Opinion ID: 1985270
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Value of Works

Text: We next turn to our de novo review of whether exhibits 1 through 3 lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Tipp-It claims that the works in question, as part of a large gay art collection that was displayed in San Francisco, California, including pencil drawings, pastels, and self-portraits by well known gay artists, possess serious artistic value. Brief for appellant at 22. We disagree. The district court determined exhibits 1 through 3 lacked any serious artistic value and stated: If there is anything that keeps these three exhibits from being obscene, it is that they might be said to have some serious artistic value. It is here that Dr. Aikin's unrefuted opinions become significant. The Court finds credible his opinion that Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 are artistically valueless. The Court thus finds that the defendant has borne its burden of proof as to Exhibits 1, 2 and 3, and that the same are obscene. The only expert witness called to testify by either party was Dr. Aikin. Dr. Aikin received his bachelor of arts degree from the University of Oregon in 1969 and his doctorate degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1977, both in art history. He has taught art at Creighton University for 18 years, served as the director of the Creighton Art Gallery for 6 years, and also served as a curator for the Creighton Art Gallery for 6 years. Dr. Aikin is currently the chairman of the Department of Fine and Performing Arts at Creighton University. Dr. Aikin testified that whether a particular work has serious artistic value can be determined either under a subjective, four-corners test by evaluating such criteria as space, composition, design, color, harmony, and form and balance, or under an objective Dickey analysis, which considers where the art has been exhibited as well as whether the work, or the putative artist, has achieved a certain degree of respect and recognition in the artistic community. In Dr. Aikin's opinion, exhibits 1 through 3 do not possess any serious artistic value under either analysis. Dr. Aikin initially analyzed exhibits 1 through 3 under the four-corners analysis, concluding that the works lacked the kinds of things or any of the formal qualities he deemed necessary to constitute serious artwork. When asked to evaluate the exhibits under the Dickey analysis, Dr. Aikin stated that in the absence of any indication that these works have ever been part of a venue or that any serious value had accrued to th[em] as a result of an exhibition or a juried exhibition or a publication, or some kind of dispassionate, neutral judgment by the art world, I would have to say that th[ese] ... have no value as art on that basis. Expert testimony is not necessary to enable the trier of fact to judge the obscenity of material which has been placed into evidence. See Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 56, 93 S.Ct. 2628, 37 L.Ed.2d 446 (1973) (stating that `[i]n the cases in which this Court has decided obscenity cases since Roth [v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957)], it has regarded the materials as sufficient in themselves for the determination of the question'). However, in other cases, courts have considered expert testimony in guiding their decisions regarding serious artistic value. See, Luke Records, Inc. v. Navarro, 960 F.2d 134 (11th Cir.1992); United States v. Ten Erotic Paintings, 432 F.2d 420 (4th Cir.1970). Consequently, while we are not bound to accept Dr. Aikin's expert testimony, we find his unrebutted, uncontroverted testimony of assistance in our de novo review. Dr. Aikin concluded that exhibits 1 through 3 have no serious artistic value, regardless of the analysis employed. Pursuant to our de novo review of the record, and viewing the works in their entirety, we reach the same conclusion and find beyond a reasonable doubt that exhibits 1 through 3 lack any serious artistic value.