Jim Dine
Jim Dine is an American artist known for his significant contributions to the pop art movement of the mid-1960s. His work often centers on everyday objects, such as hearts, hand tools, and bathrobes, imbued with emotional depth and warmth. Dine's semi-abstract collages were notably exhibited in London in 1966, reflecting his personal experiences during his visits to the city. Some of these pieces, created in collaboration with British sculptor Eduardo Paolozzi, included provocative themes, such as scatological content and phallic imagery. This led to controversy when London's Metropolitan Police confiscated twenty-one works from the exhibition under the Obscene Publications Act of 1959, as well as the exhibition catalog, which was later defended by a Jesuit priest. Dine's provocative approach to art not only challenges viewers but also invites discussions about societal norms and artistic expression. His legacy continues to resonate, embodying a blend of humor, sentimentality, and critical commentary on contemporary culture.
Subject Terms
Jim Dine
Identification: American artist
Significance: Artworks that Dine exhibited in London in 1966 were confiscated as obscene
Dine’s best-known work has affiliations with the “pop art” of the mid-1960’s. His subject matter, which focuses on banal and everyday objects—hearts, hand tools, bathrobes—has been viewed by many as warm-hearted, honest, and emotion-laden. His semi-abstract collage works, which were exhibited in London in 1966, are characteristic of this same spirit. Construed as a visual journal of Dine’s visits to London, some of the works were made in collaboration with British sculptor Eduardo Paolozzi. Included within the images were those with scatological content and phallic drawings, one of which featured a phallus wrapped in rose-strewn wrapping paper from a well-known department store of the time. Acting on a warrant under the Obscene Publications Act of 1959, London’s Metropolitan Police (Scotland Yard) confiscated twenty-one works from the exhibition as well as the show’s catalog—which was later annotated and justified by a Jesuit priest.
Fraser was subsequently tried under the British Vagrancy Act of 1838 and found guilty in “exposing or causing to be exposed to public viewing an indecent exhibition.” He was fined twenty pounds and court costs. The art works remained impounded by the police pending appeal.