Some of Goldin's work that I've seen first hand is pornographic and I think it is the right of a local community to determine what constitutes pornographic material. However if admission to the exhibit is restricted to card carrying adults then I think the work shouldn't have been removed.Of course it's not the same thing. But Goldin's photo and child porn aren't the same thing either.
Just for the record, I find her photo particularly distasteful and unpleasant. But that doesn't make it porn. And it doesn't mean that the children were exploited either. The only people who can really judge that are the children themselves and possibly their parents.
I'm pretty sure the gallery employee who dialled 999 should probably consider whether the arts field is really where they should be working, do they really have the judgement and values to be a positive asset to an arts institution?
I suspect your post is missing a "?" at the end, assuming it is then the answer is they should raise an issue if they like, regardless of betters, whoever they may be in this case. What they did goes a bit beyond "raising an issue" though.g'day Dave
so you don't feel that an employee should raise an issue in the workplace that they feel strongly about, they should believe in their "betters"
Ray
I suspect your post is missing a "?" at the end, assuming it is then the answer is they should raise an issue if they like, regardless of betters, whoever they may be in this case. What they did goes a bit beyond "raising an issue" though.
The work in question is quite well known, has been exhibited and published over the years since its creation and has not been the subject of any criminal charges. Presumably the gallery had a chance to see it before it agreed to the loan from the collector. So, if you are going to raise the question of whether it is obscene, it would seem good judgement would be to do that BEFORE it is hanging on the wall in your gallery for the exhibition, maybe even before you agree to exhibit it. Poor judgement would seem to be to wait the work is hung and then call the police who take it to the CPS who decide it is not obscene, during which time the collector withdraws the loan anyway. As I said the judgement of the caller is suspect, and it is hard to see how they have done the gallery any good by their actions. Whether intentionally or not they have in effect censored an exhbition (that definitively in law did not contain obscene material) at that institution. Who gave them that power? My point was: is that what you want staff at an art institution to do?
hi Dave
well said, and you raise valid points, but surely what happened after the gallery employee raised the issue to authorities was not under their (the employee's) control
if the episode became a messy, expensive and futile excercise isn't that another matter that raises more questions
why did it become messy?
how do the authorities handle such issues?
who are/what is the CPS and why/how do they get to decide such issues?
who/what should decide such issues?
Ray
why does anyone need to view such images in other than a personal, private or family setting?
who are/what is the CPS and why/how do they get to decide such issues?
who/what should decide such issues?
...and here's an article that says it better than I can: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3933/
News reports indicate the employee was part of management at the gallery, and while they weren't in control of the police and CPS actions I would suggest the course of those actions was easily foreseeable once the call had been made. The action of the lender is not surprising either.hi Dave
well said, and you raise valid points, but surely what happened after the gallery employee raised the issue to authorities was not under their (the employee's) control
if the episode became a messy, expensive and futile excercise isn't that another matter that raises more questions
why did it become messy?
how do the authorities handle such issues?
who are/what is the CPS and why/how do they get to decide such issues?
who/what should decide such issues?
why does anyone need to view such images in other than a personal, private or family setting?
Ray
How far are individuals allowed to question 'Art'? If a work is hung, or shown, - does that mean it is always unacceptable to object to it?
I do not consider the photograph child porn, nor do I think it should be censored, but that doesn't mean I have to like it - or that I am necessarily right in thinking that way.
I think the wider implications of this are quite interesting from an ethical point of view, and it would be interesting to set the Baltic affair to one side for a moment.
How far are individuals allowed to question 'Art'? If a work is hung, or shown, - does that mean it is always unacceptable to object to it?
What do people make, for example, of the 'Starving Dog as Art'??
Of course that is not so easy when you can't see the art in question...
Did anyone else notice that this picture couldn't be found using Google? I decided to look for it after the broohaha had been raging for a while, but even with the title of the photograph it was nowhere to be seen. I gave up after about an hour and I tried Yahoo - and found it instantly. I wonder whether the technology Google uses to censor democracy activists in China has been put to other uses. And if so, who decides what I'm allowed to see on the Internet?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?