The curator in charge, Amano Taro explains how it came to the cancellation:
"In April or May we gave the museum’s director a DVD along with a text about the artist (Takamine) that we were planning to include in the catalogue. It’s the usual procedure, and the director didn't have any particular objections at the time. However, it was decided that certain limitations for the screening had to be discussed with the artist first. The idea was to show Takamine’s work only at fixed times and with age restriction — less because of the exposed body parts than because the work was obviously difficult to understand for children below high school age."
"The surprise came when the director consulted a public official, actually a museum staff who was dispatched to the administration. That was the big mistake. Such officials can't judge and make decisions by themselves, so our friend ended up visiting a section related to human rights issues of the municipal government, and the prefectural juvenile protection department. At this stage I still thought, well, that’s about what we just have to go through, to hear the following comment from an official of the juvenile protection department: "I saw the work, and I found it kind of indecent." Logically, the next station was the police. I don't know what our man told them, but they labeled the work 'highly harmful' without even seeing it."
"Even the president of our organization (the Yokohama Arts Foundation) suggested to kick the work out of the program without even bothering to see the DVD. Kato Taneo, who is heading the Asahi Beer Arts Foundation and became the executive director of our organization in April, commented: 'a place that can't show this kind of work can't call itself a museum,' but his efforts were to no avail. When Takamine-san heard about the museum’s situation he suggested to make a different version for the exhibition, but it was already too late. Besides, I wouldn't want him to change anything on his work. To sum it up, the mistake was to ask the wrong people for advice. However, rumors about pressure from human rights groups leading to the decision are absolutely untrue. If that were the case, Kimura-san himself had probably appeared on the scene and claimed, 'I said it’s OK, so you shut up!'" (laughs)
Even the motivated Kato-san had little to say. "The error was clearly made on the museum’s side. It’s a good piece of work, and it deserves to be shown. Maybe this incident serves at least as a trigger for the museum’s restructuring…"
I also asked director Yukiyama Koji, who has been criticised unilaterally by curator Amano, for his view.
You're being criticised for making a wrong decision…
"I know I made a mistake, and I'm deeply sorry for that. I was unaware, and then we even bungled and included the piece on posters and flyers…"
Do you think it’s a good work?
"I think it’s a significant work that would have matched the exhibition’s theme. I wish we showed it!"
So why didn't you just show it without consulting the police?
"I know that the piece was shown at SCAI The Bathhouse and other venues. I guess it doesn't matter at such small galleries, but a big public institution like our museum simply can't ignore legal issues, otherwise we might get into major trouble."
Looking at recent trends, I suppose that the work might not have been viewed with suspicion, and your chances to win a court battle would have been good. Considering also the point of raising important issues, weren't you prepared to fight?
"There was no internal consensus for fighting as an organization, so we weren't prepared or equipped for a fight."
At press conferences and on your website you briefly explained your move with "possible legal conflicts." Don't you think that’s a little insufficient?
"We haven't released much information on the issue, that’s right. I think we should, definitely… But I'm still don't have a clue how…"
How do you think artworks like this can be shown in the future?
"For a show at galleries, I suspect, there’s no problem at all. I hope everybody involved will take this as an occasion to think about future measures."
I refrain from commenting here on the above answers, but instead give the artist, Takamine Tadasu himself the chance for a statement.
"If the ejaculation scene was the problem, I thought it would be no problem to cut that sequence. But obviously the troublemaker was somewhere else. They talk about 'legal conflicts', but the law doesn't say anything about genitals. In th eend, the decision was left to individual judgement, and although there was a good chance to get the piece shown, the museum pinched that off. People who only know my work by hearsay inevitably misunderstand it. Whether it is indecent or not is a decision the museum’s director has to make after seeing it, and then convince others of his opinion. Isn't that how a museum usually works? I've never heard anything more stupid than a museum consulting the police."
A performance will be shown at the opening of a traveling exhibition that kicks off at the San Diego Museum of Art in November. In Japan, however, there are no concrete plans for an exhibition of the work yet. I really hope that Japanese museums pluck up some courage and show the piece!
Ozaki Tetsuya / Editor in chief / REALTOKYO