Copyright concerns blamed for controversial hitching post art intervention
by Gabriel Fowler · Newcastle HeraldA HERITAGE assessment report focused on Maitland's High Street hitching post was removed from artist Osvaldo Budet's controversial display due to a staff member's copyright concerns, Maitland City Council says.
The executive manager removed the report before the exhibition's opening to confirm that it wasn't a confidential document, the council said in a statement
Osvaldo Budet's display, Monuments, which is part of Maitland Regional Art Gallery's Upriver Downriver exhibition, focuses on the controversial Maitland hitching post. It is informed by Budet's experiences growing up in Puerto Rico, a US territory with a history impacted by slavery, racism and colonialism.
Budet says he included the 60-page council-commissioned heritage report, titled Hitching Post, Maitland, because he relied on some of its research, but the report was removed, and later replaced only after he pressured the council to return it, he said.
The move has been regarded by critics as an attempt to censor the art exhibition due to the questions it raises about the validity of the narrative often associated with the hitching post that it is a statue of 12-year-old African American slave named 'Jocko Graves'.
That character is fictitious, the story is made up, and the hitching post is intrinsically racist, Budet says through his art work which includes reimagined items on which the hitching post has featured - such as spoons, tea towels, and stamps, without it, beside a hand-drawn version etched on parchment with coal dust sourced from Maitland.
In the absence of any other explanation, the finger was being pointed at Maitland mayor Philip Penfold, who has denied having any involvement with the report's removal.
The mayor has taken responsibility for having a sign installed at the entry to Budet's display warning people they might not like what they see, and that it does not reflect the council's views.
"Council acknowledges that this display may cause offence to members of the Maitland community who have long valued and admired the iconic hitching post statue," the sign reads.
"While council recognises and shares those views, council also respects freedom of expression and the artist's right to present this exhibition on this occasion."
Budet said the "freedom of expression" reference was ironic given the council wanted to remove one of the items on display, and "on this occasion" implied the potential for censorship in the future
"I got a call from the gallery saying, I'm sorry, but we've been forced to remove this from the archive," Budet said of the council-commissioned report. "So they went there and removed that document."
He said he later spoke with an executive at the council who said it was moved because it was "distracting the public from my message".
The artist has a transcript of a recorded telephone conversation with a senior member of council staff who questions him about why he included the report in his display. He later says he could reconsider "talking internally" around "how we can put it back in".
"I understand that some people love it," Budet said of the hitching post. "But it is still racist."
The report, which cost the council $20,000 and was tabled in 2024, makes a series of recommendations, none of which the council has actioned.
"There has been a shift in consciousness as socially and culturally we grapple with legacies of racism, colonialism, and injustice and their often 'silent' expression in the public domain," the report says.
Reinterpretation
The first recommendation was, if the statue remains on Maitland's High Street, it be accompanied by a "reinterpretation" plaque describing its contested history, including information about First Nations history and cultural heritage, with public consultation.
The second option was the removal of the statue. If it was displayed elsewhere, it should be accompanied by "interpretation" informed by community consultation, the report says. The third option was for its removal and long-term storage.
"Given the sensitivity of the hitching post, it may be considered for removal from the public domain," the report says.
Once removed, an interpretive plaque could be installed in its place.
Maitland City Council said in a statement this week that it acknowledged the "Jocko Graves hitching post" evoked different opinions among members of the community.
Cr Penfold has made his views known both in and out of council chambers, in a number of statements and online where he has declared "Jocko will remain", although Budet says he has never called for the object to be removed.
"The expectation that Maitland ratepayers should fund an exhibition that effectively calls them, and generations of their family, racist for loving a statue of a little boy, doesn't sit well with the people of Maitland," Cr Penfold said.
"Anyone's effort to remove him is overwhelmingly opposed by those I represent."
In council chambers Cr Penfold has said he directed for the sign to be installed at the entry of Budet's display "in accordance with consents afforded to me between council meetings".
He did it to acknowledge "the multiple generations over the last 150 years, who may well find it racist to have an exhibition that is clearly opposed to the council's positions be listed as well [sic]", he said.
'Disgusted'
Councillor Amelia Atkinson said she was disgusted and appalled by the mayor's intervention, and voted against a mayoral minute on the subject, along with her Labor colleagues.
In that mayoral minute, Cr Penfold invited the council to express "high level disappointment" in the decision to exhibit a display "disparaging the Jocko Graves hitching post".
That was a surprise addition to the council meeting on July 21, Cr Atkinson said.
"It was a retrospective resolution saying that the sign was appropriate and that council did indeed share those views," Cr Atkinson said. "I was not comfortable nor happy with myself as an elected member of that body being represented like that."
The mayor had the sign installed using his delegation under Section 226 of the Local Government Act, usually reserved to deal with emergencies, Cr Atkinson said.
Cr Atkinson confirmed the recommendations contained in the heritage assessment report were never actioned, adding that the council does not have an Aboriginal Reference Group, which was disbanded in 2021, or a Reconciliation Action Plan working group, which was formed in November 2020 and stopped meeting in September 2022.