</i>: It's like the Garden of Eden down there [at Barley Splatt]. It's beautiful!<br />
<i>Maud</i>: Yeah, there's everything -- it's freedom -- there's woods and rivers…<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/d4td7j3x5/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="go6" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/d4td7j3x5/go6.jpg" /></a><i>Emily</i>: We were swimming in the river all the time, we were camping, we made camps and rope things…<br />
<i>Maud</i>: …And quite often we would ask...<br />
<i>Emily</i>: …we WANTED to be photographed.<br />
<i>Maud</i>: …to be photographed.<br />
<i>Emily</i>: It would be like, Dad! Dad! Look at the outfits we've got…<br />
<i>Maud</i>: …Look what we've done!<br />
<i>Emily</i>: …Will you take pictures of us?<br />
<i>Maud</i>: …We can do this story for you!<br />
<i>Emily</i>: And really, it wasn't so much prompted from him, but rather from us.<br />
***<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/hrzf9ara1/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="go7" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/hrzf9ara1/go7.jpg" /></a><i>Emily</i>: I think the photographs Dad has taken are so far from pornography, they're just so far from it, that it never would have crossed our minds that that would have been taken like that, you know?<br />
<i>Maud</i>: I'm not saying we ran about naked all the time or anything, but we weren't ashamed, we weren't taught to be ashamed about [it]…<br />
<i>Emily</i>: No.<br />
***<br />
<br />
<i>Emily</i>: I think it's very dangerous for people to ignore the fact that young girls do have a sexuality. I think it's a very important part of growing up and being a woman. And to hide your body when you're a child, and to make it out that it's something dirty is, I think, very dangerous.<br />
<i>Maud</i>: And wrong.<br />
<i>Emily</i>: Yeah!<br />
<i>Maud</i>: I'm not ashamed of any of my photographs: I'm proud. Many of my photographs are published -- they hang in collections -- they're nothing to be ashamed of at all.<br />
***<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/d7d8ud7kp/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="go8" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/d7d8ud7kp/go8.jpg" /></a><i>Maud</i>: When [the police] interviewed me and they looked at my photographs and they were sort of pointing at them and they were condemning -- they were "condemned," they were, like, "pornographic," and "Didn't I realise that these people had used me," and "I was just a child," and "I didn't know," and "how could I possibly know that's how it happened?" Basically [they said] I had been brainwashed, you know? But he was actually looking at images of myself when he was saying that: "Do you not think this is pornography? Look at this and this and this: is it not pornography?" And it's a picture of <i>ME</i>!<br />
***<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/u3xq91pqx/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="go5" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/u3xq91pqx/go5.jpg" /></a><i>Maud</i>: The other thing that they did was they took the photographs and they chopped them up -- they highlighted bits of them, or they showed a little bit of the photograph. It was completely out of context. And they'd be sort of going, "Oh… yeah…" And it WAS pornographic like that, in a sense.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Endnotes</b> <br />
<br />
<a name="endnote1" href="#reference1"><sup><small>1</small></sup></a>Jenkins, Tiffany, "Vile mindset pollutes depictions of innocence." scotsman.com, 09 April 2013; http://www.scotsman.com/news/arts/comment-vile-mindset-pollutes-depictions-of-innocence-1-2883797<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote2" href="#reference2"><sup><small>2</small></sup></a>"Artist Graham Ovenden's indecency case jury retires," BBC News, 26 March 2013;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-21943329
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/lj4ehvfkp/" target="_blank"><img alt="go3" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/lj4ehvfkp/go3.jpg" /></a><a href="http://postimg.org/image/w4o9tvlw9/" target="_blank"><img alt="go2" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/w4o9tvlw9/go2.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>Graham Ovenden will be sentenced on 04 June 2013.</b></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15634435116714830373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5914132379232520232.post-52222775224889387432013-05-19T21:08:00.000-07:002013-06-12T14:59:16.495-07:00The Fabrication of Charges Against Graham OvendenGraham Ovenden was acquitted by the jury of blindfolding his models and subjecting them to a “taste test” during which he was alleged to have indecently assaulted them. These accusations were laid on behalf of all four witnesses, but only two, JB and LD, chose to repeat the lie at trial. Their stories were disbelieved by the jury, most likely because they were contradicted by circumstantial evidence and mirrored each other so closely, that they smacked of collusion. One of these witnesses, JB, also accused Mr. Ovenden of two other isolated acts, for which the jury convicted Mr. Ovenden by a vote of 10-2. These “assaults” were completely unconnected with modelling, photo sessions or blindfolding and nowhere near the gravity of what one imagines when one hears the term “indecent assault.” These single incidents are worth repeating, even though they were also lies: First, that Mr. Ovenden allegedly got into a bathtub with her (when she was under the age of 6) and another girl, and asked her to wash his “John Thomas” with a washcloth. (The crime was in the asking; whether she actually did was not established.) Second, that Mr. Ovenden came up behind her (age 10) while she was clothed, reached around her and put his hands on her chest, saying “let me feel your tits.”<br />
<br />
As to the two witnesses who refused to tell the “taste test” story and firmly stated, even under withering questioning by prosecutor Quaife, that they were never assaulted or abused by Mr. Ovenden in any way. Mr. Ovenden was also convicted of taking “indecent” photographs. The jury found 3 photographs to be indecent and convicted Mr. Ovenden on two “specimen” counts, each related to the act of taking the 3 photographs, as well as other photographs that the jury never saw. That these acts of photography were not “assaults” in any honest sense of the word can be readily understood from the fact that both of these witnesses, now age 50 and 39, respectively, supported Mr. Ovenden’s photographs of them when they were still in their 20s. This alone would seem newsworthy, but it was not reported anywhere in the British media.<br />
<br />
Instead, when reporting Mr. Ovenden’s conviction on April 2, 2013, major newspapers (with the sole exception of <i>The Telegraph</i>), described as the counts of conviction precisely those charges of which Mr. Ovenden was acquitted:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>The Times</i>: “[Mr. Ovenden] abused children while they modeled for him.”<a name="reference1" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-fabrication-of-charges-against.html#endnote1"><sup><small>1</small></sup></a> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>The Daily Mail</i>: “Witnesses described how the artist would take his victims into his studio and make them wear Victorian-style clothing, before it was removed. He would also cover their eyes before abusing them, they told the court.”<a name="reference2" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-fabrication-of-charges-against.html#endnote2"><sup><small>2</small></sup></a> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>The Guardian</i>: “They told how he would blindfold them and force them to take part in a "tasting game" that ended up in tricking them into taking part in oral abuse. ... [T]he jury clearly believed the testimony of some of the women who described abuse at Barley Splatt.”<a name="reference3" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-fabrication-of-charges-against.html#endnote3"><sup><small>3</small></sup></a> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>The Independent</i>: “Witnesses described how Ovenden would take his victims into his studio and make them wear Victorian-style clothing, before it was removed. He would also cover their eyes before abusing them, they told the court.”<a name="reference4" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-fabrication-of-charges-against.html#endnote4"><sup><small>4</small></sup></a></blockquote>
Although <i>The Telegraph</i> did not report these particular lies about Mr. Ovenden’s conviction, it did repeat another lie that had been perpetrated by the prosecution and reported almost universally in the press: “The charges relate to four claimants, who contacted police long after the abuse is alleged to have taken place, and only when they realised exactly what had happened to them as girls, the court heard.”<a name="reference5" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-fabrication-of-charges-against.html#endnote5"><sup><small>5</small></sup></a> (This exact statement was also reported in <i>The Times</i> (the same article cited above), <i>The Mirror</i><a name="reference6" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-fabrication-of-charges-against.html#endnote6"><sup><small>6</small></sup></a>, <i>The Guardian</i><a name="reference7" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-fabrication-of-charges-against.html#endnote7"><sup><small>7</small></sup></a>, <i>Western Morning News</i><a name="reference8" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-fabrication-of-charges-against.html#endnote8"><sup><small>8</small></sup></a> and <i>BBC News</i><a name="reference9" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-fabrication-of-charges-against.html#endnote9"><sup><small>9</small></sup></a>, among other places.<br />
<br />
In fact, none of the witnesses at Graham Ovenden’s trial contacted the police “when they realised exactly what had happened to them as girls.”<br />
<br />
The two witnesses whose photographs were ruled as “indecent” didn’t suddenly wake up one day to realise that Mr. Ovenden had taken “indecent” photographs of them. As already stated in greater detail in the previous post, one of them, in 1990 when she was 27, wrote in a statement for the introduction of Mr. Ovenden’s monograph, <i>States of Grace</i>, that “I never felt that [Graham] took away ‘me’ as a person… One of the things that’s very important, I feel, is that the work is very honest…” Yet, at trial, she testified that the single photograph of her introduced into evidence was “not me,” which is to say that she changed her mind, at least about that particular image. The other witness, Maud Hewes, did a near about-face to the statements she made in the 1990s, declaring that young girls should not be photographed as she once was by Mr. Ovenden. Obviously, when these former models, as younger adults, were supporting Mr. Ovenden’s photographs of them, they were well aware that they had been photographed, what those photographs depicted and what their experiences were.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://postimg.org/image/8cc5mkdqx/" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" target="_blank"><img alt="01 Inscription by Maud Hewes" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/8cc5mkdqx/01_Inscription_by_Maud_Hewes.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Maud Hewes' 1993 Inscription to Graham Ovenden in his copy of States of Grace</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
So how did they end up as witnesses in the case?<br />
<br />
The woman who wrote a statement for the introduction to <i>States of Grace </i>was contacted by the police, not vice versa, after Mr. Ovenden naively handed them a list of names and addresses of about twenty of his former models whose whereabouts he still knew. There was a discussion at the trial, out of hearing of the jury, of this witness suffering from some form of clinical depression (not related to being photographed). One can well imagine how vulnerable this woman must have been to repeated visits and contact by the police, pressuring her to accuse Mr. Ovenden of abusing her and to denounce the images he had taken of her. That she was able to stand up to the pressure and testify that she had never been abused is remarkable enough. But the pressure on her to identify her image – so that Mr. Ovenden could be convicted for “assaulting” her by clicking the camera shutter – was enormous and should not be underestimated. In January 1996, Mr. Ovenden’s daughter, Emily, told <i>The Guardian</i> what Mr. Ovenden’s former models faced:
<br />
<blockquote>
Emily refuses to be interviewed by the police. They have asked her on several occasions. But she doesn't see the point and, adult now, is in the position to refuse. She has heard what it would be like from her father's other models. She knows how her friend Maud was reduced to tears, not by the recall of actual events but by the questioning about sexual acts that never took place. She knows how Maud's father felt threatened and bullied. She knows how traumatised they all were by their contact with the police – so traumatised that she's certain none of them want to talk about it.<a name="reference10" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-fabrication-of-charges-against.html#endnote10"><sup><small>10</small></sup></a></blockquote>
Ms. Ovenden also told <i>The Guardian</i> that
<br />
<blockquote>
All of her friends kept copies of the work that featured them. She never felt self-conscious and none of the girls ever felt shamed by their nudity. … Emily laughs about the police displaying a print of her friend, "masked to highlight the offensive areas," and asking if she was ashamed. The girl pointed out that the original hung above her bed.<a name="reference11" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-fabrication-of-charges-against.html#endnote11"><sup><small>11</small></sup></a></blockquote>
Maud Hewes, more than a decade after she defended Mr. Ovenden’s work in the 1996 Channel 4 documentary, “For the Sake of the Children,” probably decided to be a witness in the case for a number of reasons, including the poisonous atmosphere surrounding photographs of nude children that now pervades Britain. But whatever her personal reasons, the catalyst for her testimony was Mr. Ovenden’s son, Edmund Dante (“Ned”) Ovenden. Ned Ovenden was in contact with Hewes, JB and LD, as well as JB’s mother, well before any charges were laid – indeed, before any of those witnesses had any charges to lay.<br />
<br />
<i>Taking Sides</i><br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/6hzb4tqqh/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="02 Barley Splatt" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/6hzb4tqqh/02_Barley_Splatt.jpg" /></a>In 2000, Graham Ovenden and his wife, Annie, granted Ned a one-third interest in their land and house at Barley Splatt. The building is a unique and important piece of architecture, a large portion of which was physically built by Mr. Ovenden over a period of thirty years. In return for his share, Ned was to complete the building to Mr. Ovenden’s specification. At the time, the indebtedness on the property was £45,000. As Mr. Ovenden would eventually discover, the grant to Ned had been a mistake. Unbeknownst to Mr. Ovenden, Ned began taking loans against the estate in order to finance a lifestyle to which he believed he was entitled, and his purchases included numerous high value cars, a half-share in a Cessna aircraft and full ownership of another. In addition, in the mid-2000s, the Ovenden family was splitting apart, undoubtedly precipitated to some degree by the 2006 police raid on Barley Splatt and a new round of police persecution. Shortly after the 2006 raid, with tensions running high between Mr. Ovenden, on the one hand, and his wife and Ned Ovenden, on the other, Mr. Ovenden moved himself and his studio first, to an out-building on Barley Splatt, called “The Studio,” and later, when Barley Splatt was sold, to another out-building called “the Garage.” About the same time, Ned and Annie secretly obtained over £500,000 in cash from a joint mortgage against Barley Splatt and used it to purchase property in Bodmin and Lostwhithiel in their own names.<br />
<br />
By 2008 the mortgage on Barley Splatt was a staggering £840,000. Although Ned did some work on the property, the building itself was substantially the same as it had been prior to his one-third grant. When <i>The Telegraph</i> reported on December 24, 2008, that Barley Splatt was on offer for £925,000, Ned stated, “If someone had £100,000 to spend on it, they could make it into a fabulous house.”<a name="reference12" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-fabrication-of-charges-against.html#endnote12"><sup><small>12</small></sup></a><br />
<br />
In June of 2008, Mr. Ovenden fell seriously ill. He was lucky in a way: a friend and student discovered him in a disoriented and fragile state and immediately called for assistance. While the friend was helping Graham into the ambulance, Ned Ovenden stood by, completely uninterested in accompanying his father. Mr. Ovenden lay in hospital for five weeks, at least part of the time in a coma.<br />
<br />
Shortly after Mr. Ovenden was taken into hospital, Mr. Ovenden’s sister, Elizabeth, came to Barley Splatt to stay with Annie while she visited her brother. Elizabeth was on good terms with Annie, having not yet learned of the financial dealings that had occurred. After visiting Mr. Ovenden and reporting to Annie and Ned that there was a possibility that Mr. Ovenden might not recover, Annie and Ned discussed their plans to dispose of large parts of Mr. Ovenden’s rare photographic and ephemera collections, including taking the material to New York, where Ned believed he could sell it without its original ownership being obvious. Annie and Ned had a similar conversation with a friend of Mr. Ovenden and they subsequently sent some of the purloined photographs to one of Mr. Ovenden’s acquaintances in the photographic world for an assessment of their value and sale. (That acquaintance scanned or photocopied all the images and, because Ned represented that he was acting on the authority of Mr. Ovenden, sold photographs worth approximately £4,500. He subsequently furnished Mr. Ovenden with a record of which images were brought to him by Ned and invoices of what had been sold, but by that time Ned had already taken back the unsold photographs.)<br />
<br />
Annie and Ned did, in fact, briefly visit Mr. Ovenden in the hospital, but not to wish him well. Upon their return, they announced to a friend of Mr. Ovenden that Mr. Ovenden “should be dead.” A few days later, they left for France on vacation, hoping that upon their return Mr. Ovenden would have met his demise. Friends of Mr. Ovenden have noted that there were already intimations that steps were being taken to bring Mr. Ovenden down. At an art exhibition at Southampton City Art Gallery the previous April, JB’s mother told a friend of Mr. Ovenden that “we’re going to get him.” Also around this time, Annie Ovenden told the same friend that she was going to “put [Mr. Ovenden] in the gutter.”<br />
<br />
Mr. Ovenden returned home from hospital in fragile health and no longer on speaking terms with Annie or Ned. When Ned submitted papers to Mr. Ovenden to authorize the sale of Barley Splatt – Mr. Ovenden was not yet aware of the full extent of the indebtedness – he refused to sign them. When Mr. Ovenden responded angrily, Ned reacted violently, throwing an encaustic tile through the reinforced double-glass panel of Mr. Ovenden’s front door. (A few months later, Mr. Ovenden discovered that Barley Splatt had been put up for sale after he read about it in <i>The Telegraph</i>. By then, Mr. Ovenden realised that he could do nothing to save it. The debt simply could not be serviced on the modest income Mr. Ovenden earned from his art.) During this period Ned also began telling Mr. Ovenden’s friends who would come to visit that they should stay away from Mr. Ovenden lest their careers and reputations be ruined by their association with Mr. Ovenden, advice that they took as not-so-veiled threats of defamation. In the case of at least one friend, the threat was direct. But that’s not even the half of what Ned did.
In 2009, Ned went to Aberdeen to visit the homes of both JB, whose husband is a lifelong friend of Ned, and Maud Hewes, whom Ned had long known, as she was a frequent visitor to Barley Splatt throughout the 1980s. It was only after Ned’s visit to Aberdeen that Ms. Hewes and JB made any statements to the police, who came to visit them at Ned’s behest. (One of the investigating officers in the case, Maddox, is a friend of Ned.) Exactly what Ned told these former models is unknown, but the connections between Hewes, JB, JB’s mother, Ned and Annie Ovenden are undeniable, as suggested by circumstantial evidence.<br />
<br />
Although both JB and Ms. Hewes had been living in Aberdeen for over a decade, they had little or no contact with each other. JB joined Facebook sometime during 2007 and Ms. Hewes joined Facebook on December 24, 2007, yet they didn’t “friend” each other until after Ned put them together in 2009. Also after Ned’s visit, in August 2009, JB “friended” Annie Ovenden. (By contrast, JB “friended” Emily Ovenden in 2007.) Was there a bit of a quid pro quo for JB’s delivery of testimony against Mr. Ovenden? Perhaps. On September 30, 2010, JB registered the domain name for Annie Ovenden’s website and became the site’s administrative and technical contact. (She did the same for her mother’s website.)<br />
<br />
Through another friend who happens to be married to yet another former Ovenden model (one not involved in any accusation), Ned also contacted LD who, in turn, as with JB and Ms. Hewes, was visited by the police. As mentioned above, Ms. Hewes allowed the police to lodge sexual abuse charges on her behalf but evidently thought better of perjuring herself once she got in the witness box.<a name="reference13" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-fabrication-of-charges-against.html#endnote13"><sup><small>13</small></sup></a> JB and LD, however, followed their scripts. After all, each of the four witnesses stood to earn as much as £40,000 in victim compensation if the jury bought their stories.<br />
<br />
Between 1964 and 1989, Graham Ovenden photographed approximately 70 young girls, some of them on multiple occasions. Yet, in the twenty years that Mr. Ovenden has been publicly “under suspicion” by the police, with his cases being discussed in nearly every British newspaper and media outlet between 1993 and 1997 and again in 2009 and 2010, not a single former model came forward of her own accord to accuse Mr. Ovenden of sexually abusing her. While researching for this article, however, this writer came across another statement in Mr. Ovenden’s support, one more typical of his former models who spoke in his defense during the 1990s. As she used her real name, Mr. Ovenden was able to recall photographing her in 1973, not long after moving to Barley Splatt, when she was ten years of age:
<br />
<blockquote>
I was one of Graham Ovendens’ ‘models’. This beautiful man, was a perfect photographer. He was kind and patient, while I sat wearing clothes that I chose. At no time did he touch me in any way. This man is a wonderful artist and human being…. I was never asked to take my clothes off, I was able to wear what I wanted and how I wanted to wear it. If I was ever naked and a photograph was taken, I knew what was happening and was free; not sexuallised in any way. I wish Graham a happy, healthy, carefree life.<a name="reference14" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-fabrication-of-charges-against.html#endnote14"><sup><small>14</small></sup></a></blockquote>
Over the years, British police had accused Mr. Ovenden of a variety of trumped up crimes, arresting him on such transparently thin charges as “suspicion of conspiracy to indecently assault children”<a name="reference15" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-fabrication-of-charges-against.html#endnote15"><sup><small>15</small></sup></a> or the creation of “pseudo-photographs,” but they could never find anyone to make an actual allegation of sexual abuse. By April 2010, just as the third case against Mr. Ovenden and his images was being dismissed for police abuse, the Child Investigation Team of the Metropolitan Police announced that it was “investigating” allegations of child sexual abuse and that the Crown Prosecution Service would soon decide if charges were to be laid.<a name="reference16" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-fabrication-of-charges-against.html#endnote16"><sup><small>16</small></sup></a> Although the police must have spent a lot of money, it didn’t bear much fruit. Ned Ovenden and the police visited other former Ovenden models, but could not prevail upon them to make an accusation. However, thanks to Mr. Ovenden’s naïve trust that the truth would prevail when he handed over a list of names and addresses of former models, and especially thanks to machinations of Ned Ovenden, Annie Ovenden and her best friend, JB’s mother, the British police finally got what they wanted.<br />
<br />
Frank Furedi, Emeritus Professor of Sociology at the University of Kent, recently wrote about the behavior of the Metropolitan Police in their investigations of Jimmy Savile. Although Mr. Ovenden’s case is hardly comparable and involved Mr. Ovenden’s son as agent provocateur, the so-called “investigative” methods of the police were the same. Instead of “solving reported crimes” they were “searching for crimes that have not been reported.”<a name="reference17" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-fabrication-of-charges-against.html#endnote17"><sup><small>17</small></sup></a> The danger, Mr. Furedi explained, is that
<br />
<blockquote>
[t]his trawling for victims and search for retrospective allegations could have a disturbing impact on the way the criminal justice system works. Instead of solving crimes, the police attempt to uncover them, in order to reinforce and strengthen evidence against the targets of their investigation. A trawling operation is not a response to an allegation of abuse voluntarily made by an individual; it is an invitation to people to reinterpret their past experiences in terms of victimisation and abuse.<a name="reference18" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-fabrication-of-charges-against.html#endnote18"><sup><small>18</small></sup></a></blockquote>
What Mr. Furedi didn’t say, but will be said here, is that such overzealous behavior on the part of the police is also an invitation to people to lay false charges for any variety of motivations, including interfamily squabbles, personal animosities and jealousies, and the prospect of victim compensation.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Endnotes </b><br />
<br />
<a name="endnote1" href="#reference1"><sup><small>1</small></sup></a>Artist Graham Ovenden found guilty on sex charges, <i>The Times</i>, April 2 2013; http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/crime/article3729068.ece.<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote2" href="#reference2"><sup><small>2</small></sup></a>Cooper, Rob, Artist Graham Ovenden found guilty of indecency against young girls after usingnude children in his paintings, <i>The Daily Mail, </i>April 2, 2013; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2302849/Artist-Graham-Ovenden-guilty-indecency-young-girls-using-nude-children-paintings.html.<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote3" href="#reference3"><sup><small>3</small></sup></a>Morris, Steven, Graham Ovenden lived in rambling rural idyll with a dark side, <i>The Guardian</i>, April 2, 2013;http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/02/graham-ovenden-idyll-dark-side.<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote4" href="#reference4"><sup><small>4</small></sup></a>Minchin, Rod, Artist Graham Ovenden found guilty on four counts of indecency with a child, <i>The Independent</i>, 02 April 2013; http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/artist-graham-ovenden-found-guilty-on-four-counts-of-indecency-with-a-child-8556873.html.<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote5" href="#reference5"><sup><small>5</small></sup></a>Artist convicted of sex offences against children, <i>The Telegraph</i>, 02 April 2013; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9966939/Artist-convicted-of-sex-offences-against-children.html.<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote6" href="#reference6"><sup><small>6</small></sup></a>Artist Graham Ovenden convicted ofsex offences against kids, <i>The Mirror</i>, 02 April 2013; http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/artist-graham-ovenden-convicted-sex-1798044.<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote7" href="#reference7"><sup><small>7</small></sup></a>Graham Ovenden convicted of child sex offences, <i>The Guardian</i>, 02 April 2013; http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/02/graham-ovenden-convicted-child-sex-offences.<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote8" href="#reference8"><sup><small>8</small></sup></a>Jury still out in West artist's indecency trial, <i>Western Morning News</i> (This is Cornwall), Thursday, March 28, 2013; http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Jury-West-artist-s-indecency-trial/story-18541598-detail/story.html.<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote9" href="#reference9"><sup><small>9</small></sup></a>Artist Graham Ovenden's indecency case jury retires, <i>BBC News</i>, March 29, 2013; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-21943329.<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote10" href="#reference10"><sup><small>10</small></sup></a>"Pictures of Innocence," David Newnham & Chris Townsend, <i>The Guardian Weekend</i>, January 13, 1996, pp. 12-15.<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote11" href="#reference11"><sup><small>11</small></sup></a><i>Id</i>.<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote12" href="#reference12"><sup><small>12</small></sup></a>Wilson, Mary. "Property in Cornwall: Drawn to an artists' work in progress," <i>The Telegraph</i>, 24 December 2008. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/westcountryproperty/3902558/Property-in-Cornwall-Drawn-to-an-artists-work-in-progress.html . The final sale price for Barley Splatt was £600,000, far below market value.<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote13" href="#reference13"><sup><small>13</small></sup></a>It probably would have been easier for her to tell the tale of woe that had been prepared for her. She was the final witness, testified behind a screen (i.e., out of view of Mr. Ovenden) and helped along, as were the other witnesses, by a bevy of policewomen and victim advocates. When she refused to follow the script, however, prosecutor Quaife turned on her.<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote14" href="#reference14"><sup><small>14</small></sup></a>Statement of GH, dated of 31 October 2009, posted at at "Graham Ovenden On Trial," the <i>Baby Art</i> blog of Trevor Brown, http://www.pileup.com/babyart/blog/?p=379#comments. The page also features a comment from someone posting as "got away" who complains she was abused at age 4. Investigation has revealed that "got away" is none other than "Donna El Berry" a/k/a Minty Challis, who faked the a similar post in April 2013, when <i>The Guardian</i> ran its poll, "Should the Tate have removed Graham Ovenden's prints?" Her comment was removed by <i>The Guardian</i> after the fraud was exposed. For information on Minty Challis, see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2051282/Dale-Farm-The-truth-Minty-crucifix-waving-rebel-cause-like.html; and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2052079/The-fantasist-Dale-Farm-Why-does-mother-gipsy-camp-activist-Minty-say-shes-deluded-self-publicist.html<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote15" href="#reference15"><sup><small>15</small></sup></a>Sex case artist to face new inquiry, <i>Western Morning News </i>(This is Cornwall), 19 April 2010; http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Sex-case-artist-face-new-inquiry/story-11465531-detail/story.html.<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote16" href="#reference16"><sup><small>16</small></sup></a><i>Id</i>.<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote17" href="#reference17"><sup><small>17</small></sup></a>Furedi, Frank, After Savile: policing as entertainment, <i>Spiked</i>, 29 April 2013, http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13580.<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote18" href="#reference18"><sup><small>18</small></sup></a><i>Id</i>.<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15634435116714830373noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5914132379232520232.post-76947827174207613752013-05-12T15:53:00.001-07:002013-05-25T19:07:29.713-07:00Trial Fails to Rewrite History of Graham Ovenden's Art<div style="text-align: center;">[<i>Readers who haven't read the previous posts should do so before reading this lengthy one.</i>]</div>
<br />
Although prosecutor Ramsay Quaife attempted to connect Graham Ovenden’s art with sexual abuse charges, he was unable to do so at trial. The “taste test,” where Mr. Ovenden was said to have blindfolded two of his models in order trick them into performing fellatio, was disbelieved by the jury for good reason: the stories were directly contradicted by circumstantial evidence and lacked the ring of truth. Mr. Quaife’s other claim – that Mr. Ovenden blindfolded his models in order to get them to pose with their legs open – was never proven because there were never any photographs to support it.<br />
<br />
The two prosecution witnesses whose photographs by Mr. Ovenden were charged as “indecent” must have been under considerable pressure to make accusations against Mr. Ovenden. The police concocted negative statements, but when called to testify, they failed to follow the scripts that the police and prosecution had prepared for them.<br />
<br />
One of the witnesses, the subject of a single photograph alleged to be indecent, unequivocally stated behind the witness screen that Mr. Ovenden never abused her and gave mixed reviews to her photographs. One image shown to her on cross-examination she found beautiful. As to the allegedly indecent photograph presented by the prosecution, she simply stated that it was “not me.” Presumably she meant that she didn’t feel it was a proper portrayal. That photograph, which had never been published or exhibited, was part of a group of images taken from a bound album that was seized from Mr. Ovenden’s studio and torn apart by the police in preparation for trial. Mr. Ovenden later testified in his defence that taken together with the other images, the allegedly “indecent” one would not be viewed as indecent at all. At that point, Judge Graham Cottle inquired of the prosecution whether the police were in possession of the other photographs. They said they were not, despite the fact that they had shown them to Mr. Ovenden’s counsel legal team, comprised of QC (Queen’s Counsel) Christopher Quinlan, barrister Robert Linford and solicitor Tess O’Callahan, just prior to Mr. Ovenden stepping into the witness box. Ultimately, the other images may not have been admissible for the jury to consider, as under British law, jurors are instructed to consider images in isolation from the context in which they were created. <br />
<br />
That peculiar phrasing of the witness, that the photograph was “not me,” was probably a contrivance of the prosecution to ensure that she didn’t give an opinion as to the ultimate question – i.e., whether the image was “indecent.” The latter is strictly for the jury to decide. If she had stated that she believed the photograph was “indecent,” a mistrial might have been declared. <br />
<br />
There was more than mere contrivance in the signed statement prepared for this witness by the police. Although the prosecution represented that it accurately summarized her extensive pre-trial interview, Mr. Ovenden’s QC compared the two and discovered that the statement mischaracterized what she had said and omitted crucial testimony which tended in Mr. Ovenden’s favour. Furthermore, she was not a witness who, as the prosecution claimed, “contacted police long after the abuse is alleged to have taken place, and only when they realised exactly what had happened to them as girls.”<a name="reference1" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/trial-fails-to-rewrite-history-of.html#endnote1"><sup><small>1</small></sup></a> Not long before his arrest in 2006, Mr. Ovenden received a visit from the witness’s mother, who asked Mr. Ovenden for copies of photographs that he had taken of her two daughters and told Mr. Ovenden that her daughter (the witness in question) sent him her fondest wishes. What happened to this former model was not some realisation, but a visit from the police, who contacted her after Mr. Ovenden naively gave them a list of his former models in 2008.<br />
<br />
It should not be surprising that in her interview with the police she had positive things to say about her experience of being photographed by Mr. Ovenden. In 1990, when she was 27, she made a statement about that experience and it was published as part of the introduction to Mr. Ovenden’s monograph, <i>States of Grace</i>. Here is what she said:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
There was a freedom about it -- not just being myself, but it showed other possibilities, different from everyday situations. It was nice to be accepted on the level that I was myself and he didn't used to say “this is so-and-so and she is 10 years old.” In this sense, it was very adult....<br />
<br />
Graham didn't pose me that much. He used to just let me do things and he used to say “that's OK.” It was quite spontaneous. Sometimes he might have said “pick up your chin” or he might have said something emotive, like “look far away” or things like that. I never felt that he took away “me” as a person.<br />
<br />
One of the things that's very important, I feel, is that the work is very honest. However, erotic the pictures are, however they are provocative, they are honest pictures. We were there. We did those things. It's not like someone's faked it. I know that Graham's an artist, and not to take anything away from him, of course, but the thing is, the people are there. So, it exists and you can't pretend it doesn't exist and that sexuality doesn't exist. So the honesty, I think, is really important and I think people are just stuffy and have a lot of fears about what's okay and get confused about what's okay.... It was a very safe environment.<a name="reference2" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/trial-fails-to-rewrite-history-of.html#endnote2"><sup><small>2</small></sup></a></blockquote>
With the second prosecution witness and her allegedly “indecent” photographs, things get, as Alice once said, curiouser and curiouser. The police laid three charges of sexual abuse against Mr. Ovenden on her behalf, but when she got to the witness box, behind a screen and out of view of Mr. Ovenden and any spectators, she steadfastly maintained that Mr. Ovenden had never abused her. Prosecutor Quaife, who must have felt betrayed, turned nasty in his questioning of her. He made her cry, but couldn’t shake her resolve. On the following Monday, when the trial was reconvened, the prosecution made an application to the court to dismiss the three unproven counts.<br />
<br />
Judge Cottle was extremely unhappy with that decision. Although he ordered the three charges dismissed,<a name="reference3" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/trial-fails-to-rewrite-history-of.html#endnote3"><sup><small>3</small></sup></a> as he was required to, he invited the prosecution to bring new charges in their place. Subsequently, Mr. Ovenden was separately charged with making two indecent photographs of the witness in question. These were laid in addition to two “specimen” charges that related, in part, to the same photographs. While bringing new charges in mid-trial seems unfair in terms of compromising a defendant’s ability to prepare a defence, specimen charges are manifestly unjust where, as here, the line between legality and criminality can only be drawn by looking at the images. <br />
<br />
The two photographs in question, taken on the same day and appearing on the same strip of negatives, were not printed by Graham Ovenden. They were printed by the police, who manipulated them in such a way so as to accentuate the genitalia. Interestingly, these photographs had already been in the possession of the police once, in 1993, when Mr. Ovenden was raided by Sergeant Michael Platt of the Metropolitan Police, Obscene Publications Squad. Mr. Platt, now retired, appeared at Mr. Ovenden’s 2013 trial. Outside the courtroom, he represented to QC Quinlan, who was standing with the rest of Mr. Ovenden’s legal team, that the two images in question were familiar to him and confirmed that they had been returned to Mr. Ovenden. Immediately thereafter, however, Mr. Platt was led away by the prosecution, only to return and say that he had been mistaken. <br />
<br />
These two photographs, in addition to being the basis of two charges in their own right, were the basis for the specimen counts, which were grouped into different years. (If the reader finds it strange that two photographs taken on the same day could represent groupings of photographs spanning different years, so does this writer.) Where a specimen, as in Mr. Ovenden’s case, is a separately identifiable offence, the jury is instructed as follows:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Count [X] is a specimen Count. The prosecution allege that D[efendant] also committed numerous other offences of the same kind. Instead of loading up the Indictment with Counts charging many offences, they have selected one as an example, as they are entitled to do. However, you may convict D[efendant] only if you are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he committed the particular offence charged in the Count [X], <i>whether or not you are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he also committed other such offences</i>.</blockquote>
<i>Crown Court Bench Book and Specimen Directions</i>, Third Ed., 2010 (emphasis added). <br />
<br />
In other words, even if the jury is uncertain about the photographs they haven’t been shown, if they find the examples (i.e., the two photographs) “indecent,” then they must convict on the specimen charge. The <i>Bench Book </i>gives as an example of a specimen charge “a Count of indecent assault on a child who claims to have been abused in the same way on many occasions, but cannot say precisely when or how often.” This isn’t even remotely analogous to the situation here. Photographs are physical artifacts. What someone might remember about a photograph is proven or disproven by the thing itself. These counts essentially tell the jury that if it finds one image “indecent,” then it should imagine that others are also “indecent,” regardless of what the photographs actually show. Compounding the disparity is the fact that although the witness was photographed by Mr. Ovenden on many occasions, she did not testify that she was photographed in the same pose on numerous occasions. <br />
<br />
The witness was not called back for additional testimony regarding the new charges, but she had already expressed her opinion. As to the two photographs printed by the police, she stated, like the first witness, that they were “not me.” She also said that, at 39 years of age, looking at her photographs, she was of the opinion that no young girl should ever be photographed in such a way and that she would do anything she could do to make sure that it didn’t happen to anyone else. <br />
<br />
This was a strong condemnation given that she did not testify to having suffered any particular damage or consequence as a result of her experiences. It is also a strange statement – a complete revision of the eloquent declarations she made during the 1990s in defence of Mr. Ovenden’s photographs of her.<br />
<br />
Maud Hewes was photographed by Graham Ovenden twenty to twenty-five times from the time she was six until she was about fifteen. (He also once photographed her nude as an adult.) Seven of her images from 1984 through 1988, when she was between the ages of nine and fourteen, appear in Mr. Ovenden’s monograph, <i>States of Grace</i>. In five of them she poses by herself; in two, she is posing with another model. Ms. Hewes’ name, unlike those of the other witnesses against Mr. Ovenden, is mentioned here because she spoke publicly about Mr. Ovenden’s photographs on a number of occasions as a young woman.<br />
<br />
When page proofs of <i>States of Grace</i> arrived in New York from the printer in Hong Kong in October 1991, United States Customs seized them. At a court hearing in February 1992, the United States government announced, without filing charges, that the book contained depictions of minors engaged in “sexually explicit conduct” under United States law, which prohibits the portrayal of a “lascivious exhibition of the genitals.” One month later, at a second hearing on the matter, the head of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) of the United States Justice Department’s Criminal Division, Robert Flores, identified the image of Ms. Hewes on page 54 of the book as the only potentially pornographic image in the book. (Actually, he equivocated, claiming there might be other pornographic images, although he was at a loss to explain which ones or why.) A month later, as the defence of the book was taking shape in New York, Robert Atkins, then a reporter for the Village Voice, interviewed Ms. Hewes, then 18, by telephone. She told him: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
When I modeled for Graham, I’d make up the poses and he’d shoot them. He never asked me to be sexy and I never tried to…he’s been a family friend since I was four years old.<a name="reference4" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/trial-fails-to-rewrite-history-of.html#endnote4"><sup><small>4</small></sup></a></blockquote>
The following month, Ms. Hewes flew to New York, where she made a sworn declaration that was submitted to the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. In pertinent part, it stated as follows: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I have known Graham Ovenden as a family friend for fourteen years – since I was four years old. I have modeled for Graham on numerous occasions – in fact, too numerous to count – for both his photographs and paintings. I have modeled for him both clothed and fully nude, both alone and with other children.... The portrait which the United States has charged as indecent is a portrait of me as I was eight years ago. I am not acting in a sexual way in the picture and Graham never asked me to be sexual or treated me as a sexual object. The accusation that the image is “obscene” is, to me, an accusation that I am “obscene,” something to which I take offense.<a name="reference5" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/trial-fails-to-rewrite-history-of.html#endnote5"><sup><small>5</small></sup></a></blockquote>
Ms. Hewes also spoke about her photographs in the U.K., the first time on April 21, 1993, when she was interviewed by agents of both the Metropolitan Police, Obscene Publications Squad (OPS), and the Kirkwall police, after Mr. Ovenden was arrested by the OPS on suspicion of being part of a pornography “ring,” one of the obsessions of the police at the time. Her statement both affirms and adds to what she had previously said:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I have been shown a booklet of photographs 'MP 20' which contains images of myself. The photographs appear to pinpoint a certain age, although I have been widely photographed since I was about 4 until I was maybe 15 years old. All the people that I have worked with I have known very well, and have felt perfectly comfortable with them. I have never been indecently assaulted by any of them or forced to do anything against my wishes. I have now been through the "MP 20" booklet and initialed all the photos that I recognize of myself. I have also put the initials of the photographer when positively identified. All the photographs that I have identified as being Graham Ovenden's were taken at Barley Splatt....<br />
<br />
I decline the idea that any of the images of myself are indecent and emphatically state that I was never abused, or photographed/drawn by co-ercion. Photographic or life drawing 'sessions' were never a prearranged appointment. I was at Graham Ovendens a lot of the time and the Ovendens were, are like a second family to me. Quite a lot of the time Emily and I would ask to be photographed. The only time a session was arranged was for the 'Alice Project' between Graham, Brian P and myself. Because it was a project sometimes we would decide that we ought to do some more for the project. The images in the 'MP 20" which I have marked G.O. refer to Graham Ovenden. Graham Ovenden is one of my best friends and also like a father figure. Signature: [M.] Hewes.<a name="reference6" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/trial-fails-to-rewrite-history-of.html#endnote6"><sup><small>6</small></sup></a></blockquote>
At the time Ms. Hewes made that statement she was living in the Orkneys, very far from Cornwall, with her father and stepmother, both of whom were present on the day Ms. Hewes was questioned. Ms. Hewes’ stepmother, a friend of the Ovendens, posted a letter to Mr. Ovenden five days after Ms. Hewes made her statement. The letter is reproduced here in large part:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Nethermill, Rousay, Orkney Monday 26th April 1993<br />
<br />
Dear Graham:<br />
<br />
I’m typing this because my writing is becoming so unreadable these days. I enclose a photocopy of a bad photocopy of [Maud's] statement which you may wish to show to your solicitor. I insisted on getting it done at the fish factory in the last couple of minutes before Platt and Hills got on the 3.25 ferry. In my frantic hurry I didn’t line the first page up properly and so two lines are missing. I’ve typed up the statement so you can read it easily but you can make out [Maud’s] initialed alterations on the photocopy.<br />
<br />
Michael Platt (the Met), Philip Hills (New Scotland Yard) and Morag Scrimgeur (Kirkwall Police) arrived at 11:15. Joseph and [Maud] were interviewed separately and privately, though the policewoman was present during [Maud’s] interview. I was not allowed to stay while Joseph was questioned. I did try to insist on it but was told they would have to take him somewhere else. Wish I’d been sure of the legal position. Have they a right to take someone who is not under arrest, only a witness? I was made to feel it would be very unreasonable if I kept on.<br />
<br />
The mode of questioning was more like interrogation than anything else – very manipulative, full of leading questions and in Joseph’s case they used both veiled and open threats. After 20-30 minutes Platt had reduced [Maud] to tears. At this stage I was allowed in. She said he became much less heavy and manipulative after this. Eventually she agreed to write a statement. Platt tried to steer it but she resisted quite well. In fact she showed an admirable defiant independence. Platt read it and said later to Joseph that she had been schooled by Graham Ovenden. He forgets of course that she is nineteen, intelligent and articulate, and that she’s been out to the States to testify in a similar case.<br />
<br />
Joseph was interviewed twice – long and hard. He was shown three or four photos which he recognized as G.O.’s because of the wallpaper! And two others which he could not identify. [Maud] was also unable to these. Platt was clearly very frustrated. Rather bad photos – I’m not surprised no one can remember them….<br />
<br />
They were very anxious to extract evidence of a network for taking and distributing photos. They are convinced of this. … Joseph was asked if he had ever been to Germany with Graham Ovenden. Hills asked Joseph in my presence what he knows about the ‘Alice fantasy’! Upon my very spontaneous burst of laughter, he added “Don’t forget we’ve seen the correspondence. They seem to be looking for the ideal child to play Alice.” Later I heard Platt ask [Maud] how she felt now she was too old to be Alice. Similar mockery from [Maud]! Hills stated categorically in front of me that the Lewis Carroll Society was a cover for paedophiles to exchange photos of young girls! And Platt told Joseph during his second interview that all this is an attempt to use art to cover up paedophile practice. At this time Platt also accused Joseph of only just being able to keep the lid on it all – he was protecting others. [Maud] too was just managing to do the same – any minute now she would crack and spill out everything about everyone. They offered Joseph a deal – making a not so implicit promise to make things easier for him if he revealed all about everybody. They finished “We’ll be back in three months and this time you won’t know when we’re coming.”<br />
<br />
Platt claimed that they had two disclosures of indecent assault already.* In the car on the way to the pier, appealing to my concern for [Maud], he said it had taken a month to get one girl to talk. (I don’t know what age this girl is now or if indeed she is part of this case – I was too intent on getting a photocopy – but the poor girl, he’d obviously kept on and on until he heard what he wanted to hear.)<br />
<br />
Curiously, there was a programme on T.V. last night called “Street Legal” presented by Paul Foot. It dealt with misbehavior by the Metropolitan Police. Apparently a large increase of money has been set aside by them for the next three years to cover expected increases in compensation!<br />
<br />
I’m sorry this letter is so long. You can tell how angry/agitated I am. I just hope that some of this is useful. I hope it arrives safely. Could you give me a quick ring to let me know? Love to you all from us both.<br />
<br />
Chrissie</blockquote>
*[Those charges, if they existed, had nothing to do with Mr. Ovenden or anyone connected to him.]<br />
<br />
Ms. Hewes was interviewed again in 1996, at the age of 22, for a documentary entitled “For the Sake of the Children,” which was part of the series Films of Fire and shown on Channel 4 in 1997.<a name="reference7" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/trial-fails-to-rewrite-history-of.html#endnote7"><sup><small>7</small></sup></a> She not only affirmed her earlier statements about her photographs, but pointed out that images shown to her by the Metropolitan Police had been manipulated by them and did not reflect the original work, or intent, of Mr. Ovenden.<br />
<br />
Intent, however, is not an issue when it comes to determining whether an image is “indecent.” This topic will be covered in greater detail later, but the standard of what is “indecent” under British law ostensibly precludes a consideration of either the intent of the maker or the context in which the image was made. Motivation and context are only relevant, if at all, to show that the images were made intentionally rather than by accident. As the Court of Appeal stated in <i>Regina v. Graham-Kerr</i> [1988] 1WLR 1098,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The question, as it seems to us, is whether the photograph itself is indecent. Photographs, after all, may last a large number of years, pass from hand to hand and so on. In our view it is not possible to relate the question of whether or not a photograph is indecent with the original motivation of the person who took it. It may be that the original motivation was perfectly innocent subjectively regarded; but if the photograph is one which right-thinking people would regard as indecent, the motivation of the original taker, in our view, cannot be a relevant matter.</blockquote>
The court in <i>Graham-Kerr</i> also approved of the lower court’s instruction to the jury to “apply the standard of decency which ordinary right-thinking members of the public would set.” This standard, the Court of Appeal found, was no different from the alternative formulation, that the jury should apply “recognised standards of propriety.”<br />
<br />
Judge Cottle’s instruction to the jury in Mr. Ovenden’s case regarding the three photographs was much the same: “The question is – would right-minded people regard such photographs as ‘indecent’?”<a name="reference8" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/trial-fails-to-rewrite-history-of.html#endnote8"><sup><small>8</small></sup></a> Technically, that instruction was correct. But how is it possible that the jury could have ignored the plainly prejudicial conjectures of prosecutor Quaife that Mr. Ovenden was “a paedophile,”<a name="reference9" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/trial-fails-to-rewrite-history-of.html#endnote9"><sup><small>9</small></sup></a> one who “abused children in Cornwall and London, sometimes while taking photographs,”<a name="reference10" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/trial-fails-to-rewrite-history-of.html#endnote10"><sup><small>10</small></sup></a> and is “besotted with little girls.”<a name="reference11" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/trial-fails-to-rewrite-history-of.html#endnote11"><sup><small>11</small></sup></a> Although these claims were unsupported by any evidence, they were clearly aimed at dirtying up Mr. Ovenden so as to predispose the jury to convict him. <br />
<br />
Moreover, what was the jury to make of images, which were not the subject of any charge and did not depict actual children, shown and described by the prosecution near the end of the trial during Mr. Ovenden’s cross-examination? These were composite works – collages – made up from original drawings and paintings by Mr. Ovenden not depicting any real people, together with pictures from adult (not child) pornographic magazines. The collages, which suggested that the child figures in the drawings were engaging in hard core sexual acts, were actually an interim step for a series that came to be titled, “As Through A Glass Darkly.”<a name="reference12" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/trial-fails-to-rewrite-history-of.html#endnote12"><sup><small>12</small></sup></a>(To say that the collages depicted children engaged in sexual acts would be inaccurate, both for the fact that no actual child was portrayed and that the images were plainly collages and not intended to look real.) <br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/p8v7rl4m1/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="DVD evidence" border="0" height="200" src="http://s20.postimg.org/p8v7rl4m1/DVD_evidence.jpg" width="111" /></a>The police and prosecution were well aware that the composite works were an interim step because those images had been securely deleted by Mr. Ovenden from his hard drive once the final work was completed. Using special forensic software, the police recovered the explicit composite images, which were in a deleted folder titled “DESTROY IT.” But the police would have first viewed the final works on a data DVD seized from Mr. Ovenden’s studio. There were two copies, both of which were put into separate evidence bags. (“Copy 2,” shown here, was left behind.) <br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://postimg.org/image/g3muxq17d/" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" target="_blank"><img alt="As Through A Glass Darkly ( Frontice)" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/g3muxq17d/As_Through_A_Glass_Darkly_Frontice.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
To create the final works of the series, Mr. Ovenden took the explicit images he had created and overlaid them with visual “noise” from severely deteriorated Victorian glass negatives, giving the work a sense of “random acts of destruction of time.” The explicit content was thus only alluded to but not shown, creating a discomforting visual tension to the work. (Three of the final works are shown here.)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/4sk79cuc9/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="As Through a Glass Darkly 06" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/4sk79cuc9/As_Through_a_Glass_Darkly_06.jpg" /></a>The prosecution showed the jury two of the sexually explicit interim works and described the rest of them in graphic detail as evidence of the alleged motivation behind all of Mr. Ovenden’s artwork. That this evidence was far more prejudicial than probative of any aspect of the offences with which Mr. Ovenden was charged cannot be doubted. They do not make it more or less likely that he committed the offences of child abuse for which he was charged; nor do they make it more likely that he created “indecent” images of his models. They did, however, instill in the minds of the jurors concrete images to remember while they considered the specimen charges, that is, the photographs of Maud Hewes that they were never shown. Given that they saw only about half a dozen photographs by Mr. Ovenden during the entire trial (only three of which were charged as “indecent”), it was inevitable that the interim images and their descriptions would loom large in the jurors’ minds. <a href="http://postimg.org/image/w4fgaoz2x/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="As Through a Glass Darkly 15" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/w4fgaoz2x/As_Through_a_Glass_Darkly_15.jpg" /></a>In the interest of basic fairness, the judge should have excluded the composite images from the trial, but basic fairness was hardly the order of the day. <br />
<br />
Something or someone made Maud Hewes change her mind about the images Mr. Ovenden took of her, but she was not forthcoming about it. When she was questioned by Mr. Ovenden’s QC, she claimed not to have remembered her statement to the Metropolitan Police twenty years ago, which seems quite unlikely given the fact that it was a topic of conversation at home and she spoke about it to others and discussed it in the documentary, “For the Sake of the Children.” Notwithstanding her change of mind and regardless of prosecutor Quaife’s jaundiced view of the supposed “paedophilic” intent of Mr. Ovenden’s art, history will vindicate Mr. Ovenden. As his daughter, whose image appears in <i>States of Grace</i> together with Ms. Hewes, told <i>The Guardian</i> in 1993,
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
We were always an open household and as young children would often run round naked … These pictures were just never anything to do with sex.<a name="reference13" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/trial-fails-to-rewrite-history-of.html#endnote13"><sup><small>13</small></sup></a></blockquote>
<br />
<b>Endnotes</b><br />
<br />
<a name="endnote1" href="#reference1"><sup><small>1</small></sup></a>“Graham Ovenden convicted of child sex offences,” <i>The Guardian</i>, April 2, 2013, 12:23.BST. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/02/graham-ovenden-convicted-child-sex-offences.<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote2" href="#reference2"><sup><small>2</small></sup></a>Ovenden, Graham. <i>States of Grace</i>. Ophelia Editions, New York & Amsterdam, 1992, p. 10.<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote3" href="#reference3"><sup><small>3</small></sup></a>Cooper, Rob, “Artist Graham Ovenden found guilty of indecency against young girls after using nude children in his paintings,” <i>Daily Mail Online</i>, April 2, 2013, 15:21 GMT. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2302849/Artist-Graham-Ovenden-guilty-indecency-young-girls-using-nude-children-paintings.html.<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote4" href="#reference4"><sup><small>4</small></sup></a>Atkins, Robert, “Lolita Syndrome,” <i>Village Voice</i>, April 14, 1992. http://www.robertatkins.net/beta/shift/culture/censorship/kiddie.html.<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote5" href="#reference5"><sup><small>5</small></sup></a>Id.</i>, note 2, page 80.<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote6" href="#reference6"><sup><small>6</small></sup></a>Statement of Maud Hewes, age 19, April 21, 1993, taken by Michael Platt, Metropolitan Police (OPS), Philip Hills, New Scotland Yard, and Morag Scrimgeur, PC441, Kirkwall Police. Typographical errors in the original.<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote7" href="#reference7"><sup><small>7</small></sup></a>http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2b8096d8ff. The interview will hopefully be transcribed and posted on this blog.<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote8" href="#reference8"><sup><small>8</small></sup></a>“Artist Graham Ovenden’s indecency case jury retires,” <i>BBC News</i>, March 26, 2013, 14:31 GMT. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-21943329.<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote9" href="#reference9"><sup><small>9</small></sup></a><i>BBC News</i>, “Artist Graham Ovenden accused of being paedophile,” March 11, 2013, 16:48 GMT; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-21745915; McDermott, Kerry, “Internationally acclaimed artist ‘sexually abused young girls in nighties after blindfolding them’,” <i>Daily Mail Online</i>, March 11, 2013; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...-2291669/Graham-Ovenden-Internationally-acclaimed-artist-sexually-abused-young-girls-nighties-blindfolding-them.html?ito=feeds-newsxml.<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote10" href="#reference10"><sup><small>10</small></sup></a>“Graham Ovenden child sex abuse trial: Nakedness ‘no shame’, <i>BBC News</i>, March 21, 2013, 16:08 GMT. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-21881501.<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote11" href="#reference11"><sup><small>11</small></sup></a>Morris, Steven, “Artist Graham Ovenden denies abusing young models,” <i>The Guardian</i>, March 21, 2013. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/21/artist-graham-ovenden-young-models.<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote12" href="#reference12"><sup><small>12</small></sup></a>Id</i>.<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote13" href="#reference13"><sup><small>13</small></sup></a>Morris, Steven, “Graham Ovenden lived in rambling rural idyll with a dark side,” <i>The Guardian</i>, April 2, 2013, 20:32 BST. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/02/graham-ovenden-idyll-dark-side.<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15634435116714830373noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5914132379232520232.post-57745796211237057822013-05-05T18:04:00.003-07:002013-06-12T14:08:21.315-07:00How the Press Lied About Graham Ovenden's ConvictionThe coverage of Graham Ovenden's trial in the British press was nothing short of disgraceful. During the trial, <i>The Daily Mail</i>, <i>The Guardian</i> and <i>The Independent</i> repeated the same prosecutorial hyperbole and lies, and misreported the same facts in nearly the same order, as if all the articles had been written by a single person.<br />
<br />
After Mr. Ovenden’s conviction, the reporting was even worse, raising serious questions of journalistic integrity. None of these papers bothered, or even cared, to report precisely what crimes Mr. Ovenden was convicted of. <i>The Daily Mail </i>informed its readers that:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[Mr. Ovenden's] portraiture formed part of a ruse for abusing girls, making them dress in Victorian clothing before removing it and committing indecent acts. Witnesses described how the artist would take his victims into his studio and make them wear Victorian-style clothing, before it was removed. He would also cover their eyes before abusing them, they told the court.<a name="reference1" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/how-press-lied-about-graham-ovendens.html#endnote1"><sup><small>1</small></sup></a></blockquote>
<i>The Guardian </i>also led its readers to believe that Mr. Ovenden was convicted of blindfolding and abusing his child models:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Witnesses in the trial described how Ovenden would take the complainants into his studio before removing the Victorian-style clothing. It was alleged that Ovenden covered the girls' eyes with tape and tricked them into taking part in oral abuse.... One complainant told the court: "I would then be made to take my clothes off and put on some kind of gown. I would have my eyes stuck down with black tape. We would have to go through this strange ritual.<a name="reference2" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/how-press-lied-about-graham-ovendens.html#endnote2"><sup><small>2</small></sup></a></blockquote>
Similarly, <i>The Independent</i>, post-conviction, told how “the court
heard [that Mr. Ovenden’s] portraiture formed part of a ruse for abusing
girls, making them dress in Victorian clothing before removing it and
committing indecent acts.”<a name="reference3" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/how-press-lied-about-graham-ovendens.html#endnote3"><sup><small>3</small></sup></a> <br />
<br />
Actually, in the case of <i>The Daily Mail </i>and <i>SWNS.com </i>(South West News Service), one can detect not only negligence in reporting, but also intentional malice.<br />
<br />
On April 5th, 2013, three days after the verdict in the case, <i>The Daily Mail </i>published an article that was pure agitation propaganda, doing what <i>The Daily Mail </i>does best and in which it undoubtedly takes pride: using its false affinity with the British working class and lumpenproletariat to foment hatred against the art world “establishment.” In true gutter style, <i>The Daily Mail </i>quoted statements made by prosecutor Ramsay Quaife during the trial and presented them as the charges for which Mr. Ovenden was convicted:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The defendant would put tape over her eyes," said Mr Quaife. "She could not see anything. The tape was black, stretchy and smelt of glue. Although she could not see, she could hear the defendant and she could remember the sound of his belt buckle. The defendant would tell her she would do a taste test and would get 10p for every taste she got right. He would then push something into her mouth . . . he told her it was his thumb."</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In fact, Ovenden was performing a disgusting indecent assault on the girl. Prosecutor Mr Quaife also described how naked girls with taped eyes were moved into different positions and photographed so that their genitals could be seen.<a name="reference4" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/how-press-lied-about-graham-ovendens.html#endnote4"><sup><small>4</small></sup></a></blockquote>
<i>SWNS</i>, which bills itself as "the UK's largest independent press agency," went even further than <i>The Daily Mail</i>, reporting as fact accusations that were never even made, for example, that Mr. Ovenden “sexually abused young girls as they posed for his paintings” and “made [his models] parade in Victorian nighties before subjecting them to sick assaults” (emphasis added).<a name="reference5" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/how-press-lied-about-graham-ovendens.html#endnote5"><sup><small>5</small></sup></a><br />
<br />
<h3>
In fact, the abuse premised on Mr. Ovenden dressing his models in Victorian nighties, taping their eyes and putting them to the "taste test" made up precisely those charges for which Mr. Ovenden was acquitted at trial.</h3>
<br />
Before examining some of the reasons why the jury acquitted Mr. Ovenden of these charges, some facts about this case need to be stated:<br />
<ul><br />
<li>Mr. Ovenden was not convicted of any crime of child sexual abuse while painting or photographing.</li>
<li>Mr. Ovenden was not convicted of sexually abusing anyone who was blindfolded or had tape over her eyes. Although the police were in possession of all of Mr. Ovenden's photographic work from the late 1950s until he photographed his last child model in 1989, they were unable to point to a single image that depicted full frontal nudity of a model with a blindfold or tape over her eyes. That is because such images did not exist.</li>
<li>Mr. Ovenden was not convicted for moving his models into different positions and photographing them so that their genitals could be seen.</li>
<li>Mr. Ovenden was not convicted of sexually abusing multiple victims. </li>
<li>None of Mr. Ovenden's photographs, drawings or paintings depict a crime in progress.</li>
<li>None of Mr. Ovenden's published photographs and none of his drawings or paintings were the subject of any accusations against him. </li>
<li>Mr. Ovenden was convicted for three photographs which the jury found "indecent." Two of these photographs were printed by the police from Mr. Ovenden's negatives. Mr. Ovenden himself never printed those images. (The police prints bear water stains from the negatives because Mr. Ovenden never even bothered to clean the short strip they were on after developing.) A third image was printed by Mr. Ovenden, but never exhibited. (The three photographs will be discussed anon.)</li>
<li>Out of a total of four former models who testified at the trial, two testified that Mr. Ovenden never sexually abused or touched them in any way. The sexual abuse charges that the police lodged on their behalf were ordered dismissed by the judge during the trial.</li>
</ul>
<br />
The two former models who testified that they were dressed up, had tape put over their eyes and subjected to the alleged “taste test” were JB, now age 38, and LD, now 43. Whilst it is difficult to know the exact reasons why the jury didn’t believe them, a look at the circumstantial evidence at the trial is suggestive.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://postimg.org/image/zf3rn1cih/" target="_blank"><img alt="Ref01 LD" border="1" src="http://s20.postimg.org/zf3rn1cih/Ref01_LD.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Ref01</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://postimg.org/image/wz6jmxjtl/" target="_blank"><img alt="Ref02 JB" border="1" src="http://s20.postimg.org/wz6jmxjtl/Ref02_JB.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Ref02</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
LD's story was that on three occasions when she was between the ages of six and eight, Mr. Ovenden subjected her to the “taste test” alone, behind a locked door in Mr. Ovenden's studio. JB testified to the same details, at the same age, but on a single occasion. Their testimony was contradicted by a statement made to the police by Mr. Ovenden's estranged wife that the door to the studio did not have either a lock or a bolt. LD’s testimony was further contradicted by a photograph from the sessions in which she had tape over her eyes, because she is shown not alone, but with a chaperone. (See Ref01, at left.) JB, too, was never photographed alone, but always in the presence of Mr. Ovenden’s daughter, Emily. (See Ref02 at right, which shows JB in a photo session with Mr. Ovenden’s daughter.)<br />
<br />
A third problem with the testimony of JB and LD is that they both claimed to have remembered the sound of Mr. Ovenden’s belt. But as Mr. Ovenden indicated to the jury, he has never worn a belt and has always used braces (suspenders). Yet another problem with the “taste test” accusations emerged when the mothers of both these two former models got their "facts" confused when they testified as to what their daughters supposedly told them about these incidents when the daughters were teenagers. Indeed, the stories of JB and LD seemed similar enough that Judge Graham Cottle, no friend of Mr. Ovenden by any means, was compelled to state in his charge to the jury:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Are the complainants independent of each other? Have they come up with similar but false complaints? Have they been affected by someone to make similar but false claims? If you're sure there's no realistic possibility they put their heads together, the evidence of each is capable of supporting the evidence of the other.<a name="reference6" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/how-press-lied-about-graham-ovendens.html#endnote6"><sup><small>6</small></sup></a></blockquote>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://postimg.org/image/s1sz1thuh/" target="_blank"><img alt="Ref03 LD" border="1" src="http://s20.postimg.org/s1sz1thuh/Ref03_LD.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Ref03</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Finally, LD could not explain to the jury why, in 1988, at age 18, she visited Mr. Ovenden at Barley Splatt and asked him to take her photograph with her best friend. (The best friend is another former Ovenden model who was photographed more frequently by Mr. Ovenden but never made any accusation against him.) The photographs of LD and her friend show two young women laughing and joyfully posing together in front of Mr. Ovenden’s camera. (See Ref03.)<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://postimg.org/image/gdyx79spl/" target="_blank"><img alt="Ref04" border="1" src="http://s20.postimg.org/gdyx79spl/Ref04.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Ref04</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Although Mr. Quaife claimed that Mr. Ovenden's art was a "ruse" for abusing his models, Mr. Quaife was well aware that the models' eyes were taped or blindfolded for an expressly artistic purpose: the creation of a series of drawings for which Mr. Ovenden was commissioned by the late Harry Lunn, who was a well-known collector of antiquarian photography and a long-time friend of Mr. Ovenden. The color photographs shown here of LD (Ref04), the black-and-white photograph of another model (Ref05) and two drawings (Ref06a and 06b), were not introduced into evidence, but do demonstrate how Mr. Ovenden used photographs as references for his drawings. (They also demonstrate palpable bad faith on the part of Mr. Quaife, who successfully kept the jury from seeing these images.)<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://postimg.org/image/eaohzlswp/" target="_blank"><img alt="Ref05" border="1" src="http://s20.postimg.org/eaohzlswp/Ref05.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Ref05</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The two color images (Ref04) depict LD with white tape (not black and sticky electrical tape) over her eyes. Her facial expressions and the positions of her head in each photograph are rendered accurately, in reverse, in Ovenden's drawing, entitled “Justice pregnant with the spoils of Mammon lead the unseeing innocents to slavery” (Ref06a). The black-and-white image of the blindfolded girl (Ref05) was used as a more general reference for the drawing, entitled "Justice conducts the choir of innocents in their new anthem” (Ref06b). The blindfolded girl in Ref05 who, like the other three former models, testified from behind a screen, denied that Mr. Ovenden ever sexually abused her. The girl accompanying her in that image is the same one who visited Barley Splatt in 1988 and was photographed with LD. <br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://postimg.org/image/jaly7jyjd/" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" target="_blank"><img alt="Ref06a Justice pregnant" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/jaly7jyjd/Ref06a_Justice_pregnant.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><u>Ref06a</u></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://postimg.org/image/4soqzk789/" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" target="_blank"><img alt="Ref06b Justice conducts" border="0" src="http://s20.postimg.org/4soqzk789/Ref06b_Justice_conducts.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Ref06b</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
Although the jury disbelieved the "taste test" inventions of JB and LD and acquitted Mr. Ovenden of those charges, they did convict Mr. Ovenden for two lesser incidents involving JB, neither of which had anything to do with making photography or art. The verdict was not unanimous, but by a vote of 10-2.<br />
<br />
JB testified that when she was under six years of age, Mr. Ovenden got into a bath with her and another girl, handed her a washcloth, and asked her to wash his "John Thomas." It was previously reported here that JB testified that she did as she was told, but that is apparently not the case. Rather, she did nothing.<a name="reference7" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/how-press-lied-about-graham-ovendens.html#endnote7"><sup><small>7</small></sup></a> At trial she simply alleged that many years later she suddenly remembered that his penis was erect at the time. (In other words, the crime was asking.) JB also testified that when she was 10, Mr. Ovenden embraced her from behind while she was fully-clothed, and said “Let me feel your tits.” That is the full extent of her allegations and also a complete account of the only crimes of sexual abuse for which Mr. Ovenden was convicted at trial. (The other charges involve photographs, which will be addressed in another post.)<br />
<br />
Within a year of that alleged incident, when she was 11, JB asked Mr. Ovenden to photographer her nude. One of the photographs from that session, published in Mr. Ovenden's photographic monograph, <i>States of Grace</i>, shows JB posing unabashedly naked, hip cocked, arm behind her head. When JB was asked on cross-examination about the session, she dissembled, claiming that she didn't remember being photographed at all. Although she probably didn't see a copy of <i>States of Grace</i> (because few were ever imported into the U.K.), she undoubtedly saw the photograph itself following the session, as Mr. Ovenden made it a practice to print what he felt were the best results of his modeling sessions and show them to his models for their commentary or approval.<br />
<br />
Needless to say, Mr. Ovenden vehemently denies that either incident with JB ever occurred.<br />
<br />
It is doubtful that either JB or LD actually believed any of their accusations. Commenting on JB and JB's mother, Mr. Ovenden's sister, Elizabeth Spencer, notes: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Having visited Barley Splatt over the course of many years both during and after the period relating to the allegations and having viewed first hand [JB's] and [her mother's] continued visits and relaxed relationship with Graham, it is my opinion that their statements were fabricated in order to discredit him both professionally and personally.</blockquote>
Moreover, there is some evidence that Mr. Ovenden's former models were manipulated and coached by the police and others. Although the press continually reported that the four former models who testified at trial “contacted police long after the abuse is alleged to have taken place, and only when they realised exactly what had happened to them as girls,”<a name="reference8" href="http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.com/2013/05/how-press-lied-about-graham-ovendens.html#endnote8"><sup><small>8</small></sup></a> this is, as will be demonstrated, patently untrue.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
--------</div>
<br />
<a name="endnote1" href="#reference1"><sup><small>1</small></sup></a>“Artist Graham Ovenden found guilty of indecency against young girls after using nude children in his paintings,” <i>The Daily Mail</i>, April 2, 2013, 15:21 GMT.<br />
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2302849/Artist-Graham-Ovenden-guilty-indecency-young-girls-using-nude-children-paintings.html<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote2" href="#reference2"><sup><small>2</small></sup></a>“Artist Graham Ovenden convicted of historic child sex offences,” <i>The Guardian</i>, April 2, 2013, 20:16 BST.<br />
www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/02/artist-graham-ovenden-convicted<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote3" href="#reference3"><sup><small>3</small></sup></a>“Artist Graham Ovenden found guilty on four counts of indecency with a child,” <i>The Independent</i>, April 2, 2013.<br />
www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/artist-graham-ovenden-found-guilty-on-four-counts-of-indecency-with-a-child-8556873.html<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote4" href="#reference4"><sup><small>4</small></sup></a>“How the art establishment helped paedophile painter Graham Ovenden get away with it for 20 years,” <i>The Daily Mail</i>, Geoffrey Levy, April 6, 2013, 8:48 GMT (first published on April 5, 22:45 GMT).<br />
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2304791/How-art-establishment-helped-paedophile-painter-Graham-Ovenden-away-20-years.html<br />
<br />
According to <i>Wikipedia</i>, the controlling shareholder of the Daily Mail and General Trust plc is Harold Jonathan Esmond Vere Harmsworth, who is 4th Viscount Rothermere, a man with an estimated worth of 1.02 billion pounds sterling – not particularly working class credentials.<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote5" href="#reference5"><sup><small>5</small></sup></a>“World-acclaimed artist blindfolded and sexually abused young girls who posed for his paintings,” <i>SWNS.com</i>, April 2, 2013.<br />
swns.com/news/graham-ovenden-blindfolded-sexually-abused-young-girls-posed-paintings-33540<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote6" href="#reference6"><sup><small>6</small></sup></a>“Artist Graham Ovenden's indecency case jury retires,” <i>BBC News</i>, March 26, 2013, 14:31 GMT<br />
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-21943329<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote7" href="#reference7"><sup><small>7</small></sup></a>According to Judge Cottle at sentencing, this "indecency" charge for which Mr. Ovenden was convicted consisted only of "asking a girl to touch him while they were in a bath together." <i>See</i>,Morris, Steven, "Graham Ovenden walks free after judged no longer a sexual threat." <i>The Guardian</i>, 04 June 2013. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/04/graham-ovenden-judged-no-threat<br />
<br />
<a name="endnote8" href="#reference8"><sup><small>8</small></sup></a>“Artist convicted of sex offences against children,” <i>Telegraph</i>, April 2, 2013.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9966939/Artist-convicted-of-sex-offences-against-children.htmlAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15634435116714830373noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5914132379232520232.post-51174915271158106272013-04-30T20:33:00.000-07:002013-05-14T03:42:49.296-07:00Graham Ovenden Convicted, but No Fall from GraceOn April 2, 2013, artist Graham Ovenden was convicted in Truro Crown Court of various crimes about which much has been written in the <i>Daily Mail</i>, the <i>Guardian</i>, the <i>Times</i>, the <i>Independent</i> and other newspapers, both in print and online. Without exception, the reporting was (and will no doubt continue to be) wildly inaccurate and professionally irresponsible. Unproven claims asserted by prosecutor Ramsay Quaife were reported as facts. When two witnesses, testifying from behind a protective screen, denied that they had ever been abused despite insistence by the police that they had been, the press found nothing newsworthy to report. Although not a single aspect of the prosecutor's theory -- that Mr. Ovenden's "portraiture was part of a ruse to abuse young girls, making them dress in Victorian clothing before removing it and committing indecent acts"<sup>1</sup>-- was proven at trial, the lie perdured in the press even after conviction on charges that were far less serious and sensational.<br />
<br />
For its part, the <i>Daily Mail</i> became shrill, attacking the "establishment" which supposedly protected and even fostered Mr. Ovenden's supposed (but non-existent) crimes and deriding Mr. Ovenden's famous friends. The <i>Guardian</i> commenced to hand-wringing, wondering whether anyone could rightfully ever look at an Ovenden artwork again. True, there were one or two voices arguing sanely in favor of judging Mr. Ovenden's art on its own merits rather than <i>ad hominem</i>, but it wasn't enough to dissuade the Tate Gallery from removing Mr. Ovenden's prints from view, both on its publicly accessible website and in the library, where his work was on view by appointment.<br />
<br />
The story that will be told here is vastly different from what has been reported in the press. We will examine the facts adduced at trial, present the charges of which Mr. Ovenden was accused and for which he was either acquitted or convicted, and delve into the rather sinister background of the 2013 trial -- some 20 years of persecution and dirty deeds by the police, and in the end, Mr. Ovenden's son, Edmund ("Ned") Ovenden. Finally, we will look at Ovenden the artist, his practice and methods. It's time that the truth be told: there was no "fall from Grace" for Mr. Ovenden. His conscience is clear of wrongdoing, because he did nothing wrong. <br />
<br />
<i>Note</i>: None of the images shown on this site are illegal and none were in contention at any time during Mr. Ovenden's trial. Rather, they are part of Mr. Ovenden's published output.<br />
<br />
<sup>1</sup> Davies, Caroline and Steven Morris, Artist Graham Ovenden convicted of historic child sex offences, The Guardian, 2 April 2013 20.16BST, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/02/artist-graham-ovenden-convicted">http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/02/artist-graham-ovenden-convicted</a><span id="goog_914764797"></span><span id="goog_914764798"></span>.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15634435116714830373noreply@blogger.com0