FRIDAY, JANUARY 31, 1908. INDECENT FUSS. Evening Post.

Evening Post, Volume LXXV, Issue 26, 31 January 1908, Page 6

FRIDAY, JANUARY 31, 1908. INDECENT FUSS.

Evening Post.

The police prosecution of a Wellington bookseller i-aises the old questions of indecent publication. What is it? How far is it reprehensible? When should a decent community prevent, and when punish it? It is a matter of terms and labels, times and circumstances, seasons and countries. There is no general answer. All depends on the particular case. Every individual, every community, fixes his or its own standard, with e^ual warrant : that is to say, with no warrant at all. There is no absolute. Decent or indecent images and symbols occur everywhere, in everything. You pay your intelligence, and you take your choice. Decent's indecent ; indecent's decent ; to correspond with environment, education, prejudice, or whim. Some people would find indecency in a dewdrop, and their habit of mind is quite- defensible, seeing that they possess it. Others would not find indecency in a Port Said photograph ; and their habit of mind is similarly defensible — for them. In this matter, as in many ethers, we must argue to the norm. By the general consent of persons of sense, discretion, and taste, some things arc not done, not said, or not published. There is an indefinable criterion of right, conduct that varies within wide limits, yet can be ascertained with reasonable certainly at any given place or time. When an individual departs far from this criterion, it is reasonable to « a Xi uot that he i» la error, but that it

is fair to consider him in error and to act accordingly. When a community departs far from the criterion set by civilised communities of its own epoch, there is a fair presumption that its abnormal attitude involves a blunder or a defect. Naturally, ab we approach the debatable ground of taste, there is a difference of opinion as to the conduct of the community. An overwhelming majority is agreed that crime should be punished. In the region of misdemeanours it is not so easy to reach unanimity. Here the virtuo of law depends upon the discretion of administrators. If these aye ig-nov.-'i' or unintelligent, the law is likely to fnll into contempt. A community which endures a contemptible law is itsslf contemptible. So that in doubtful matters great care should be exercised by the guardians of the law, in order that the namo and credit of the community be ,iot tarnished. The subject of tho prosecution was an illustration in a magazine, reproducing on a smaller scale and in similar colours a picture painted by tho director of the National Gallery of Art at Melbourne. It is claimed, and has not been (Jenied, that tthiss s picture is an artistic work. The category narrows discussion. In the field of art, by the universal testimony of all times and nations, there is no more question of what is decent or indecent than there is in nature. A natural organism or function is well or ill adapted to the need of it, and survives or does not survive accordingly. A work of art is either well done or badly, and survives ov does ' not survive accordingly. Subject is immaterial : artistic quality is in" treatment. That some subjects appear better fitted for artistic treatment than others does not alter the age-long conclusion. ' A sunset may be more attractive to eyo and mind than a cabbage ; but sunset and cabbage have equal validity in the natural scheme. A sunset may be artistically a more attractive subject than a cabbage ; but sunset and cabbage conform equally with the artistic canon. A well-painted cabbagd is art : a badly-painted sunset does not exist in art. Indecency, or even obscenity, simply cannot enter into the artistic question. Art has nothing to do with docency : it is a Peter's sheet in which there is nothing common or unclean. A picture of a saint has no more artistic merit, because 'tis a picture of a saint, than a vile Pompeiian fresco; and' may have less. Countless pictures of samt3 have perished, and some Pcmpeiian frescos are immortal — not bocauss of subject, but because of art. This is modern doctrine ; but tho proof has roots in antiquity. In art, as in nature, the fittest survives; and we cannot deny tho reason' ror survival, however we may di?liko some of the objects that survive. There have been decent animals whose exlinction we ,may reasonably regret; there are indecent animals that tho j-udicious would dispens3 with ; but Naturo is net bound by our notions of what is befitting. Neither is Art. Whatever is, is right; -nhntovev continues to be, is right as long as it continues. Existence justifies existence. The centuries weed our garden of Life and decorate our palaco of Art. Wo may question their taste, but we cannot question their integrity. This is not to say that art should bo devoted to' what the general mind deems unworthy subjects : that is beside the question. The best art choosss the worthiest subjects, and the maintenance of a moral idea in art is quite compatible with tho highest artistic treatment. Velasquez illustrating Bible maxims would still have been Velasquez. And as tli9 propriety of taking the nude human figure as a subject of public art has been mentioned, we may add that this propriety is not only affirmed by the general argument, but is accepted by tha consensus of civilised countries at the present day. ' To set up the opposite view as representing New Zealand would be to make New Zealand ridiculous. There remain the poi,uts of reproduction and publication. It' does not follow that, if a picture is a> work of art, a mechanical reproduction of the picture is also in any degree a work of art. A Whistler ' might conceivably declare "indecent" the three-colour process of illustration and all" its fruits. As far as concerned the recent prosecution, the copy was a sufficiently faithful representation of the picture. Except in so far as justification might be pled from the custom of reproducing works of art, this was irrelevant. Tt was not the original, but the copy, that was before the court; and the copy had to meet the charge on its own artistic merits, which were small. Had the court' condemned the copy, there would have been no substantial ground to infer condemnation of the original. In all such prosecutions, this distinction should be kept clearly in mind. A picture may be painted, and may make it appear that it has been painted, with a "noble motive; while inferior copies may be circulated as a whet to salacity, or as a trap for pence When the question of publication is considered, the point becomes important There are many works of art which are proper in their own place, yet of which it is undesiruble freely to circulate or expose copies. An exhibition in a bookseller's window of copies of some of Gillray's engravings, for Example, or of some of Boucher's paintings, or of some of the statuettes in the British Museum, would be tantamount to legal "indecency," and would in our opinion be unjustifiable in this community. To exhibit Gillray or Boucher to suitable customers inside a shop would not in our opinion be held rightly a ground of offence. In all such cases discretion must be used. Had the bookseller in the present case, for example, filled his window witli copies of tha incriminated magazine, opened to snow the reproduced picture, he might fairly have become a subject of police interference. He merely sold the magazine to customers who should have been able to protect themselves. The buyer of indecency, did it exist, has, to our mind, no ground for complaint of tho seller, in a commerce of the kind. We think that, as regards the original picture, there is no question of indecency or decency ; and that while the excessive display of copies might have been undesirable, the actual sale by the bookseller was far from amounting to indecent publication, either in point of law or of common sense. Consequently we agree that tho magistrate rightly dismissed the case. The police would have been better advised .not to have begun it. In such circumstances, if definite action be judged 'necessary, it would bo discreet to follow a Glasgow precedent, and request the reservation of the goods from casual customers. With such a request, if it had any reason, we are sure a respectable tradesman would comply.