Art censorship hits a nerve on King Island

King Island has joined the increasingly heated global debate around the boundaries of public art in US President Donald Trump’s new era of media control.

King Island Council has voted to defer its draft Public Art Policy after the removal of a painting from the King Island Gallery and detailed concerns raised by local artist and advocate Alison Milsom at its May ordinary council meeting.

King Island artist Marilyn Chapman was asked to remove a painting from the publicly funded King Island Gallery.

The work, part of a series inspired by Margaret Atwood’s dystopian books and television series The Handmaid’s Tale, had been previously exhibited without issue.

However, this version included the number 8647 in one corner - prompting concerns from council representatives, who claimed it “incited violence.”

The artist was given the choice to paint over the numbers or withdraw the work.

She refused to alter the piece and instead removed it from the gallery on principle.

“Most people wouldn’t even notice or understand the numbers unless I explained it,” Chapman said.

“I had to explain the controversy and the different interpretations of the numbers. That’s not a threat - it’s context. I wasn’t going to paint over it just to avoid a misreading.”

The number 8647 has drawn fringe interpretations in some online conspiracy spaces.

“86” is American slang meaning “to get rid of,” dating back to the 1930s.

“47” refers to Donald Trump’s return as the 47th US President.

Some conspiracy theorists combine the two to allege that 8647 is a veiled threat – a reading never intended by the artist, who said the reference was deliberately ambiguous and became controversial “only through external interpretation”.

During the meeting, Mayor Marcus Blackie acknowledged the complexity of the issue, while not referring to the painting’s removal and keeping to the public gallery question submitted by Ms Millsom around the proposed Public Art Policy.

“We are not censors, nor do we want to be,” he said.

“However, inside council facilities and on council land, we must reserve the right to determine if something is not acceptable for public consumption, given our legal responsibilities and our community expectations,” he said.

“We are not the art police.”

During public question time, Ms Milsom, a respected local artist and advocate, welcomed the development of a Public Art Policy but raised serious concerns about its lack of clarity and potential to suppress artistic expression.

“I understand councils have a duty of care to prevent the display of works that could cause significant harm or public outrage,” she said.

“However, most public art policies specify unacceptable content in clear terms – racism, sexism, vilification, incitement to violence – rather than vague terms like ‘offensive’.”

She asked the council which stakeholders were consulted about the proposed Public Art Policy, including artists and advisory groups.

“How does it balance protection of artistic freedom with community expectations?

“Does it apply to the King Island Gallery, and if so, how are standards communicated to artists?”

Ms Milsom warned that poorly worded policies could unintentionally lead to censorship and conformity rather than celebrating diverse voices in public spaces.

Cr Ian Allen proposed an amendment to the draft policy to better reflect the importance of freedom of expression while still respecting legal boundaries: “This policy affirms the right to artistic freedom and encourages the expression of diverse ideas in public spaces.

“Restrictions are applied only where necessary to comply with legal standards such as prohibitions on hate speech or incitement."

Public art is expected to contribute to a respectful, inclusive public environment that reflects a broad range of perspectives.” Cr Allen explained the importance of clarity and future-proofing the policy.

“This policy may outlast many of us. It needs to be very clear for those administering it. That helps both artists and staff,” he said.

He pointed to institutions such as the ABC and Mona.

“The ABC is government-funded but editorially independent. Mona receives public support, but no one assumes its displays represent government policy. That’s how a free society fosters debate and creativity.”

While widely supported in principle, Cr Allen’s amendment was withdrawn in favour of broader consultation.

The council unanimously resolved to defer the policy until it can engage further with the arts community and the wider public through formal consultation and internal workshops.

King Island Council will now conduct further public and stakeholder consultation before revising its Public Art Policy.

Councillors aim to craft a document that upholds artistic freedom, meets legal obligations, and reflects the diverse values of the King Island community.