WORKS OF ART.

Otago Witness, Issue 2812, 5 February 1908, Page 18

WORKS OF ART.

{ WELLINGTON, January 27. j Bernard Whitaker, bookseller, was charged at the Magistrate's Court "with selling the Lone Hand, containing an in- - decent picture entitled "Sleep." The defence was that the picture was a work of art. After the purchase of the magazine had been proved and counsel's address for the defence heard, the magistrate reserved his decision. ; A feature of the prosecutiom was the appearance of Mr Lindsay Bernard Hall in the witness box for the defence. He is the director of the National Gallery at Melbourne, and the painter of the picture " Sleep " reproduced in the magazine. He deposed that he had been painting the picture off and on for~Sßven years. It had been exhibited in Melbourne, Sydney, and Adelaide, and had been commented on " for and against." He had been painting for 30 years and had never in all his life heard works of this sort referred to as, indecent. "Sleep" was a decorative picture meant to beautify a, wall. It was meant to convey the impression of heat, sleep, and stillness. In all the reviews of the picture that had be>en printed no suggestion of indecenej had been made. Detective M'Grath: That picture, as a work of art is not indecent, but might it not be so under other circumstances? Witness : I only know how they regard the nude throughout the world. I don't know how they regard it here. If they regard the nude as indecent, well Mr Herdman : Do you consider the reproduction of your picture in the Lone Hand would constitute circumstances under which it would become indecent? Witness: "Oh no; certainly not." He volunteered the statement that he was not interested in this case one way or the other. He_ was simply asked by the Lone Hand proprietary if he would allow them to reproduce his picture, and he gave his permission. A number of other witnesses were called, including the Hon. T. K. Macdonald, H. S. Wardell, S.M. (president of the Academy of Fine Arts), and Mr Illing worth (sculptor), who scouted the idea of a prosecution for such a cause. One of them denounced it as grotesque absurdity.

(Fftou Ottb Owjt Cobkesposdent.) WELLINGTON, January 27. Mr Herdman, for the defence, said l if his Wcrship would 1 look at the picture he would see that thero was nothing indecent in it. It was simply a representation of stillness and heat. If this picture was held to bo indecent not one artist, not one sculptor, dare portray the nude. These proceedings were absurd — absolutely ab&md. This prosecution was on the lines of the recent one in Auckland, dismissed by Mr Kettle, S.M., in which the wellknown picture of " Psyche at the Bath " was objected to. He wished to say that it was dangerous for the police to institute prosecutions of this kind, for when once the police made suggestions of this sort by prosecution the minds of prurient persons were stimulated, and they saw pruriency where ifc did not exist. The picture of "Sleep" had been criticised by magazines and reviews and newspapers throughout Australasia, but not one had ever hinted at anything 1 indecent in it. Counsel had two points to submit to hla Worship. First, that the picture was not indecent, and, second, that taking the amendment to the act referred

to by Chief poteetive M'Grath (section 2 of the Offensive Publications Act of 1905>, he could satisfy the court that Mb Whitaker had no idea that the pictura was indecent; that he had no opportunity of knowing it; and that his, ignorance was excusable. Counsel hoped, however, that? his Worship would uphold the first contention. He would call the evidence of leading citizens and judges of art to establish! that there was ' nothing objectionable mv the picture. He would also submit pictures from reputable British magazines and ask his Worship to compare them with this one. Shakespeare's "Tempest," illustrated) by Sir Noel Paton, for years president of the Scottish Academy, was another work he would put in for purposes of oompari»on. Counsel could not forbear asking if we in New Zealand were going to lead the world in morals, as we affected to do in other matters? Were we going to set a. precedent here that no judge in England, no judge in Australia, would follow?