Friday, May 8, 2015

Bobby has a gallery showing

Way down in Tasmania Bobby Beausoleil was invited to show a few of his paintings at Cultural Art Tasmania, a prime cultural art center according to his website.  The Tender Exotics exhibition began May 5th. 

An example of Bobby's work is featured at  the Cultural Art Tasmania website.


Is that little angel sporting a red bottom?





85 comments:

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

Cupid, huh? It sure looks like Cupid has been naughty and gotten spanked for it.

Matt said...

Not to mention an open-mouth kiss from topless mommy.

AustinAnn74 said...

I wonder why a lot or almost all of his paintings always have a woman with red hair?

Panamint Patty said...

Pervert!

Cindy Lee said...

Is it just me or does this look wildly like Sharon Tate a mixture of her wedding day and early years when she had bangs?

Also to note is the Ankh around her neck which was the Sebring International logo.

As for the angel-child notice the tears flowing down his cheeks and the resistance of being pulled in with his straightened arms.

Suze said...

I was thinking something oddly similar, Cindy Lee. To me it's creepy even without those details. There are even finger impressions on his bottom. Gross.

Mr. Humphrat said...

"A Mother's Love is Tough yet Tender"
"Happy Mother's Day!"

DebS said...

I can't help but think that Bobby really does not want to get out of prison. Perhaps he has become institutionalized. I believe it was at his last hearing that he was denied because of something to do with an art show. He should have learned something from that experience and not had anything to do with showing his art, period.

Considering all the attention that has been given to his apparent spanking fetish in the last couple of years, allowing his art with a red bottomed child to be shown and his announcing that showing on his website seems like a real bonehead move.

Matt said...

Bonehead Bob

DebS said...

Bonehead Bob's blushing bare bottoms beget brush-off by balky board. Bummer....

Senor Robot said...

Bummer for Bonehead Bob to Be Brought to Boners By Baby Butts. But for Being a Butthead he has none to Blame.

Krissy Deen said...

Bobby B. is a cold blooded murderer who sometimes seems to get a break from people because he's a decent looking man.(Although in some of the pictures since his incarceration he look's downright evil to me- and it's not because of the tattoos) This artwork of his, for my own reasons some of which have already been mentioned, just confirms my opinions of the man. I am actually responding more to the prior post about the timeline. I haven't been online for a few days so I hope it's OK to respond here. I just want to give my two cents where Parent was concerned. Fist of all- the gay thing. I'm pretty sure most of the people who read and respond to this blog are pretty open minded and saying that someone is gay doesn't make a difference of how we look at a person. I just don't understand why some are so sure his late night visit to Cielo had to do with anything sexual. He was eighteen years old- when I was that age the night was still young at midnight. I remember not even going out until after 11pm and I wasn't above showing up unannounced at places in the hope that they might have a joint to share- or if I had one that they would indulge with me. Maybe in his case he really was trying to make a few extra bucks. The reasons I have doubts about the " gay tryst" theory are as follows...
He had called and asked a friend if he wanted to come along with him. Why do that if you're looking for a sexual encounter? Also- according to his polygraph report- he was asked if he was gay and/or had ever had sex with any of the victims. He said no to both and passed the polygraph. So do we believe parts of the test and not others? I don't know- I've never taken one but am throwing it out there for consideration. Also- as far as the timeline- according to his friend Jerrald Friedman ( sp) that he called before leaving Cielo- Parent told him he would be there about 12:30- which helps narrow down the timeline right there. ( Assuming of course that you believe this Friedman guy but I really don't see why he would lie.) Yes, this info. comes from the book Helter Skelter- and I do understand people having doubts about the motive- but the polygraph results and testimony of the guy who said Parent was to meet him about 12:30 on that night but then never showed up speak for themselves. IMO anyway.

Matt said...

Krissy, I don't disagree with ANYTHING you just said. In fact, it reads like I myself wrote it. Bravo!

Mr. Humphrat said...

I agree Krissy, just because someone is gay doesn't mean they can't sell a clock radio and do random stuff not related to love. And the Friedman info. re: 12:30 is good to know.
Bummer for Bonehead Bob to Be Brought to Boners By Baby Butts
LOL

Krissy Deen said...

Thank you both for your comments. I realize now that I said it as though it was Parent taking the polygraph but obviously I was referring to Garretson. I've never really understood why some people seem to be so sure that night was about a sexual thing. ( Love your last sentence by the way Mr. Humphrat!)

Jenn said...

Any BB's nickname was, of course, Cupid. Creepy.

Matt said...

Krissy, you have e thinking (& researching). I'm going to write up a fresh post about Steve Parent for later in the week. Stay tuned, ok?


Robert Hendrickson said...

Actually the "gay" thing could be significant, just as ANYTHING could be. "Cupid" can actually be B.B. and HE is subliminally providing us all with relevant information about HIS character situation.
Even Michaelangalo planted subliminal messages in HIS magnificant paintings - created for the "church" on $$$ commission. That's how artist's reveal themselves, not unlike an author. In Helter Skelter, the real message is obscured, because Bugliosi had a professional "author" Curt Gentry put HIS story to pen and ink.

IF you study old master paintings, it becomes very clear that a Roman soldier "KILLED" Jesus Christ, but for a thousand years the JEWS got blamed for it. Go figure - cause man's rationality has NOT changed - ever since the cave man discovered how to preserve meat.

I had a lengthy talk with someone from Amazon yesterday and he explained that certain folks search "deeper" when they hear about an interesting subject. Of course, Amazon's business model is, to some extent, patterned after this fact. So if YOU can't "figure it out" don't fret so much - at least YOU are training YOUR brain to THINK and it does NOT get any better that that.

william marshall said...

Perhaps they should display the Gary Hinman dummy used in his trial to show the real
Boby Beausoilel or perhaps the show is aimed toward the people serial killer art

Mr. Humphrat said...

Krissy credit Senor Robot for Bummer for Bonehead Bob to Be Brought to Boners By Baby Butts
kudos to Deb S for Bonehead Bob's blushing bare bottoms beget brush-off by balky board. Bummer....

Krissy Deen said...

I'll be around Matt. I'm a daily reader of your blog anyway. There's always something interesting going on here.

xreles said...

Me verses Bobby Beausoleil

The boy does have talent, at least to me he does, because I can trace my hand with a pencil and that’s it.
xreles 0
Beausoleil 1

Beausoleil also seems to be a pervert as has been said here already, nothing perverted about the drawings of my hand…not the ones of my left hand anyway.
xreles 1
Beausoleil 1

Cupid laid Gypsy. I’ve watched her shower… THANK YOU Mr. Hendrickson. (Have you seen Catherine Share’s body from Inside the Manson Gang? Yeah.)
xreles 1
Beausoleil 2

Bobby killed a kind man then fell asleep with the blood on his clothes and the murder weapon in his possession. I’m a two time loser but come on man.
xreles 2
Beausoleil 2


Beausoleil’s ego is world class…he’s great, don’t believe me just ask him.
xreles has a Bullshit Detector of a World Champion and would have seen through Charlie with one eye tied behind my back.

xreles 3
Beausoleil 2

Game, Set, Match to xreles




william marshall said...

Hey Matt wishing I was there with you guys
Sorry for going off topic but doe's anymore now anything about the movie they been advertising on NBC I think it's called Aquaris adverrtisment looks pretty interesting just little Teaser's where they mention Manson

Matt said...

xreles, I read your comments an hour ago and I'm still laughing.

William, all I know is that the premier is May 28. I don't have high hopes for it but I'll probably watch the first one.

Also William we are keeping your spot reserved for next year.

Karen McDaniels said...

He was found to be doing a child porn business from the inside of his prison.His late wife was helping him. So that 'red bottomed cupid/child/angel' has a nasty meaning for him and his customers.

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

As a professional artist (mostly portrait commissions) by trade, I'm confused by the description of BB's media here: 'Prismacolour and oil' - It's usual to describe the type of media, ie oil on canvas, graphite on paper, blood on wallpaper, etc - rather than the name of the manufacturer. Prismacolour manufactures pens, pencils, coloured pencils, pastels and more. So what did he use?

Or is it a typo for Prisoner-colour? ;)

Matt said...

Michael, I'm guessing that was just a webmaster's faux pas.


xreles said...

Happy Mothers Day all you Mothers!

Matt, thankee

Robert Hendrickson said...

This BB pic of HIM and the mother figure is very profound. HE is painting "cryptically." Like Manson speaks. I think it's all part of the "fun" thing, when you know NOT to just come right out and say it.

This pic should be on a Mother's Day card. I'm guessing some mother's wood be able to de-cifer the meaning.

equinox12314 said...

Michael,

Apparently, he covers the board with baby oil (baby oil!?! I would have thought there were other uses for that in a prison) and uses coloured pencils on top of it.

As an artist, how would you describe Bobby's art? Modern, c**p, pervy?

The person who owns the original on exhibit is a female who is a member of his Facebook page. His Twitter page fans includes other females who think he is still 'loves' young dream'.

equinox12314 said...

"...blood on wallpaper...". LMFAO. Nice one, Michael!


Panamint Patty said...

Do we know anything about Bobby's childhood?

Mr. Humphrat said...

Beatific Boy's bum burn brings Bobby back by Blog for braying children should be outside playing mother's day and all's forgiven iconic flesh proffered put it in the SS coffer as payment on the original sin sleep well Gary rest well wagon so long ago you carried dragons

Senor Robot said...

Matt, i'm looking forward to your post on Parent. Coincidentally, the timeline discussion had me thinking about him. As for Friedman. He was probably either more than a casaul friend (i'm not suggesting anything here) or deeply affected by his death. Or both. This being based on the dedication in When Harlie was one (Sleep well, old friend. You got the job done) and the interview, which i believe was in relation to The martian child, where he mentions Parent. It seems that Parents father was simply flabbergasted that his kid was even at Cielo drive so I've always seen Friedman as a potential window into certain aspects of Parents life, but he doesn't seem so talkative when the subject is mentioned.

Matt said...

EQUINOX!!!!!!


equinox12314 said...

Hi Matt,

Hope you and Patty, Ann and Deb are fine. I dropped by to see what's going on and have been thoroughly enjoying this year's tour. I am in the middle of yet another round of law exams, but I should like to make comments on the site after my exams are completed in the next couple of weeks. I am longing for the academic year to be over.

equinox12314 said...

Do you remember Austin Ann's article on the subject of Bobby's singing? She described how he murdered 'Angel'. Well the bad news is that he has butchered another two classics. I invite to listen to the two excerpts below. He is in fact a serial killer of songs. If there is a classic you enjoy, Bobby will destroy it. 'Who do you love' is particularly bad.

http://bobbybeausoleil.com/who-do-you-love.html
http://bobbybeausoleil.com/redhouse.html

I am longing to see the transcript which will appear of his parole hearing in July. We will find out what the 115 violation was all about. Could it be that Bobby was singing in his cell, and other inmates begged to be put in solitary?

equinox12314 said...

Patty,

You ask if anyone knows about his childhood. I had found a comment on YouTube by someone who knew the Beausoleil family (particularly BB's father). The person seemed to be credible. She said that a lot of the problem with BB was the LACK of discipline in the family. Apparently, his parents were really soft. This conflicts with BB's version that he would hide in the house when his father came home with his belt. But as we all know, if BB said it was raining outside, you would have to go to the window to check!

Matt said...

Yikes. As Wilma Flintstone said, "I think some poor Brontosaurus is stuck in the tar pits."


equinox12314 said...

"Yikes. As Wilma Flintstone said, "I think some poor Brontosaurus is stuck in the tar pits."

LMAO, Matt. I always think that BB thought he would do the same as Clem - get out and make a living doing the clubs etc. The California Parole Board know he isn't up to making a living out that. In fact, I have been listening to some of CM's better songs like 'Look at your Game, Girl', and at least Charlie could sing!

I would be interested to hear what Michael Hlousek-Nagle, as a professional artist, thinks of BB's art.

equinox12314 said...

When I think about it, these lines of the Marlon Brando character, Terry, in 'On The Waterfront' could have been written with Bobby B in mind:-

Terry: You don't understand. I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let's face it. It was you, Charley. (IMDB)

AustinAnn74 said...

Hmmm. The Red House, huh? BB's talent is more along the lines of this rendition instead:

https://youtu.be/vnOyMSEWNTs

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

@equinox:

"As an artist, how would you describe Bobby's art?"

Wait, he makes art? In addition to these kitsch masturbation-aids? Well show me some and I'll give you my opinion ;)

But seriously this isn't art any more than the readers' letters page in a porno magazine is literature. This is garbage. A thing isn't necessarily art just because it's an image made by hand using art materials, and this is just a silly juvenile doodle. (I'm not going to sit on the fence here, sorry folks!) It's the act of an immature imagination; kitsch, anatomically cartoonish, light coming from everywhere and nowhere, the dress is a flat colour with some lines crudely drawn on it to imitate what fabrics do, (ie - no real sense of solidity at all, the 'knees' appear to exist on the same vertical plane as her stomach or hips), the vile uniformity of the flesh tones - as though Mr B has one pencil helpfully labelled 'flesh' and is lazily content to use that wherever skin is visible, creating two forms that are more storefront mannequin than living being. I could go on, but I think you probably get my drift.

An acceptable starting point for a 12 year old learning art, but for a man - a grown man - of his age, with, let's face it, plenty of time on his hands to practice over several decades, who is supposed to be creative and intelligent - it's nauseatingly bad.

And that's without even getting into the repellent self-indulgence of the message...

Nice to meet you equinox.

MATT - looking forward to your Parent piece very much.

equinox12314 said...

Michael,

Nice to meet you too. I really appreciate your appraisal of BB's 'art' on the basis that you are a professional artist. I wouldn't know a Manet from a Monet. There is no way, therefore, that he would have been able to make a living as an artist. The sad thing is that BB manages to sell both the originals and prints from people who are buying on the basis of his notoriety, presumably in the hope of profiting when he (BB) snuffs it.

equinox12314 said...

"Hmmm. The Red House, huh? BB's talent is more along the lines of this rendition instead:

https://youtu.be/vnOyMSEWNTs"

Austin Ann, LMAO. Working in a furniture shop would be the best thing for Bobby in the unlikely event of the California Parole Board and the Governor letting him go. He could use his legendary seductive powers to con vulnerable women into buying bad taste sofas.

AustinAnn74 said...

Equinox, welcome back. We missed thee!

equinox12314 said...

Austin Ann,

thank you so much for that!! I have missed all four of you guys too, and also the regular posters on this site. There are some really good new people here like Michael and others.

I knew a bit of your all timer favourite singer, Bobby B, murdering some more songs would cheer you up!!

I can't wait for when the transcript of his next parole hearing comes out to hear his latest version of the Hinman murder.

AustinAnn74 said...

Equinox:

The transcript will consist of BB's 2015 version of the crime, including, but not limited to: laying blame on the actual victim for his OWN death, labeling & characterizing the victim a drug burner, rationalizing how much the entertainment world is in need of his many, many talents, like composing, drawing, recording & touring capabilities, and his demand for release based on the fact that all he did was kill because he needed to prove he was a man and because Dan DeCarlo told him what to do! Gee!!

equinox12314 said...

@AustinAnn,

Maybe this time round, the car was driven by Pooh Bear Manson and the fatal wounds were administered by Zezozose Zadfrack Glutz. No adult member of the family was involved - it was these two little funsters all along!

Vermouth Brilliantine said...

Know I'm late to the party on this one, but... holy shit.

Contemporary Art Australia, according to its website, is funded in part by the Australia Council for the Arts. This is a GOVERNMENT body which provides funding for arts projects around Australia, as well as to initiatives that promote arts and try to make them more 'mainstream' (i.e. less the preserve of snobby latte-sipping intellectuals).

I have no idea of the arrangements here- whether Contemporary Arts Tasmania pays the artists, or they donate the works for showing and receive cash through sales to the public, or what- but, long story short, no matter what the arrangement is this means the AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT expended money on getting work from a MANSON FAMILY member to be shown in a public gallery in fucking Tasmania! If this became public knowledge, we all know this could actually cause a huge scandal- and potentially some embarrassment for the Tasmanian state government, and the Australia Council for the Arts (which is funded & overseen by the federal government). This could create some great political cabinet for either the state or federal opposition parties (both of which are the Labor Party).

Really, really surprised this managed to slip under the radar! I'm normally a live & let live kinda person, I think if someone's paid their penance they should be able to do something harmless (like paint pictures) and have it appreciated by the public without causing a scandal. Feel more conflicted about it in Bobby's case though, I used to defend him a lot but the Sassy Bottoms stuff is CREEPY, it reflects terribly on him, and I've no idea why a public gallery in Australia believes it has artistic merit!

The only thing that would prevent me suggesting someone contact the media and try to actually turn this into a hype-story is (aside from that being really a pretty narky thing to do, even if it is Bobby) it would reflect badly on the Australia Council of the Arts & just give the federal government greater impetus to strip it of funding even further..

Vermouth Brilliantine said...

*great political cache, not cabinet

:)

equinox12314 said...

Hi Vermouth Brilliantine,

If you look at the bottom of the painting, it says it is from the collection of Reci Kypri. She is a member of one of Bobby's FB pages. She leaves messages there, and from her profile it appears that she lives in Australia. She must have loaned it for the exhibition. Therefore, I don't know where that leaves you vis a vis the Australian Arts Council and their funding. Did they pay for the transportation, or for the loan? Was more than one of Bobby's paintings on exhibit?

equinox12314 said...

Vermouth Brilliantine,

You possibly would have more luck bringing the subject matter of his recent paintings to the attention of the District Attorney's office for his next parole hearing. Take a look at this one, the subject matter of which would give me cause for concern:-

https://www.facebook.com/bobbybeausoleilmusicartstore/photos/pb.523793427705115.-2207520000.1431876247./710588885692234/?type=3&theater

Vermouth Brilliantine said...

Hi equinox,

Your information about Reci Kypri is interesting. I suspect the Australia Council for the Arts didn't directly pay for anything regarding the painting- but Contemporary Art Australia (& its Tassy branch, Contemporary Art Tasmania) receive funding from the Council (a government body), which means an argument could be made the Council INDIRECTLY paid for the painting's transportation (or the costs involved in exhibiting/preserving it, or whatever costs were involved in this). This is certainly the kind of argument that would be used by a media outlet trying to turn this into a scandal directed at the gallery Council or government.

I'm really not interested in bringing it to the attention of the media, & don't feel it's my place to get involved in Bobby's parole hearings- although I wouldn't blame anyone here for letting the US DA know about this because it reflects very negatively on Bobby. I am considering, however, emailing Contemporary Arts Australia/Tasmania to let them know the connections behind this work. Maybe they are aware of them and don't care, but if they don't they should know this could reflect very badly on them. The current government looks for any excuses to slash arts funding, this would provide another one and Contemporary Arts Aus/Tas wouldn't want that, I'm sure.

Cheers,
-VB

Vermouth Brilliantine said...

Well, I sent an email to Contemporary Arts Tasmania about the potential scandal involved in exhibiting Bobby's work. I've reproduced it in full here, as with everything I write it came out WAY longer than intended so I'll have to break this up into two or three posts. Regardless I believe I made my case well and I tried to be as fair as possible to Bobby, putting aside my actual feelings for him, whether or not he deserves parole, etc. Here's the email:
-----------------------------

Hello,

I am writing to you in regards to your Tender Exotics exhibition, in particular the artwork it features by the artist Bobby Beausoleil (an example of his work, 'Cupid and Venus 2', is featured on your website here [I put a hyperlink here- http://www.contemporaryarttasmania.org/program/tender-exotics].

The reason I am writing is that your exhibiting of Mr. Beausoleil's work could potentially be controversial, and may possibly even come to reflect negatively on both CAT and its funding bodies (such as the Australia Council). It appears that you are aware of the notoriety of Robert "Bobby" Beausoleil, but I am not sure to what degree. The link to your site I provided in the last paragraph mentions your knowledge of his 45 years' incarceration, but it is possible that you do not know that his conviction was related to his involvement in the notorious Manson Family cult which was responsible for the infamous Tate-LaBianca murders in 1969. Bobby was in custody before those murders, charged with (under Charles Manson's orders) murdering drug dealer Gary Hinman after efforts to exort money from Hinman proved fruitless. Much later, some members of the Manson Family claimed the motive behind the Tate-LaBianca murders was to create 'copycat murders', similar to Hinman's, which would lead the police to believe they had mistakenly arrested & charged Beausoleil, and that the 'real killer' was still out there- which would lresult in Bobby's release. It is worth remembering, when considering the logic involved in believing this 'copycat murder' scheme to be a reasonable way of securing the overturning of Bobby's conviction, that all of these people were heavy users of LSD.

I suspect it is likely that CAT does already know the full details of Beausoleil's past, as I would be surprised if any gallery did not thoroughly research the artists it exhibits. I personally feel that regardless of his crimes, arguments could be made that Bobby has repaid his debt to society- and that art should be judged on its own merits, largely independent of the artist's personal failings or peccadillos. I am not demanding you remove his artwork. But, in the context of the above aspects of Bobby's past, there are other features of his life which you may perhaps not be so aware of which I will detail below.

Vermouth Brilliantine said...

Pt. 2 of the email:
Some of the reasons Bobby has consistently been denied parole since his incarceration in 1970 are the business operations he has involved himself in while in jail. An outfit called 'B.B. Publications', operated by Bobby's wife on the 'outside', in the 1980's offered pornographic/erotica pay-by-mail subscription newsletters, which contained 'erotic' artwork produced by Bobby. One of these publications was known as 'Sassy Bottoms'. Sassy Bottoms contained artwork, very similar to that displayed by your gallery, of cherubic male or female prepubescent children, often nude or semi-nude, being punished or scolded in some way, usually by matronly figures.

Sassy Bottoms was specifically marketed as pornographic fodder- ostensibly to people into 'discipline/S&M/BDSM' and similar fetishes. But the extensive focus on children in Sassy Bottoms and other B.B. Publications works makes them highly questionable, both morally and legally. There is no doubt that the child-heavy content of these works made them attractive to pedophiles, and I (and many others) personally suspect this was an intentional marketing decision by B.B. Publications. The California Department of Corrections Parole Board certainly believed this to be the case, and in 1985 it stated that Bobby's business of generating income from 'child pornography' newsletters played a part in their decision not to grant him parole. (The evidence for all these claims is provided in hyperlinks at the bottom of this email).

Pornography, erotica, and sexual acts involving disciplinistic fetishes are not illegal (and not morally objectionable from my personal standpoint)- but child porn is. Child porn artwork, however, while not technically illegal in the US, certainly is regarded so in Australia, however.. Regardless of all this, the final conclusion I am working towards through bringing all these issues to CAT's attention (and I realise this has been a very long email, that it has taken me a while to get to this conclusion- apologies) could be summed up as this:

Vermouth Brilliantine said...

Pt. 3 of the email:
-Bobby Beausoleil has significant negative notoriety for his involvement with the Manson Family, and for his murder of Gary Hinman.
-Bobby's past artwork (which is very similar to that being exhibited by CAT), was sold by him as clandestine child pornography and regarded as so by a US state institution.
-Artwork (drawings, paintings, computer-generated images, etc.) are considered to child pornography by Australian courts even if no actual, 'real-life' children were harmed or involved in their production.

These three factors present CAT with a great deal of problems, in my opinion. If a journalist was able to get ahold of all this information, they could quite capably use it to generate a considerable scandal, especially as some of CAT's funding comes from the Australia Council and thus indirectly from Australian taxpayers via the government. Consider the potential headline: GOVERNMENT ARTS BODY FUNDS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY BY MANSON FAMILY MURDER. A scandal like this would be absolutely devestating to the Australian arts community. The Abbott Government has already slashed funding from the Australia Council & from other arts bodies, and a story like this would be great ammunition for editorially neo-liberal news media like The Australian. That newspaper most definitely would promote this hypothetical scandal as a prime example of 'irrational government spending of taxpayer money' and as another great reason to diminish or abolish groups like the Australia Council which it alleges promote leftist ideas at taxpayer expense.

Before closing, I would like to point out I do not work in the media and have NO intention of trying to make this hypothetical scandal a reality by 'leaking' this email or my opinions to any media organ. All I am doing is presenting you with reasons to consider very carefully your decision to exhibit Bobby Beuasoleil's work, both now and in future. I personally do feel you should be able to exhibit his artwork if you choose; I don't actually like it very much (putting aside his past actions & borderline-child-porn-industry, I just don't find his style or topics appealing- but I'm sure many do, we all know art's value is completely subjective), but his past shouldn't be an issue in this case and I don't think the 'intent' of this piece (cannot comment on his others on display, which I haven't seen) was explicitly 'pornographic'. But despite all that, I felt you should know this COULD very well be enormously problematic and COULD reflect very badly both on CAT and the Australia Council if the wrong people made the right connections.

DebS said...

Vermouth, that is an excellent email! I hope that CAT takes your concerns to heart and rectifies the situation. Please let us know if you hear back from CAT.

There is further information regarding B.B. Publications and another of their spanking orientated magazines, Domestic Discipline Digest.

http://spankingart.org/wiki/Domestic_Discipline_Digest

In a case dubbed The Spanking Club porn ring nine people were convicted of brutalizing children and distributing child pornography in 2002. How this connects back to B.B Publishing which did cease publication in the 1990's is that the person at the center of the porn ring, David Patterson, initially connected with others in the porn ring through ads in DDD.

Here's an article that was in the Chicago Tribune that names Domestic Discipline Digest-

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-03-13/news/0203130349_1_videos-child-pornographers-pornography

Additionally a link to a website that has the Chicago Tribune article transcribed as well as another article from a different newspaper and commentary on the Spanking Club porn ring.

These people were beyond sick and B.B. Publications via Sassy Bottoms and Domestic Discipline Digest provided the catalyst for the creation of the Spanking Club by publishing the magazines in the first place.

DebS said...

OOPS, forgot to put the third link in.

http://www.nospank.net/pornring.htm

equinox12314 said...

Vermouth,

Be sure to let us know how you get on with this. If you get a response from them which does not satisfy your concerns, then perhaps you could send them a copy of the links which Deb S provided.

equinox12314 said...

Deb S,

As always, excellent research from you! I clicked on this link http://spankingart.org/wiki/B._B._Publications and it states that BB Publications was producing items as far back as 1973. I had always thought that they began in the mid-80s. I was interested to see that their 'Awakenings' literature was being sold for $20 in the 1990s. Where was all this money going? Was it being put into BB's prison account, or was it going towards the upkeep of Barbara Beausoleil?

I was very upset to find out that the court case involved children as young as four. Barbara B had to be a sicko to be the co-author/'artist' of such material. In particular, she accepted the adverts which lead to this case in the knowledge of the kind of people from whom she was taking money.

DebS said...

Thank you Equinox. What is especially troubling is that Bobby did the drawing pictured in the post in 2007 according to the caption at the CAT site. The Spanking Club porn ring came to a head in 2002, five years earlier.

I would have a hard time believing that Bobby and Barbara were not aware of the porn ring, particularly if their DDD publication through the ads was what brought these people together. Authorities, no doubt, asked for or got warrants for mailing lists and the names of people that took out ads for the magazine.

Even if the lists no longer existed by that time and Bobby and Barbara's involvement in the case was minimal, a normal person would be sickened by what their publication wrought. But apparently Bobby was not as he continued to produce the provocative material.

equinox12314 said...

Deb,

We will find out in July if Bobby is successful at his rescheduled parole hearing. Personally, I don't think it is looking too hopeful in view of the 115 violation and his continued reluctance to seek employment outwith music/art. However, I would hate to think that if he were released at any point, that he would continue producing drawings/paintings with this subject matter. It is abundantly evident that he has an inordinate interest in this type of fetish, and what has been particularly disturbing is that his publications involve depictions of young children being physically abused.

I put the link to BB Publications in my post above, and was wondering if you were aware of his involvement in this type of material as far back as 1973 (according to that link anyway)?

DebS said...

Equinox I was not aware that BB Publications went back that far. For some reason I had it in my head the B B stood for Bobby and Barbara but it could just as easily stand for Bobby's own initials.

I see that the 1970's era publications were geared towards bondage and it was not until the 1980's that the spanking became the primary focus. Bobby and Barbara married December 18, 1981 so perhaps she was the one who took BB Publications in that direction.

What consenting adults do is fine but when children are involved it becomes beyond the pale.

Vermouth Brilliantine said...

Thanks very much for your kind words, Deb & equinox. I doubt I will hear a reply from CAT beyond the usual "Thankyou for your email" pat response government departments often give to complaints (I should know, I work for one). If they do, however, I will be sure to let them know that extra info about DDD... I wish I had known that (or rather, I wish I DIDN'T.. yuk). I was overly fair to Bobby in the email for the sake of objectivity, my real feelings are much more negative.

Actually, there was more to the email than what was shown here. I actually posted a 4th and final part but I was having ENORMOUS trouble with the comments systems last night and Part 4. appears to have immolated itself, as the others were doing (Matt suspected this was due to the comments having too many words). It didn't contain anything especially mindblowing but because I am somewhat anal (might say I have a 'sassy bottom') I will post it below... broken into 2 parts, just in case....

Vermouth Brilliantine said...

Pt. 4 of the Email:
Thankyou very much for your time. I apologise again for the length of this email, but I felt it necessary to provide as much detail as possible, both to prove my point and to establish my credibility. Although it is unfashionable to admit this nowadays, I consider myself a patriotic Australian and it depresses me greatly how little recent governments seem to value the fostering of Australian art; the possibility of a 'scandal' and it potentially resulting in further funding cuts or negative perceptions of public art institutions is one that scares me, which is what motivated this email.



Kind regards,



-V. Brilliantine (yes, this is an alias; if necessary I can provide more legitimate contact details, but I am generally careful in valuing my anonymity on the Internet).





P.S.


Before pressing 'Send', I realised I should provide some links to where I found all this information. Much of this comes from blogs, which I realise may not be seen as the most 'legitimate' sources of information. However, considering no academic or journalistic organisations really put much their research focus on Beausoleil nowadays (even the Manson Family itself gets little 'serious' scholarly/investigative attention), blogs are the best alternative we have- and for the record, the blog I have linked to most (www.mansonblog.com) is exceptionally well-researched. I actually value its integrity and the quality of its 'investigative journalism' more than that of the supposedly more 'legitimate' commercial print media operating in Australia today.

Vermouth Brilliantine said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Vermouth Brilliantine said...

Pt. 5, FINAL part (these are just the links I provided as proof)..

Information on Sassy Bottoms: http://www.mansonblog.com/2013/01/sassy-bottoms.html

The Sassy Bottoms Parole Hearing Transcript: http://truthontatelabianca.com/threads/bobby-beausoleil-dec-4-1985.341/

The collection of mansonblog.com articles on Bobby & Sassy Bottoms, including the one which alerted me to your exhibition: http://www.mansonblog.com/search/label/Sassy%20Bottoms

GENERAL INFORMATION ON BOBBY & HIS CONVICTIONS

Truman Capote interview with Bobby, details some of his crimes: https://capote.wordpress.com/2011/05/14/truman-capote-interviews-bobby-beausoleil-san-quentin-1973/

Bobby's Wiki entry, provides a vague overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Beausoleil

DebS said...

Vermouth if CAT exercises due diligence about your concerns then they will eventually read this post and the comments. Their name should come up in a Google search along with Bobby's name if they take the initiative to explore what is being said about their showing of Bobby's "work". They will learn about DDD and the Spanking Club porn ring.

Your being an Australian citizen should carry weigh because you knew the right things to say particularly regarding funding.

Austin Ann was the one who introduced us to this whole sordid subject that might otherwise have been overlooked as it was buried deep in a parole hearing. A huge thanks to her for bringing this to our attention.

Vermouth Brilliantine said...

Yes, it did occur to me that CAT might very well find these comments sections (particularly as I provided links to the blog). This is also why I have continued to be (fairly) objective about Bobby in my posts here. Their discovery of course depends on whether they actually care enough to investigate my concerns; I hope they do, sweeping this under the rug will lower my personal opinion of them considerably and it could be very harmful to them in the long run.

And yes, enormous thanks to Ann for all her hard investigative work, we'd all be ignorant of the true weight & impact of Bobby's.. oddness without her vigilance. Thanks also to Deb, equinox, Matt & everyone else for all your help & support in actually commenting on and reading the email, it's sort of vindicated the time I put into writing it and- has just made me feel good. Thanks. :)

maudes harold said...

EXCELLENT work ladies, all of you!!

Vermouth, I admire your concern and actions. I hope something good comes of it.

Deb, your sleuthing skills ROCK!

Ann, thanks for the original heads up on Bobby's bullshit art a few years back. When I first saw the kid spanking stuff I was immediately struck by Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart's famous "I know it when I see it" remark. I've always thought Bobby was a Grade 1 sleazo and this stuff shows he's still a danger.

I am dying to find out what his recent 115's were about.

Thanks again for the great work all of you!

Vermouth Brilliantine said...

Well, the Gallery replied! Email is below. I will follow with my personal reaction to it in the following comment.

Dear ‘Vermouth Brilliantine’

Thank you for your email, it may have been long but it was highly informative.

I had an awareness of Beausoleil’s association with the the Manson Family, and indeed there was much discussion here around whether or not to include his work in the exhibition - based on his notoriety, and the impact that notoriety may attract and, with this, the detraction that it could cause to the whole exhibition. (Tender Exotics was developed under a curatorial mentorship program, so from our viewpoint the emphasis is on the curatorial exercise.)

Six of Beausoleil’s works are included in the exhibition, alongside works on paper by a botanic illustrator, an historian who designs and hand-makes wall-paper, and drawings by an autodidactic artist from the Australian experimental sound scene. They are all makers who work at the margins of visual art practice. The project curator set out to attempt to unsettle the classification of images in a contemporary art institutional context and, in doing so, cause the audience to question their own ideas of artistic value. (Interestingly, the strength of the exhibition are the new and unexpected ideas generated by the incongruities and connections between the various individual works. It makes an oddly cohesive whole.) The Beausoleil works consists of three pairs: two of the (now dubious) allegorical works, two eastern-influenced symbolistic works, and two mythological landscape works - a brief glimpse of his oeuvre.

A key reason Beausoleil's works remained in the exhibition was that, in the context of an art world, censorship is a vexed issue, and most contemporary galleries are loathe to censor artworks. This can be scandalous and reputation damaging for a gallery also.

A secondary reason for keeping the works, was that MONA (the nearby Museum of Old and New Art) recently exhibited a large series of works by Henry Darger in an exhibition titled The Red Queen. Darger’s works are much more transgressive than the works by Beausoleil and were seen by large crowds who - in the context of the gallery space - were open to consider the strange, child-based and sexualised narratives of an outsider artist. Local audiences generally accept the gallery space as a neutral and safe space to consider challenging ideas.

Again, thank you, I appreciate your interest and the additional insight into Beausoleil.

Kind regards

Michael Edwards
Director

Contemporary Art Tasmania

Vermouth Brilliantine said...

My thoughts, Part 1:
(again too long for one comment)

I have mixed reactions, really. One positive is they actually replied, and put genuine effort into the reply. That impressed me.

They also seemed to acknowledge my points had merit and, reading between the lines, I think they might agree with us that Bobby's 2 paintings of 'cherubic discipline' or whatever-the-fuck are actually at least a BIT suspect. The phrases: "your email may have been long but it was highly informative", "two of the (now dubious) allegorical works" and "I appreciate your interest and the additional insight into Beausoleil" lead me to at least hope this is true. Realistically, though, interpreting those very few words as supportive is probably a bit of a stretch. In future I just hope if they exhibit his art they will leave out his "now dubious" "allegorical works".

One big complaint the email contained some scholarly-academic jargon, which I expected- though it was not TOO bad in this case, I have seen much worse. I.e.:
"The project curator set out to attempt to unsettle the classification of images in a contemporary art institutional context... Interestingly, the strength of the exhibition are the new and unexpected ideas generated by the incongruities and connections between the various individual works."
This isn't that hard to decode compared to some of the academic jargon I've seen in articles by sociologists or arts scholars, but really... "the strength of the exhibition are the new and unexpected incongruities and connections..." Isn't there an easier way to say this, one that doesn't require the reader to sit around deconstructing the sentence for a minute or so to derive sense from it? :) I'll admit that is a minor quibble, however- I just hated academic/arty-farty nonsense-writing in university & I hate it now.

Vermouth Brilliantine said...

My Thoughts, Part 2:

Finally, I suspected they would bring up the issue of arts censorship, although I thought they would more likely refer to the very famous case of Bill Henson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Henson#Controversies), an Australian artist whose 'artistic' photographs of a naked 13-year-old model (her parents and herself consented to the photographing) were seized from a gallery by the police for being 'pornography', which created a huge national debate about art vs. censorship and what exactly constitutes 'art' (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/art-or-porn-photographer-facing-obscenity-charges/2008/05/23/1211183108411.html). Henson was found not guilty and I believe his art was returned to him .

I am quite conservative on many social issues (but quite radical-left on some economic ones, so don't hate me too much), but I don't know enough about art to really make truly informed comments about whether images of naked children, tweens or teens constitute art or not. In my personal view 'art' which depicts children in a sexualised way, or depicts them engaged in sexual acts, has a pornographic intent and is therefore not really the kind of 'high art' that should be shown in a gallery. In fact I find it rather perverse, and don't believe it should be shown anywhere, regardless of the artist's skill or reputation- but that is just my opinion, and as I said, I'm socially conservative. That view might also make me a hypocrite, since I think I once saw an R. Crumb comic about a nuclear family engaged in an orgy (mum blowing son, etc.), and I like his stuff... but in that case I don't think that comic was intended to be jerk-off material like Bobby's stuff is. My mixed feelings are why I'm not an arts 'expert', and why I'm not claiming CAT or myself or definitively right or wrong on any of the points they've raised (except the use of academic jargon, fuck that shit). I am just saying on a deep moral level I personally don't agree with their claims.

All I hope, really, is they just stop showing Bobby's weirdo kiddy art in galleries, which legitimises it. I'm not sure if I'll write back to them or not. I'm very glad they wrote back to me, though, and I do hope my message got through. And finally - thanks very much for everyone's help on this, I really appreciated it. :)

Vermouth Brilliantine said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DebS said...

Thanks Vermouth for sharing the reply email.

Yikes! So the justification for keeping Bobby's art in the showing is that CAT is competing with a neighboring gallery who is also exhibiting "child-based and sexualized narratives".

CAT has gone a step further by presenting an artist's who is a convicted murderer and whose publications, B B Publications, have contributed to the formation of a child porn ring who brutalized and sexually exploited children. Hummm.... does that mean they won the competition?

Vermouth Brilliantine said...

OH, and one final parting comment- CAT calls Bobby's Sassy Bottoms-esque paintings 'allegorical', both in the email and on their web page.

Allegories for what, exactly? I'm stumped. CAT describing these paintings as allegories is ascribing them far more intellectual depth than they warrant, imo.

Vermouth Brilliantine said...

DebS, I honestly hadn't even thought of it that way. That is actually quite accurate- and horrible.

Maybe the arts in Australia do need a shake-up and a few funding cuts. It might assist them in giving themselves a long, and help change priorities which are clearly very out-of-step with those of most people.

Vermouth Brilliantine said...

*long hard look at themselves

It is 12:30 at night here. Tops lik that show it is definitely time for me to stop ranting on the internet at art galleries like a looney and head for bed, I think!

DebS said...

Vermouth I was typing out my comment before you had added your comments to the email reply you received. But my comment still stands. I guess we all have our own way of reading between the lines of "academic jargon"!

maudes harold said...

DebS said...
Thanks Vermouth for sharing the reply email.

Yikes! So the justification for keeping Bobby's art in the showing is that CAT is competing with a neighboring gallery who is also exhibiting "child-based and sexualized narratives".

CAT has gone a step further by presenting an artist's who is a convicted murderer and whose publications, B B Publications, have contributed to the formation of a child porn ring who brutalized and sexually exploited children. Hummm.... does that mean they won the competition?
================================

That's exactly what I took away from the email too.

equinox12314 said...

Vermouth Brilliantine,

From reading the response you received, it looks like the writer is trying to 'talk over your head' by playing the pseudo intellectual. I am a great believer in plain English.

As I said to you in an earlier response on this thread, I suggest you reply by sending the links to the paedophile ring which Deb S posted, explaining that the kiddie spanking magazine he was producing accepted an advert for paedos to make contact/procure kids etc.
Give them the links I posted to the BB Publications to explain to them that his drawings/'art' is not really produced for artistic merit.

It is strange is it not that BB is in Oregon, but his paintings are in a gallery in Australia. I wonder if the Australian female who loaned the painting is the one who set it all up for him because she appears on one of his FB pages and also on his Twitter account. The last time he exhibited in California, it was brought up at the parole hearing because it was hot on the heels of a Sharon Tate exhibition. Maybe the idea between him and whoever set it up for him is that if it is on the other side of the ocean, no one will find out. LOL.

equinox12314 said...

Vermouth,

Further to my response to you directly above, perhaps you could challenge the gallery purely on the lack of artistic merit. I am going to copy below an excerpt from an exchange on this thread between myself and Michael Hlousek-Nagle, who is a professional portrait artist, when I asked him for his opinion of the painting. If the gallery knew half as much as Michael about art criticism, then perhaps they would have rejected the painting on the basis of lack of ability. It would appear the work was exhibited on the basis of notoriety and shock value, rather than artistic merit. Here's the excerpt:-

"...But seriously this isn't art any more than the readers' letters page in a porno magazine is literature. This is garbage. A thing isn't necessarily art just because it's an image made by hand using art materials, and this is just a silly juvenile doodle. (I'm not going to sit on the fence here, sorry folks!) It's the act of an immature imagination; kitsch, anatomically cartoonish, light coming from everywhere and nowhere, the dress is a flat colour with some lines crudely drawn on it to imitate what fabrics do, (ie - no real sense of solidity at all, the 'knees' appear to exist on the same vertical plane as her stomach or hips), the vile uniformity of the flesh tones - as though Mr B has one pencil helpfully labelled 'flesh' and is lazily content to use that wherever skin is visible, creating two forms that are more storefront mannequin than living being. I could go on, but I think you probably get my drift.

An acceptable starting point for a 12 year old learning art, but for a man - a grown man - of his age, with, let's face it, plenty of time on his hands to practice over several decades, who is supposed to be creative and intelligent - it's nauseatingly bad."

Vermouth Brilliantine said...

Deb and Maudes, I fully agree with you. I'm a little embarrassed I didn't see past the surface (framing an argument about censorship) to the simple fact that they were trying to one-up MOMA- "You think THAT'S controversial? Check this out- not only is it kiddyporn-esque, but it's by a MANSON FAMILY MURDERER. We are the cutting edge of Aussie art!" In my defence, I'd already framed my expectations based around (famous) Australian art controversies relating to nude/sexualised depictions of children... plus I'd had a few glasses of red. CAT revealed themselves to in fact be very, very shallow. They probably WANTED a scandal. Any publicity is good publicity, and maybe they thought this could generate some- or at least win them some brownie points in the Australian arts community. Regardless I still think it's shameful.

Equinox, thankyou very much for your well-thought out responses to what I've written. I really do appreciate everyone having paid attention to what I've written, as I said, it's made me feel good. A couple of points:
-I agree with you they were trying to talk over my head with art jargon. I'm a university graduate however (this makes me feel awful, like I'm bragging, but I actually have a couple of degrees- one undergrad, one postgrad) and I am WELL acquainted with academic jargon. I am usually capable of parsing it, although that associated with arts scholarship is notorious for throwing around meaningless buzzwords to create an intellectual avante-garde impression (sociological jargon on the other hand is more of the kind that takes 2000 words to describe an idea that could have been written in 20). Either way I have seen plenty of it, it does not confuse me. I can decode it if I choose to waste my time that way- which I did, hence my questioning of how Bobby's work is allegorical? Allegorical of WHAT? This is an example of throwing out an intellectual-sounding word without applying any meaning behind it, when I see that I think- "this writer's a tool."

-I'm not sure if I'm going to reply. If I do I will definitely put the links and suggestions (including the insight from Michael Hlousek-Nagle) you & Deb have put forwards in your comments. At this point though, having considered the insight given from Deb & equinox, I'm not sure if this is worth my time. This gallery wanted to 'push the envelope' by exhibiting filth, the fact they're showing Bobby's drawings shows SOMEONE on their staff thinks it has artistic merit, & the weird consensus in Australia (which CAT alluded to via their talk about censorship) is that people in Australia can get away with drawings/paintings/graphics of sexualised children if they're put in galleries- but they can't if it's in their homes or on their computers, in those cases it is porn (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/cartoon-based-on-simpsons-is-child-porn-nsw-judge-rules/story-e6freuy9-1111118254416). I'm a bit dispirited by this, not sure what I'll do. I'll think about it. Thankyou again to everyone for all your comments & support though, it really did make my week. Ta. :)

gl63 said...

The woman is wearing a satanic symbol that basically means to summon the demon of lust.