THE Consistory Court of the diocese of London has issued a school permitting, subject to certain conditions, a statue of the pinnacle of Oscar Wilde by the late sculptor Sir Eduardo Paolozzi (1924-2005) to be installed in Dovehouse Green, Chelsea, on the King’s Road side.
The erection of the sculpture is primarily to commemorate the centenary of the birth of Sir Eduardo, who was, from 1985 to 2005, Sculptor in Ordinary for Scotland to Queen Elizabeth II, and had a studio in Dovehouse Street when he taught on the Royal College of Art, in Kensington.
Dovehouse Green is a public garden managed as an open space by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, nevertheless it is consecrated ground since it had originally been the burial ground for St Luke’s Parish Church, Chelsea, after being consecrated in 1736. Therefore, although Dovehouse Green is not any longer attached to St Luke’s, it comes under the jurisdiction of the Consistory Court.
The petitioners for the college were the Rector of St Luke’s, the Revd Brian Leathard, and the senior project manager of Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council, Sarah Brion. The funding for the installation will likely be provided by the council’s contributions for public art, and by other funding, including public subscription. The sculpture is 2 metres high, and is of a head and shoulders lying on its side and placed on a plinth. The base of the sculpture is supposed to be climbed on.
After public notice, one member of the general public, who was identified only as “B”, objected to the proposed installation. B declined to be a celebration opponent to the petition, but wanted his objections to be taken into consideration by the court.
The Chancellor, the Worshipful David Etherington KC, acceded to B’s request, because “when someone expresses strong views publicly in the trendy age that person could also be concerned that online publication will involve a disproportionate backlash online from others.” Someone shouldn’t feel inhibited from objecting to a proposal in a school due to fears of online intimidation, the Chancellor said.
B’s objections were that the sculpture was aesthetically unacceptable as being artistic brutalism from an earlier era; that the moral character of its subject, Oscar Wilde, made the placement in consecrated ground offensive; that Wilde’s work was essentially lightweight and of no real artistic significance; that the sculpture would damage the garden as a public open space, being too large, cumbersome, and poorly sited; and that the Borough Council shouldn’t be contributing public money to this project.
The Chancellor considered the objections. He said that the objection as to aesthetic acceptability entered territory that had each objective and subjective features. Objectively, Sir Eduardo’s work was each significant and recognised, and he had substantial connections with the borough. Subjectively, his work would “doubtless divide opinion”. The Chancellor, nevertheless, took into consideration the facts that the petitioners had engaged in consultation and would face a planning application, and that there was just one one that had “felt sufficiently roused” to object to the sculpture on aesthetic grounds.
“Art of any era has often been received initially with less praise than has ultimately been bestowed upon it,” and it was likely that “this work [would] have its admirers and detractors, nevertheless it [was] clearly a considerable sculpture by a highly regarded artist,” the Chancellor said. Aesthetics was, due to this fact, not a ground for rejecting the petition.
As for the objection referring to whether it was appropriate for a representation of Oscar Wilde to be permitted on consecrated ground, the Chancellor said that it was “greatly and . . . absurdly over-stated”, and in addition solid doubt on the objection concerning Wilde’s literary fame.
It was actually the case, the Chancellor said, that “Wilde’s kind of writing . . . doesn’t appeal to all tastes,” but he had had a really successful fame as a playwright until his trials and convictions, and had “within the more modern era received acclaim each for his plays and his other published works”.
The Chancellor was, due to this fact, satisfied that Wilde’s work was generally considered to be of a much higher quality than B alleged. It was also vital to do not forget that the sculpture was being placed in Dovehouse Green primarily in recognition of Sir Eduardo relatively than of Wilde.
Referring to the criticisms concerning the Borough Council’s policies, the Chancellor said that those weren’t matters for the Consistory Court, and were matters between B and the Borough Council. Spending decisions were of relevance only to the ecclesiastical court in the event that they were decisions of the PCC and imperilled the meeting of a church’s financial obligations.
The faculty, subject to conditions, was granted, but depends on the grant of secular planning permission.
The conditions of the college are that, if charnel is found through the work, it needs to be reinterred based on the incumbent’s directions; if articulated bodies are discovered, work needs to be halted until the Archdeacon has been consulted; insurers should be informed of potential for climbing on the structure; risk assessment should be conducted of the potential dangers to those with mobility problems; and if there may be any damage to the structure, the Borough Council must treatment it as soon as within reason practicable, and inside a maximum of seven days from discovery, unless the Archdeacon has, for good reason, permitted an extended period.
