|
exhibition
in 2009
HUMANIST TRANSHUMANIST:
the
fiasco of Guildford Lane Gallery of Melbourne
the extended version
Guildford
Lane Gallery is run by the toxic Robert Cripps. AVOID
THIS GALLERY ASSIDUOUSLY!
Had I been aware of him, or had information on him been
available prior to our agreeing to exhibit at Guildford
Lane Gallery I (and my co-exhibitor, Lee-Anne Raymond)
would NEVER have dealt with him. This page expands on
criticism already made about the experience of
exhibiting at his gallery [exhibitions].
ABOVE:
Photo of a mobile device showing vakras.com not
available after Robert Raymond Cripps threatened
web-site hosting service Ilisys. |
Until
2005 Cripps transported art\objects. His
transportation business was declared insolvent
(bankrupt) by the Supreme Court of Victoria in
2005, its assets sold, and the business
de-registered and closed down. In 2008, Cripps
decided to re-purpose the building out of
which his failed business had traded. Though
without knowledge of art, art history, theory,
etc, he decided to start up an art "gallery"
named after the laneway in which his building
was situated. This was a "gallery" in name
only. Unfortunately, Lee-Anne Raymond and I
found out about this "new gallery", and
subsequently hired it to hold our surrealist
exhibition.
The role of a
gallery
The
role of art galleries and a gallery's
obligations to artists they exhibit are fairly
well understood (with the exception of
Australia's judiciary). The Commercial
Galleries Association of Australia
lists the duties and obligations of art
galleries. Contrary to the function, purpose
and obligations an art gallery has to artists,
this awful man decided that our exhibition was
to be his personal forum to attack the
integrity of our art and therefore our honour
and reputation. (An artist's reputation lies
squarely in the works they have authored. This
is acknowledged in the Berne Convention,
article 6bis, and laws that derive from it)
This
awful man then sued us for defamation - because we
sought to redress the damage done to the integrity
of our art, our honour and reputation by his
actions and counter/neutralise the damage he had
done to us by those actions. We wrote about what
he did with regard to our art; why what he did was
without foundation; and was done by a man
unqualified in art - meaning his attacks on us and
our art lacked credibility and should be seen as a
reflection of him and not us or our character. We
(Lee-Anne Raymond and I) exposed him for who he
was\is.
In
2014 Emilios Kyrou, a judge in the Supreme court in
the state of Victoria, Australia, declared Cripps
was defamed by us. Apparently, because Cripps did
what he did to us during our exhibition, he had
sustained an "injury" to his reputation because it
had been communicated! Kyrou awarded damages to
Cripps, and we were forced to pay, thereby losing
our home and art studios. Kyrou even claimed damage
was done to Cripps' aforementioned transport company
- the same company that Kyrou's court had
liquidated in 2005 and which no longer existed,
and which had not therefore suffered damage as it no
longer existed, and which Kyrou even
noted was "not party to the suit"!
See
here for
ASIC extract, insolvency of
Cripps' Redleg transport
company
Kyrou's attack of us on behalf of Cripps continued:
had the art not been what it was, which included
nudes seen from the rear in the paintings by
Lee-Anne and Greek words written in Greek script by
me, this ridiculous man would not have had reason to
act in the way he did! For the court our art was the
problem.
In
2015 the Appeal Court reversed a large part
Kyrou's finding. It ordered the vast majority of
what we had been forced to pay Cripps be returned
to us as it was without "justiciable" basis. With
interest, this awful man, Cripps, owes us close to
$400,000.00 (March\April 2020).
Subsequently,
Cripps put his assets in storage, which was posted
on Instagram (see below), and declared himself
bankrupt! The very court which had forced us to
pay, and then admitted it was wrong, had made no
orders that would compel him to pay, meaning that
we remain without a studio in which to practice
art, and no prospect of ever getting back the
money that would permit us to restore to us our
studios. That the courts repeatedly attributed
blame on our art, and the fact that the courts
never resiled from this position, makes it
incontrovertibly self-evident that their intention
was to silence us by preventing us from producing
art, which without our studios we cannot do.
A
claim against the Australian judiciary has been
made to the United
Nations Humans Rights Commission in Geneva.
Recent
"digital" art, which is not the same as oil
paintings, can
be found here
|
There
are
several words with which I can describe Cripps:
poisonous, vile, repellent, malignant, racist, liar,
bellicose, bully, stupid.
Cripps
also runs Redleg
a transporter of art
can you trust Cripps' Redleg?
("Redleg Museum Services", the name under which the
failed "Redleg Group" traded, was cancelled in 2004.
ASIC
extract of the cancellation here )
|
Much
money
was spent by myself and my co-exhibitor Lee-Anne Raymond
to make this show a success. This has turned out to be a
waste of money. The owner, Robert Cripps, had, at the
time of writing this, still not paid us for work that
sold during the show [payment was eventually made around
6 weeks later - after we sought legal advice]. Payment
of monies owed was only secured when we were forced into
'agreeing' to terms which were never in the original
contractual agreement with Cripps, but which he demanded
we agree to. He gained 'agreement' by placing us under
financial duress. That he procured 'agreement' by duress
renders this 'agreement' legally voidable.
During
the
course of the exhibition he, by his actions,
circumvented our capacity to promote our work. Cripps
turned the exhibition into an expensive debacle for us,
but he made a profit on it.
Below:
a
photograph of some of the works exhibited at the
June-July exhibition in 2009. The exhibition was of
never-before exhibited works by myself and Lee-Anne
Raymond. A fully illustrated catalogue was published to
accompany the exhibition. (the catalogue can be
purchased here). Essays which are featured in the
catalogue were pinned alongside our artwork in the
exhibition.
Cripps
is a self-confessed racist [the
new-left Nazis]
He is a manifestation of the new-left who have adopted
the sentiments Hitler expressed in his Mein Kampf,
but who believe that, though theirs and Hitler's
sentiments are the same, their racism is a 'justifiable'
one [new-left
Nazis].
|
Cripps
took exception to my explanatory essays.
Some
of my essays juxtapose quotes from both the Old
and New Testaments alongside Hitler's Mein
Kampf, to show that Hitler's racial
exterminations were Biblical (religious).
[An assessment of Hitler's
Christianity]
Hitler
wrote:
"...I
believe
that I am acting in accordance with the will of
the Almighty Creator: by defending myself
against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of
the Lord." Mein Kampf
p.60, Manheim translation.
Hitler's
enmity of Jews is based on 1 Thessalonians
2.13-16 from the New Testament [details].
|
|
 |
|
|
above:
one of Cripps' many disclaimers (circled) |
|
|
|
Yet
it
was not the exposure of the Biblical basis of
Hitler's racism that Cripps took exception to.
His actual objection was to my quoting from the
Koran, particularly 9.38-52, in which the god of
Islam, "Allah", guarantees automatic "martyrdom"
to those who are killed while in the act of
killing non-Muslims.
According
to
Cripps, quoting the Koran is insensitive to
"Palestine", because he is opposed to, as he
said, "the Jew's state in Palestine." He then
accused me of "racism"! (Neither
"Israel" or "Palestine", or the conflict there
are mentioned in the exhibition)
For
Cripps the actions of "Palestinian" (Arab
Muslim) suicide murderers in killing Jews
are justified. My quotes form the Koran show
unambiguously that these acts are crimes
committed on behalf of Islam. These quotes mean:
-
that the Jews killed in Israel are victims of
Islamic intolerance;
-
that the Jews have not brought the situation
upon themselves by their actions to which
"Palestinians" are reacting. The Koran predates
the existence of the modern state of Israel by
over 1300 years;
-
that his hatred of Jews is exposed for the
outright racism that it is.
Cripps,
who does not know the difference between opinion
and fact, placed disclaimers everywhere in the
exhibition.
The
"Disclaimer" reads:
"The management would like to state clearly that
the views and opinions expressed in this
exhibition are those of the artists, and not in
any way representative of the views or opinions
of the management, staff or volunteers of
Guildford Lane Gallery."
The
quotes
from the Koran though are NOT an opinion. What
quoting from the Koran achieved was the exposure
of Cripps for what he is: a racist.
|
|
|
|
below:
detail of Cripps' disclaimer
Unfortunately, some of the photographs are not
in focus (limited depth of field). When Lee-Anne
and I visited to photograph our exhibition on 25
June 2009, he followed us, harried us, ranting,
ordering us out of our exhibition, even though
we had a legal right to be there, and he had no
legal means of executing his demand. He is a
bellicose bully limited in erudition and of
limited intellect.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
According
to
Cripps, my essays were unintelligible, lacked
artistic essence (whatever that might mean), and
read like legalese. The eyes of his volunteers
("the girls" as he called them), he said, "would
glaze over" as they tried to comprehend the
incomprehensible. In an email received 26 June
2009, Cripps wrote:
"also
ensure
that myself, gallery staff and volunteers will
also not be approached by Demetrios without
prior notification, as he has made myself, staff
and volunteers feel very uncomfortable"
The
above
email was Cripps' response to our email in which
we wrote to object about his conduct while we
had been photographing the exhibition on 25 June
2009. His intimidatory behaviour included him
walking to within a few inches of me to tell me
that I threaten him, and thrusting his finger to
within an inch of me to tell me he was
frightened of me, and to tell me that I breeched
our contractual agreement because he claimed
that my art was racist. (A gallery visitor who
was present witnessed these bizarre antics.)
Rebuttals by Lee-Anne to Cripps' bizarre rants
were met with the retort "you are a sarcastic
woman". With regard to the above Cripps email,
no discussion about the themes of my art
occurred with anyone from the gallery other than
with Cripps himself, for anyone other than
Cripps to feel "uncomfortable". Cripps' conduct
throughout was thoroughly disgraceful.
Since
the
staff and volunteers at Cripps' Guildford Lane
Gallery acquiesce to, and agree with, his hatred
of Jews and are in disagreement with me, then it
would be a disservice to them if they were to
remain unacknowledged and anonymous. [Though
I
had named them I removed their names 11/4/2011,
for no reason other than it was Cripps who was
the problem, even though the staff and
volunteers, by their silence can not claim to be
any different than he is].
They know who they are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ADDENDUM
7 November 2009:
A number of the above mentioned "volunteers"
have commenced an email campaign to have their
names removed from this page using the threat
of legal action. Cripps made numerous
misrepresentations of my character, including
the charge of racism. He claimed that his
actions were undertaken on behalf of his
volunteers. His volunteers constituted
"evidence". The matters discussed on this page
are based on emails, specifically the email
with the subject title "a misrepresentation of
our art" of 25/6/2009. His volunteers, were
CCd into these emails. They were also CCd into
the email response by Cripps, of the
26/6/2009, in which he made a number of new
assertions for which he used as support
('evidence'), his volunteers. Cripps' email is
written on behalf of the gallery (which
includes the volunteers who he CCd into it).
My rebuttal to Cripps et al with the subject
"Addenda to: a misrepresentation of our art +
rebuttal", was sent on 26/6/2009. The list of
volunteers with whom we would be dealing
during our exhibition is from an email from
Pickett dated 30/5/2009. To my disgust none of
the volunteers had the ethical integrity to
distance themselves from the assertions made
in their name by Cripps. Throughout they
remained ethically deficient by their silence,
and continue to be ethically deficient. They
were unconcerned with any of the claims made
on their behalf by Cripps (especially Cripps'
email response dated 26/6/2009) as long, as it
has become evident, they remained anonymous.
If I had any misgivings about including any of
them on this page I do not do so now.
(Their absurd shared belief is that permission
is required to mention them by name, and that
a mention without such permission constitutes
"defamation"!)
As the course of events transpired during the
course of the exhibition at this odious
gallery, I often wished that a page such as
this had existed on the internet. I never
would have wasted the large amount of time,
money, effort, and frustration by exhibiting
in it. This page is intended to remedy such an
absence.
ADDENDA
amendments 11 November 2009:
Only one of the volunteers (whose name has
been removed) ever distanced themselves from
the representations made on their behalf by
Cripps: "Robert Cripps does not speak for
me…Any course of action or accusations Robert
Cripps made against you on my apparent behalf
as a volunteer at the Gallery came without my
knowledge or consent."
Of the original list of names that appeared,
two were not included in the email exchanges I
refer to. The list of volunteers is
incomplete; and any names omitted are a
consequence of my not knowing them. Of the 3-4
volunteers with whom I exchanged any words at
all, some exchanges were limited to merely
greeting them with "hi".
If then, Cripps' representations on behalf of
his volunteers were not made on behalf of
volunteers with whom I did exchange any words
(even if this exchange was limited to greeting
them), it must be assumed that those he
claimed I made, "very uncomfortable" are those
with whom I exchanged no words, never saw, and
never met. To reiterate, Cripps' disclaimers
were written on the behalf of volunteers for
reasons explained in (but not limited to) his
email. And if I could list them all, I would.
ADDENDUM
2 April 2011 (re-edited 11/4/2011):
There is a bit of a risk in publishing a page
such as this. The website is an electronic
publication, a promotional exercise. To write
about any exhibition would, with such an
understanding, be about representing the
exhibition in the best possible light. As such
I should be writing of this exhibition being a
success, about the number of people who turned
up at the opening, referring to all possible
positives. To write about an exhibition, and
describe it in the way that I have here makes
for something that detracts from the intention
of the website as a promotional tool for my
artwork. For the purposes of promoting my art
I would have been better to never mention this
exhibition ever, at all.
Cripps has become aware of this page - not
that it was ever kept secret. He has
undertaken to claim that what I (and my
co-exhibitor) write "defames" him. Today I
received a summons to the Supreme Court of
(the Australian state of) Victoria for June of
this year (2011). Cripps wants this page
removed claiming that what I write is "false"
(!). This is not going to happen: to remove
what is written, on the claim by Cripps'
solicitor that what appears on it is a
falsehood makes it a corollary that I agreed
to remove it because I agreed it to be false.
You have to wonder about the logic of his
legal team.
Cripps
provides
a service: a gallery for hire. This is our
experience of the service that he provided. It
cannot be altered. There is something wrong
with the idea, that you:
-
save for the money to afford to hire the
space;
-
pay for the publication of a catalogue;
-
pay for the printed cards for the exhibition;
-pay
for half-page advertisements in art
publications;
-
pay for the hiring of vans for the transport
to and then from the gallery;
-
pay for the printing, mounting and framing of
digital works;
-
pay for the framing of drawings;
-
pay for the postage of materials to parties
invited to the opening;
to
then
be barred from attending your own exhibition,
prevented from managing elements of that show,
and be told that what happened can't be
mentioned because the person who made money
(in the form of the money paid for the venue
hired) won't like it! Essentially then, it
would mean that I paid for the privilege of
being humiliated, ridiculed, accused of
committing fictional crimes and slandered. If
that's what I'd been after, then why did I not
just withdraw all of this money and just throw
it into a crowd? have myself placed in stocks,
and pay people to throw things at me?
WHAT ARE THE EXPERIENCES OF OTHERS?
The experience of my co-exhibitor and I with
Cripps was not one unique to our exhibition.
Nearly a year after this disastrous exhibition
I received the first of many emails we have
both received from others who suffered in
their dealings with Cripps.
It was after the receipt of this email that my
co-exhibitor Lee-Anne Raymond, (whose page
can be found here ) was emboldened to
expand on her own description of this
disastrous exhibition.
If
the
writ serves anything at all, it goes to show
why others have been too fearful to describe
their own experiences, and why there was no
information, other than the self-serving
promotional material, that we could have
accessed that would have permitted us to make
an informed decision.
ADDENDUM
7 June 2011
Cripps' legally
sanctioned harassment of us ("SOC") has been
resubmitted. We had feared that it would not
be. We were not looking forward to commencing
a claim against Cripps from scratch. We are
not so much interested in our defence, as the
elements of our countersuit of itself
accomplishes this. I had hoped to time
uploading my new page ( http://www.vakras.com/guildford_lane_gallery-addenda.html
) to occur a few days prior to the prospective
resubmission of this case of harassment
against us. I succeeded in timing it right.
Our lawyers received the amended "SOC" on 3
June 2011.
I warn others to avoid exhibiting at Guildford
Lane Gallery.
Lulled by the endorsement of this gallery by
Australian arts bodies (see below) we spent
over AUD$12,000.00 on our exhibition there,
only to be publicly called racists (defamed),
humiliated and barred from attending our own
show. Then, simply because we recounted this
sordid fiasco, we have been compelled to pay
an additional AUD$8000.00+ in legal fees to
date. These are not losses we are prepared to
wear.
Exhibit at Guildford Lane Gallery at your own
peril. Let our lesson be your lesson.
(Finally
I corrected my many typos today!)
[FURTHER
INFORMATION/ADDITIONS]
|
The
bona fides of Guildford Lane Gallery
The
gallery is listed by NAVA
URL:
http://www.visualarts.net.au/linksservices/guildfordlanegallery
Bodies
like
the National Association for the Visual Arts (NAVA),
of which I was once a member, and which is itself
funded by the Australian Federal Government, the
Australia Council, etc, is intended to support artists
and the arts community. However, NAVA lends this
disreputable gallery credibility. NAVA is doing
artists a disservice.
Other
bodies that lend Cripps' gallery credibility are
Artabase.
http://artabase.net/exhibition/877-guildford-lane-gallery-volunteer-program
The
Artabase site hosts Cripps' "volunteer program". These
listings are misleading!
Do
not be misled.
Avoid
Guildford Lane Gallery
20-24 Guildford Lane,
Melbourne, Vic. Australia!
[
To read the review
of this exhibition by my co-exhibitor, Lee-Anne
Raymond ]
[return
to exhibitions page]
|
