If you're interested, have a read here about Artists and their Freedom of Speech / Expression. I had to voice my concern and am interested in your thoughts on this.
Last edited by a moderator:
Artists and their Freedom of Speech / Expression
-
- Thread starter Nicole
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Voigtlander Helomar 240mm f/3.5 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Kodak TMax 400, expired, 150 ft rolls
- Started by MCB18
-
For Sale FS: TTH Cooke Series V 12x10 Lens Eq. Focus 16.3 inch
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
Sold SOLD!
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes is supposed to have said (something like) "I don't know what obscenity is, but I can recognize it when I see it." And therein lies the problem.
You are exactly right - pornography is allowed to flourish under the banner of free speech, but art is stifled in the interest of protecting the innocent. Whining about the problem won't lead to a solution. What is needed is constructive discussion leading to a clear, objective, universally accepted definition of the line that separates art from pornography. The challenge, of course, is that the factors that tend to make pornography obscene are often in the motivation of the maker and, of greater concern, in the interpretation applied to the work by the viewer.
In my opinion, art becomes pornography when the maker chooses to employ elements that intentionally titillate the viewer. Your photograph of a partially-clothed child, like Sally Mann's photographs of her children, were intended to document normal times in the lives of these children. There's nothing pornographic in normal childhood, and you certainly weren't targeting pedophiles as the market for your photographs.
But that's where the viewer's interpretation comes in, and where things get really sticky. My wife understands and appreciates art, and she accepts, intellectually at least, that nudity can be part of art. And yet she is very uncomfortable with nudity at any time or any place, and tends to view images that involve nudity as somehow perverse.
I think part of the problem comes from the fact that photography is unique among the visual arts in that it is democratic - anyone can do it (sort of). Most people view photography as a means of recording pleasant and memorable events - birthdays, holidays, etc. As a result, those people have an instantaneous reaction to photographs of thinking in terms of the event that was photographed rather than the photograph as an exercise in art. Therefore, when the see a photograph that involves nudity, their immediate reaction is to ask what was happening at the time the photograph was made. They attempt to read into the image actions that may or may not have occurred. My suspicion is that a lot of the problem that we as photographers have is that viewers are reading actions into our images that took place only in their own minds. In others words, the problem is not that we make dirty pictures, but rather that some viewers have dirty minds.
But I don't think that's necessarily the whole story. I know my wife doesn't have a 'dirty mind', but she still reacts negatively to images involving nudity. She (and I) both grew up in atmospheres in which nudity was not 'normal'. I can't speak for her childhood since I wasn't there, but I know that in my case, I was never explicitly told that nudity was wrong - it simply wasn't done. We learn a lot by example. I suspect that those who grow up in an atmosphere in which nudity is more common are far more willing to accept nudity in art.
So I don't think this is a problem that can be solved quickly. We can have a discussion about pornography and art, but it is going to be difficult to reach agreement on where the boundary lies.
You are exactly right - pornography is allowed to flourish under the banner of free speech, but art is stifled in the interest of protecting the innocent. Whining about the problem won't lead to a solution. What is needed is constructive discussion leading to a clear, objective, universally accepted definition of the line that separates art from pornography. The challenge, of course, is that the factors that tend to make pornography obscene are often in the motivation of the maker and, of greater concern, in the interpretation applied to the work by the viewer.
In my opinion, art becomes pornography when the maker chooses to employ elements that intentionally titillate the viewer. Your photograph of a partially-clothed child, like Sally Mann's photographs of her children, were intended to document normal times in the lives of these children. There's nothing pornographic in normal childhood, and you certainly weren't targeting pedophiles as the market for your photographs.
But that's where the viewer's interpretation comes in, and where things get really sticky. My wife understands and appreciates art, and she accepts, intellectually at least, that nudity can be part of art. And yet she is very uncomfortable with nudity at any time or any place, and tends to view images that involve nudity as somehow perverse.
I think part of the problem comes from the fact that photography is unique among the visual arts in that it is democratic - anyone can do it (sort of). Most people view photography as a means of recording pleasant and memorable events - birthdays, holidays, etc. As a result, those people have an instantaneous reaction to photographs of thinking in terms of the event that was photographed rather than the photograph as an exercise in art. Therefore, when the see a photograph that involves nudity, their immediate reaction is to ask what was happening at the time the photograph was made. They attempt to read into the image actions that may or may not have occurred. My suspicion is that a lot of the problem that we as photographers have is that viewers are reading actions into our images that took place only in their own minds. In others words, the problem is not that we make dirty pictures, but rather that some viewers have dirty minds.
But I don't think that's necessarily the whole story. I know my wife doesn't have a 'dirty mind', but she still reacts negatively to images involving nudity. She (and I) both grew up in atmospheres in which nudity was not 'normal'. I can't speak for her childhood since I wasn't there, but I know that in my case, I was never explicitly told that nudity was wrong - it simply wasn't done. We learn a lot by example. I suspect that those who grow up in an atmosphere in which nudity is more common are far more willing to accept nudity in art.
So I don't think this is a problem that can be solved quickly. We can have a discussion about pornography and art, but it is going to be difficult to reach agreement on where the boundary lies.
Well said, Nic.
In reality, I think art has been caught up in the effort of a few to
gain and maintain power by polarizing moderate and rational people.
Anyone who says that war, famine, and greed are NOT problems,
but naked children ARE ... has an agenda of division,
and are only concerned with their own social and political empowerment.
Which is not to say that the internet has NOT given a marketplace to all manner of moronic image makers.
So, in our time, it is a difficult time for photographers who make pictures of people.
Naked, or not !
In reality, I think art has been caught up in the effort of a few to
gain and maintain power by polarizing moderate and rational people.
Anyone who says that war, famine, and greed are NOT problems,
but naked children ARE ... has an agenda of division,
and are only concerned with their own social and political empowerment.
Which is not to say that the internet has NOT given a marketplace to all manner of moronic image makers.
So, in our time, it is a difficult time for photographers who make pictures of people.
Naked, or not !
I sincerely doubt that any of the restrictions on showing naked children in pictures are going to have the slightest effect on the number of children who are abused. People don't abuse children because they've looked at a picture of a naked child - they look at pictures of naked children because they are child abusers.
Unfortunately politicians have long known that whipping up a frenzied mob is an election-winning strategy. And also unfortunately civil servants the world over aren't promoted on the basis of intelligence, experience or capability (although many able civil servants possess all three of these) - they are promoted on the basis of never having made a mistake. When these two are coupled with a highly emotive subject like child safety then it's a recipe for disaster.
In this context the role of the artist is difficult - but it can only be telling the truth.
Unfortunately politicians have long known that whipping up a frenzied mob is an election-winning strategy. And also unfortunately civil servants the world over aren't promoted on the basis of intelligence, experience or capability (although many able civil servants possess all three of these) - they are promoted on the basis of never having made a mistake. When these two are coupled with a highly emotive subject like child safety then it's a recipe for disaster.
In this context the role of the artist is difficult - but it can only be telling the truth.
I agree, Nicole, and whilst the Subiaco Library has been more than a little over-reactionary by withdrawing the print, at least The Australian has put the controversy and the image in the public eye. It's on page 3 of today's national newspaper. In my opinion, it's an innocent and charming image depicting typical Australian childhood.
Nicole you said you understood their concerns. I don't, but also I don't live in Australia. I can't imagine anyone having an issue with a topless 3 year old - a common sight in any park on a summers day. What were their concerns exactly, and if the exhibition had fallen under federal guidelines would the picture have been a problem for the feds? It sounds to me like somebody at the venue trying to make themselves feel important by making an issue out of nothing.
SuzanneR
Moderator
It seems a shame that the venue decided to act so cautiously, especially as the picture was not funded by the government, but the parents, and... you know... it's a three year old and a one year old for heaven's sake.
The library has now reversed its decision. See here -
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,,24973917-2761,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,,24973917-2761,00.html
I think the heading of the news.com.au article sums it up perfectly. The Bill Henson saga has put a lot of fear into organisors/curators nation wide. That you had to become subject of a similar type of witch hunt is very unfortunate. I am glad that the image got through.
I am really pleased to see the discussion that arose from it. The only thing better would be a discussion on a larger scale.
I don't know about politics, but I can tell when something is back-a$$ backwards. Your photograph is nothing but documentary of lifestyle. I can understand your frustration, but at the same time I'm happy the exhibition venue accepted the photograph back into the show.
Sometimes we humans, as a society, get so lost about what's right and wrong. So many rules and complications. Those worried about a photograph like this should probably focus their ambition on child pornography, or other types of abuse.
- Thomas
I don't know about politics, but I can tell when something is back-a$$ backwards. Your photograph is nothing but documentary of lifestyle. I can understand your frustration, but at the same time I'm happy the exhibition venue accepted the photograph back into the show.
Sometimes we humans, as a society, get so lost about what's right and wrong. So many rules and complications. Those worried about a photograph like this should probably focus their ambition on child pornography, or other types of abuse.
- Thomas
Perversion is in the eye (maybe lower...) of the beholder. It is truly a shame that demented individuals gets titalated by the site of a bare chested three year old at a totally innocent, sweet moment. While I understand the knee jerk reaction and the instant response to protect our children from such a threat I cannot understand the idea that we need to restrict normal images of life while allowing truly perverse and debase images of children wide availability under "freedom of expression". I'm not sure what the answer is but this is not it.
Best regards,
Bob
Best regards,
Bob
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2008
- Messages
- 277
- Format
- 35mm
What is worse, the person being titillated is often the self-appointed moralist working him/herself up into a lather about the effect the moralist imagines a given image is going to have on supposed perverts (who may or may not in fact exist!).
OP
OP
It's been a very interesting week to say the least. The media had a field day on this topic. I'm pleased to say it's at least started a buzz. I hope we can keep the discussion alive until common sense prevails.
I'm afraid I disagree with you. There is now an easily accessible global market of images of abused children, I know of at least one person in the UK who has been convicted of taking such images because they knew they could sell them.
There have always been evil people who see children as a way to make money. In times gone by there were people who'd 'adopt' unwanted babies for a fee only to kill them afterwards because that was cheaper than feeding them; and there were people who would sell their children into slavery to work as prostitutes (in fact there probably still are in some parts of the world). Bad people do bad things.
Ask yourself this: did the fact that taking these pictures is illegal stop this from person making them? Clearly not otherwise they wouldn't have been made. Too many people think that simply banning something is going to stop it happening. (We banned murder thousands of years ago and people still do it every now and then.)
And ask yourself whether it's healthy that so many adults are petrified of going near kids (with or without a camera) in case they're labelled as pervs. Youth groups can't find enough people to help kids discover the world that exists away from their playstations. Teachers aren't even allowed to put a plaster on a child's knee, let alone give them a hug when they're crying. What kind of a world are we building when children are denied normal contact with adults?
I'm not for one second excusing child abuse. I don't have the words to describe my feelings towards people who do this kind of thing. But in our rush to 'protect' children we also need to be very careful about destroying the relationship between children and adults that underpins a normal society.
removed-user-1
I got an offer last summer to teach photography at a summer camp, and I turned it down, for this exact reason. I just decided it wasn't worth the potential hassle.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |