Caricature damaged

Press, 21 January 1982, Page 1

Caricature damaged

A man who damaged a painting depicting the Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon) combing his hair with Marmite, because he considered it to be “scurrilous graffiti” was convicted of wilful damage in the District Court at Christchurch yesterday. The offence took place on November 10 last year. Julian Harrington Haselden, aged 37, an office manager, of Darfield, was ordered to pay compensation of $350 to the artist, Mr Ashley Smith. Haselden. who appeared before Judge Fraser, pleaded not guilty to the charge. The owner of the Windsor Gallery, Mr David Keith

Seeker, a registered art valuer, was called by Detective Sergeant C. A. MacLeod, as a witness for the prosecution. Mr Seeker said in evidence that he had received a note from a member of his staff when he arrived at the gallery on November 10. the note advised the gallery proprietor to remove a painting of the Prime Minister that was being displayed in the gallery window, or have it destroyed. It read: “What are you going to do had better be done before 10 a.m. this morning — that is — remove it. Yours faithfully, we'll meet soon enough!!” The painting had been

brought to the gallery by Mr Smith to be framed and had subsequently been put on exhibition. No price tag was attached, but a sale could be negotiated and Mr Smith had set a price of about $5OO. According to Mr Smith, the painting was a whimsical, “fleshed-out” caricature of Mr Muldoon. It depicted him in a setting made up of essential pieces of his environment. These included Marmite, toilet rolls, and the “Listener.” The painting had tentatively been titled "Man of Mite,” although this information was not displayed with the painting. Under cross-examination,

Mr Smith told-the Court that the caricature was based on the features in the centre of Mr Muldoon's face, with the rest of it expanded. Mr Smith said that the components of the painting had to be pleasing and interesting, rather than of a grotesque nature as suggested. Mr Smith said he could substantiate the purplesingleted chest and breasts depicted on the character with photographs he had based the work on. He said that there was no malicious content in the painting.

iere was considerable est in the painting and people had indicated willingness to buy it. ■s had wanted to buy s." he said. Seeker said the value le painting was very a matter of conjecture

he value placed on it by irtist was perfectly rea)le.

r Smith had been offered I for the painting before as framed by an antique er. Mr George Arneric, had one piece of t by Mr Smith and conned the latest to be a Jr work of art.

r Seeker did not remove painting from the gallery tow as he thought the er of the note might call (discuss the matter with

J said he did not even ider removing the paintto a side wall because | Zealand is a free coun|nd he did not want to be |ted to. iter that afternoon. Mr (er entered the shop from rear of the building and ( the defendant in the

process of smashing the picture over his knee. Mr Seeker’s son. who was behind the counter at the time of the incident, followed the defendant out of the shop and apprehended him.

The defendant said in evidence that he bad been walking along High Street when he saw the paining displayed in the window of the Windsor Gallery. The picture engendered a sense of outrage in Haselden, who felt that it was a horrendous way to treat the Prime Minister. Defendant said that a matter oh honour was involved and the most obvious thing to do was to write a terse note to the gallery proprietor. asking him to remove the painting. Haselden said he gave the note to a gallery employee who was waiting outside the as-yet-unopened gallery and left, expecting the painting to be removed. When he reached his office he telephoned the police station to make a public complaint. As a result of this complaint no action was taken. Later that afternoon, about 5 p.m., Haselden said he returned to the gallery, intending to take the painting

to the counter and explain his views.

Seeing the painting again, Haselden said he reacted strongly by whipping it out of the window.

He said a shop attendant saw what he w r as doing and two or three people came over to stop him. He said he saw them coming down on him “like a Springbok front row." He saw he was on the way down and tried to put his knee through the painting.

As a result of the scuffle, Haselden ended up on the pavement outside the gallery.

Counsel (Mr P. H. B. Hall) said that the defendant regarded the painting as a very real affront to the Prime Minister and had even written to him to inform him of the situation.

, In mitigation, Mr Hall said that 1981 had been the year of the conscience offender.

The Judge said that Haselden was patently sincere and genuine in his actions and had not just indulged in vandalism for the sake of damage — although the end result was just the same.