Censorship in Art

[Dazz]

The other day on New Zealand News there was a story about a photographic exabition in Sydney being shutdown which was decsribed as depicting full frontal nude minors. So it was shut down as 'child pornography'. What about other exibations in the past by Sally Mann who is another Australian artist who used her own childern. Is this double standards seing as this photographer was male? Admitidally there is a fine line between art and pornography but art should be there to cause healthy discussion free to the general public to make up their own mind.

This sort of thing has been going ever since the Renaesaunce when cherubs were painted. You don't see any of Da Vincis paintings censored. Is this a case of modern P.C.?

[advoc8]

Ironically this is probably censorship to even post this question, and will probably itself be censored, but my question is, what does this have to do with episodes of Home and Away regardless of whether Australian or otherwise!??? Shouldn't it go in general discussion if it belongs anywhere on this forum??

[Perry]

The other day on New Zealand News there was a story about a photographic exabition in Sydney being shutdown which was decsribed as depicting full frontal nude minors. So it was shut down as 'child pornography'. What about other exibations in the past by Sally Mann who is another Australian artist who used her own childern. Is this double standards seing as this photographer was male? Admitidally there is a fine line between art and pornography but art should be there to cause healthy discussion free to the general public to make up their own mind.

This sort of thing has been going ever since the Renaesaunce when cherubs were painted. You don't see any of Da Vincis paintings censored. Is this a case of modern P.C.?

I don't think this is the right place to talk about it but I will anyway because I feel this is important. Sally Mann encountered a HUGE amount of criticism not only for the images of her own children but the 1988 'At 12' series. To me PORNOGRAPHY is photos, drawings etc used for sexual titillation WITHOUT having artistic merrit. But there are laws for these sorts of things so certain exhibitions SHOULD be shut down. Just because certain photographs aren't meant for titilation doesn't mean some people won't be titilated by it.

[*Maggie*]

As none of us have seen these photographs it is all too easy to jump on the band wagon either for or against. But there are a number of questions to consider here.

As a parent however, I have to say that I would not allow my child of 12 to be photographed in what could be considered a sexual context. There is a huge difference between the sort of off the cuff photographs I might take of my teenage son skinny dipping and jumping into a lake, or of my 3 year old grand daughter jumping in and out of the paddling pool. These are all innocent, but were I to take photos of naked 12,13 or 14 year olds which were posed, and contrived, that would be a whole different ball game. I would expect to be called to account, or arrested. And then their is the issue of who is going to see them, and who is giving informed consent. As adults we can make choices, and make a decision about any photographs taken of us, and where and how they are published. A child can not do this. Its all very well talking about artists rights, but what about a child's rights? In such a situation he or she has very little say in the matter, and is in effect being taken advantage off. It's abusive in that sense alone, never mind anything else. Then of course, there is the matter of who sees them. Now some of course will see the art, but there will unfortunately with such subject matter be a much larger group, who see the subject matter in a more perverted manner.

You can not use the paintings of cherubs as an argument either, as they were not posed, artists just painted those, children were not being manipulated.

So, for me, the bottom line is this, as to what is art, that's always been a difficult area, but I think that to bring children into the equation, when they are not old enough to understand or make decisions about the process for themselves, is unfair and abusive in itself to them.

[emmasi]

Ironically this is probably censorship to even post this question, and will probably itself be censored, but my question is, what does this have to do with episodes of Home and Away regardless of whether Australian or otherwise!??? Shouldn't it go in general discussion if it belongs anywhere on this forum??

That's not censorship, that's moderation - moving things to where they belong, so as not to cause confusion or annoyance.

Now then. Art. They did show a few of those photos on the news (censored of course) but they did look questionable to me. I believe I've also seen the photos of the female artist you guys are referencing (although it was many years ago on a random documentary, so it might be a different person altogether) but I remember seeing her photos as a celebration of her children and them being naked was more or less beside the point - the point was, she was representing them as beautiful and cherished people, and I remember one shot was near a lake or some other natural setting, so the kids being naked seemed perfectly natural, as I believe was the artist's intention.

The photos I saw of this latest exhibition on the news made me feel uncomfortable, like the kids were being presented as objects of controversy to gain attention. Artists do that sort of thing all the time (the example of someone displaying a crucifix in his own urine comes to mind ). The human body is a beautiful thing at any age, but those photos were not beautiful, they were sad and exploitative. I think when you use a child's image to provoke unpleasant emotions, it can be scarring for them. How would you like it if your naked body was displayed and the reaction was either "That's sick, that's disgusting, that's wrong," or "Oh my god, that's so hot - I really wish I lived closer to a middle school." *Shudder.* Art and controversy go hand in hand, it's always been the way and always will be. I myself have, and I know other people have, drawn from nude models. I was uncomfortable with a strange woman sitting there being naked at first, but after a while you just got used to it and thought - well hell, we're all naked under our clothes. Good on her for having the confidence to put herself out there so casually. She was comfortable with it, so I was comfortable with it. The photos that artist took of those kids were deliberately posed to make them look uncomfortable, and so they're deliberately provoking an uncomfortable response from the audience. I don't necessarily think it's pornography, but I don't think it's right.

[Bareenfan]

You make some excellent points emmasi. It is about exploitation.

Like Maggie I am concerned about the consent issue. You and the adult who posed for the life drawing were old enough to know what you were doing to understand, think about the implications and to make an informed choice, even though at times you were a little uncomfortable. I do not think a 12 year old child can make that choice. And no parent or adult should make it for them. If any one had taken pictures of me at 12, albeit in the name of art, and they were used somewhere down the track by some dirty old man to get his kicks I would be suing the adult responsible for every dollar they had in later life for the degredation and abuse and exploitation.

We can not risk having children sexualised or exploited in the name of art. Children are being bombarded with enough sexualised material by the media as it is, with out having the sanction of artistic merit tagged on to something to justify it. This isn't about censorship it's about protecting children from exploitation.