Is it Art? or Porn? Censorship

[ricstew]

There are already laws protecting the innocent.....will bringing in more laws protect them any better? Can we police the laws we already have? Porn doesn't only apply to children. There are consenting adults who make and watch or look......at full frontal nudity and all its details. Its not illegal and its not distasteful to everyone. I choose not to look but do I have the right to tell someone else not to.

[colinbm]

There are already laws protecting the innocent.....will bringing in more laws protect them any better? Can we police the laws we already have? Porn doesn't only apply to children. There are consenting adults who make and watch or look......at full frontal nudity and all its details. Its not illegal and its not distasteful to everyone. I choose not to look but do I have the right to tell someone else not to.

No.
I respect your view not to view.
I respect your view not to impose your views on me too.
I don't want to break the law either.
Col

[WhoDo]

There are already laws protecting the innocent.....will bringing in more laws protect them any better? Can we police the laws we already have?

I guess the point is, Jan, that Mr Barnett and his crew feel like the rest of us are in mortal danger of eternal damnation if we look upon the nude body. They want to tighten up the existing laws. OTOH, those who want freedom at any price would prefer the existing laws were relaxed or abolished altogther. It's a cultural tug-o-war with the majority of us stuck somewhere in the middle.

To return to Kym's original question; Is the nude human form art or porn? I'd say that truly depends on how it's depicted. It could be either, depending on the individual or the moral compass of the society in which it is viewed. Where do we draw the line? For most of us 80% of such works would fall clearly into one or the other category. It's the remaining 20% about which there is some dispute. As far as I know the age of consent, at least in legal terms, is 16 years. I'd say that ages 10 to 16 are clearly the vulnerable years and, regardless of what we think about artistic freedom and censorship, I'm sure most of us would want to protect young people in that age bracket from making or suffering the consequences of ill-considered choices; their own or those of their parents/guardians.

Art? I don't think Blue Poles is art, but many others do. It's an aesthetic judgement pure and simple.

Porn? Whatever it is, or isn't, it shouldn't be inflicted on that vulnerable age group whether physically or visually before they are grown capable of informed choice in their own right. That's why some censorship is necessary. That is not an argument for a return to a mid-Victorian sense of morality.

It's been an interesting discussion but I haven't seen anything earth-shattering in the dichotomy of views expressed. I guess AP really is a microcosm of society in general, with only a marginally more permissive view on the matter. For me that's a good thing. It means we will each come to understand and respect the other's views and even learn to accept them as equally valid as our own.

[colinbm]

"..........respect the other's views and even learn to accept them as equally valid as our own."

The great Australian dream, I hope
Col

[peterking]

I' going to throw in my own observations here and be dammed for it.
When I was 10 I was sexually abused by a GOOD CHRISTIAN MAN. When I told those in charge what was going on I was called a liar. When confronted he denied it and was put in charge of me by his GOOD CHRISTIAN MOTHER. He then threatened to GET ME FOR THAT. It wasn't until I was 30 that I GOT HIM FOR THAT. But twenty years of damage is hard to overcome.
I have since worked in adult shops and have come to understand, to me, what pornography stands for. It is the photographing of a sexual act. Not the photographing of a nude. And it in no way allows for Christian Fundamentalist interference. An interesting point going the rounds in the adult industry is that in Australia there is no record of a sex worker being convicted of sexual assault against children however there are more than enough Catholic Priests who have been.
I have a personal approach that I will not photo anyone under 14 AT ALL. I have nieces and nephews and great nieces to boot and I will not photograph any of them unless their parent is in attendance or in the photo.
This is a debate that can go on for eternity and never be answered. I'm wondering that if the Christian win will they cover the statue of David? Will they paint over The Creation of Adam in the Sistine Chapel?Do they have the courage of their convictions to destroy their own great works?
My personal opinion to them is KEEP YOUR DOUBLE STANDARDS OUT OF MY LIFE!

[colinbm]

"........Double standards..........."
And very hypocritical too, sometimes
Col

[ElectricImages]

You proclaim that "no child was exploited by Bill Henson", but I would argue that the jury is still out on that one! Some exploitation, particularly that of pre-pubescent and pubescent children, can take decades to be recognised. I personally know of cases where it took more than 40 years and sometimes it can mess with the victim's psyche and yet may NEVER be formally recognised as the root cause.

It would be absurd to base the criminal conviction of an individual on the *possibility* of harm arising from their work in 40 years time. By that measure, everyone should be locked up as everyone has probably done something that *may* have a negative impact on other people some time in their lives. That would be insane. If there's harm or misconduct, and it's reported, then it should be dealt with (even if it's reported many years afterwards). However, in the absence of such claims, we have to presume innocence and lack of harm.

As for wasting energy, I'd like to think that any legitimate effort to protect the weak and the vulnerable in a society is never really wasted, even if it ultimately proves to have been misplaced effort.

Most philosophies of ethics disagree with you on that. Under Consequentialist/teleological theories of ethics, for example, the most ethical course of action is the option that creates the most happiness, or results in the least suffering. If you waste legal resources trying to find a way to prosecute someone who is not a pornographer, and those resources could have been used to catch a real criminal and prevent REAL exploitation unhappiness, then that is NOT the most ethical option.

Like I said, I may not agree with Mr Barnett's extremist views but I can certainly see how they may appeal to some sections of our society.

In Mr Hensen's case all he had to do was to be open with the broader public about measures he may have taken to protect his under-age models and any brouhaha would likely have died on the vine. He clearly WANTED to push the boundaries of artistic freedom and, like some militants in both business and unions, he was moved to do so by provoking a social reaction in furtherance of his agenda. I'd just prefer that he didn't do that by using 12 year old children. No-one - not him, not me and certainly not you - can understand the risks involved in doing that and so make a rational, concerned judgement about any perceived benefits that might outweigh potential future damage to the children involved.

• The harm that is done by unnecessarily restricting freedoms of expression through censorship ARE known. Look at any oppressive dictatorship - and the historical examples I've provided earlier - for evidence. Those who deface culture or stand in the way of expression are regarded by history as philistines and barbarians.
• The harm that is done by using children, controversial, confrontational, or nude images, in art, is NOT proven. Indeed, some regard it to be one of art's central objectives to force viewers to think in new ways or be confronted with new ideas. A legal system that persecutes artists for the sake of "possible" harm is ridiculous.

Any freedom, including artistic freedom, is bought at a price. All I'm saying is let's make sure the price isn't too high before we rush out to pay it with our young people's futures! And let's not suggest that artistic freedom hinges solely on the right of a few artists to push the boundaries beyond what society will reasonably accept with impunity. If they want more freedom than the society in which they live will allow, then those artists too, like the rest of us, must be prepared to pay society's price.

If you're truly concerned with young people's futures, then it should be of concern not just what happens to each individual child, but what kind of society they will inherit from us. If they grow up to live in a society whose expression is restricted and whose culture is crippled, then that affects EVERY young Australian - not just the very, very few who may [most young people will not] have been the subject of artworks.

Unfortunately, a lot of people can't see the forest for the trees...

[ving]

On a lighter note, I'd like to thank those responsible for this site for the use of the squiggly red line that censors all of my spelling mistakes. Absolutely brilliant as it keeps me on my toes with correct spelling

tis your browser that takes care of this

[Irru]

If this did go through, and I don't believe it will (it's ridiculous, after all), we'd be at risk of encouraging an underground art scene. I don't really think that in this day and age, in a country where you're not going to be shot by the authorities, that such censorship would stifle artists. Protest exhibitions, anonymous websites for distributing photographs and prints under pseudonyms - it's almost exciting to think about it.

On a more serious note, I don't see the need to change anything. If some artist releases something controversial and it is found to be exploitative, they'll be prosecuted. Society judges art, and when a majority spots the wrongness, I'm sure the police will also.

Where is the evidence of this system failing? If it isn't broken, why fix it?

[Kym]

bla bla .... If you're truly concerned with young people's futures, then it should be of concern not just what happens to each individual child, but what kind of society they will inherit from us. If they grow up to live in a society whose expression is restricted and whose culture is crippled, then that affects EVERY young Australian - not just the very, very few who may [most young people will not] have been the subject of artworks.

Free speech & expression is always limited.
The classic yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre is not covered by free expression (except if warning of an actual fire); regardless of motive.
You have already eluded to libel and slander as limits to free speech & expression.

As for the 'possibility of harm' that is commonly called risk management, guess what?
Our laws actually do limit activities on the basis of potential harm to people and/or property.
Legal concepts such as duty of care come into play also concepts such as prevention.

Again I argue that for the benefit of all there are limits to artistic expression. These are already codified to some extent.
You also failed to answer my previous question

So define to me what you consider harmful? Get to a specific definition, because that is what is required in law.

I'll dumb it down... To what level can children (and people in general) be exploited for the sake of art? i.e. when does it cease being art and become abuse?
Where is the line in your view? (a specific definition)

Again, I'm not saying the extreme position of Barnett is tenable, but neither is open slather (and I think you agree on that).

I'm guessing that in 10 years time when you have young children (assumption) your position will be different.

[Kym]

Where is the evidence of this system failing? If it isn't broken, why fix it?

I tend to agree, but right now there is a review underway - so I it's up for debate.

[ving]

If this did go through, and I don't believe it will (it's ridiculous, after all), we'd be at risk of encouraging an underground art scene. I don't really think that in this day and age, in a country where you're not going to be shot by the authorities, that such censorship would stifle artists. Protest exhibitions, anonymous websites for distributing photographs and prints under pseudonyms - it's almost exciting to think about it.

already there is an underground art movement... its called child porn. Its not legal so its not made public.
...but yeah i get where you are at.

[ElectricImages]

Free speech & expression is always limited.
The classic yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre is not covered by free expression (except if warning of an actual fire); regardless of motive.
You have already eluded to libel and slander as limits to free speech & expression.

As I've already pointed out, those laws are designed to limit specific harms, not limit forms of expression. You cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre; but you can write it, read it, or put pictures of it on the screen. Censorship is like banning the word "Fire" because you're afraid of people yelling it in crowded theatres.

As for the 'possibility of harm' that is commonly called risk management, guess what?
Our laws actually do limit activities on the basis of potential harm to people and/or property.
Legal concepts such as duty of care come into play also concepts such as prevention.

Sure there are preventative laws, and there are managed risks. But in both cases, the risks of the "solution" have to be balanced against the risks of the problem. In this case, you have a hypothetical problem of children being "exploited" for art (with zero cases so far), and you have to balance that against the actual harm that would be caused by limitations on expression and a regime of artistic censorship, which would cost artists time and money, as well as stifling the production of edgy or controversial works of art.

Again I argue that for the benefit of all there are limits to artistic expression. These are already codified to some extent.
You also failed to answer my previous question
I'll dumb it down... To what level can children (and people in general) be exploited for the sake of art? i.e. when does it cease being art and become abuse?
Where is the line in your view? (a specific definition)

Nobody should even be allowed to be exploited for any reason, and art is included. But you've failed to show that there is, in FACT, any exploitation happening in art, and, specifically, in Henson's case.

If someone thinks they've been exploited or treated badly for any reason, they should be able to complain and be heard. That doesn't just apply to art, but in all activities. But to ban certain activities because they MAY hypothetically cause problems, without considering the real and measurable effects of that action on other aspects of society and culture, is madness.

Again, I'm not saying the extreme position of Barnett is tenable, but neither is open slather (and I think you agree on that).
I'm guessing that in 10 years time when you have young children (assumption) your position will be different.

I don't think so. Freedom will still be more important than irrational fear. If my children don't want to model (clothed or otherwise), then they won't ever have to. If *I* don't want them to model, clothed or otherwise, they don't have to. I don't see any problem with this.

[ElectricImages]

already there is an underground art movement... its called child porn. Its not legal so its not made public.
...but yeah i get where you are at.

It isn't art. But it IS pertinent that it's underground. Censoring public art exhibitions and prints isn't going to change the production of exploitation-based materials even one iota.

[WhoDo]

It would be absurd to base the criminal conviction of an individual on the *possibility* of harm arising from their work in 40 years time.

Who, besides you, is talking about "criminal conviction"? That's an obfuscation. We are discussing censorship and classification systems. Criminal convictions may or may not arise from breaches of any such systems.

Most philosophies of ethics disagree with you on that.

So? I said "I'd like to think ..." and I still would, despite what some navel-gazing philosopher postulates. My beliefs are just that ... MINE!

If you're truly concerned with young people's futures, then it should be of concern not just what happens to each individual child, but what kind of society they will inherit from us. If they grow up to live in a society whose expression is restricted and whose culture is crippled, then that affects EVERY young Australian - not just the very, very few who may [most young people will not] have been the subject of artworks.

Yes, I want our children to grow up in a society that allows a LEVEL of freedom of expression, but I also want them to grow up SAFELY, and sometimes that will mean limiting someone else's freedom of expression. It's a balance that needs to be achieved in any organised society.

Limiting SOME personal freedoms for the good of the majority will NOT result in the downfall of the human race for crying out loud! Only an anarchist would claim otherwise! Surely your definition of "freedom of expression" doesn't extend to writing "Kill all Jews" on public walls? Please say you can accept that some limits are healthy and important for society, just as some freedoms are healthy and important. Answer Kym's question about where YOU would want the line drawn, please!

Unfortunately, a lot of people can't see the forest for the trees...

Oh I dunno. I think you'll find that there are plenty of people who can see the "forest" just fine, and aren't myopic over the removal of a single "tree" to ensure there is sufficient light entering that forest to promote new growth! Just because some people may not agree with you about WHICH trees are dispensible to that end doesn't make them ignorant or blind, any more than continually repeating your own well-aired views is going to "enlighten" them in your estimation. I'm sure it would be healthier at this point for you and I to just A2D on the subject, so I'll withdraw from the discussion for now.

[ving]

It isn't art. But it IS pertinent that it's underground. Censoring public art exhibitions and prints isn't going to change the production of exploitation-based materials even one iota.

isnt art? says who? ask the person who is creating it and they will tell you different. not all types of art are for all types of ppl and this one if for a very select few (thank god).... it is still art tho.

pron is art...

if you dont agree then define art.

[ElectricImages]

isnt art? says who? ask the person who is creating it and they will tell you different. not all types of art are for all types of ppl and this one if for a very select few (thank god).... it is still art tho.

pron is art...

if you dont agree then define art.

I don't have to define it, let's check the dictionary for that... XD http://www.google.com/search?client=...6f5b57a34b1a36

• The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power
• Works produced by such skill and imagination

Pornography *may* be art; but most is neither an expression or work of creative skill and imagination, not to be appreciated for its beauty or emotional power.

*Generally* the more pornographic an image, the less artistic, as pornography is created to be appreciated not for its skill, imagination, beauty, or emotional power, but for the specific, objectifiable (e.g. sexual) qualities of its subject. In the case of "food porn," this is the indulgent and delicious appearance of food, in the case of "gadget porn", the awesomeness of whatever latest gadget Apple have just released... etc etc.

I think there are some exceptions, such as the paintings of William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905), for example, which can be viewed as beautifully created paintings of girls; but are generally accepted by art historians as containing pornographic themes and techniques. "The Broken Pitcher," for example, is supposedly an allegory of lost virginity, and even with its subject fully clothed, it's pretty creepy.

But most contemporary [photographic] porn is not skillful, imaginative, beautiful or emotionally compelling. It's just images in which the subject is objectified.

[geoffsta]

Define art....
Photographic Art.
* Have a look in the CC section of the forum. Be it social art, discriptive art or community art.
Other forms of Art.
* is an art enjoyed by the majority of the population of a community.
:Example... Nowa Nowa, 30km's from here has an annual Nowa Nowa Nudes art weekend. The focus on the art is nude art. Here in Bruthen we have an arts and crafts weekend, and you will not see any of the art from Nowa Nowa.

[ving]

i have seen ancient art in sculpture and painting that depict hedge hogs.... this is art. a photo of a hedge hog however is considered pron... once the said photo is say 200 years old does it become art then?

[ElectricImages]

Who, besides you, is talking about "criminal conviction"? That's an obfuscation. We are discussing censorship and classification systems. Criminal convictions may or may not arise from breaches of any such systems.

No it's not obfuscation. It's reality. Henson was arrested over an exhibition a few years back. And even classifications would be utterly counter-productive and useless against real exploitation, while causing problems for artists and creators.

So? I said "I'd like to think ..." and I still would, despite what some navel-gazing philosopher postulates. My beliefs are just that ... MINE!

And I didn't say you weren't entitled to an opinion - just that it's probably wrong. XD

Yes, I want our children to grow up in a society that allows a LEVEL of freedom of expression, but I also want them to grow up SAFELY, and sometimes that will mean limiting someone else's freedom of expression. It's a balance that needs to be achieved in any organised society.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin.

How does censoring art even make children any safer? Why restrict artistic freedoms, when that doesn't even achieve any useful purpose in actually fighting child exploitation?

Limiting SOME personal freedoms for the good of the majority will NOT result in the downfall of the human race for crying out loud! Only an anarchist would claim otherwise! Surely your definition of "freedom of expression" doesn't extend to writing "Kill all Jews" on public walls? Please say you can accept that some limits are healthy and important for society, just as some freedoms are healthy and important. Answer Kym's question about where YOU would want the line drawn, please!

I haven't claimed it would result in the "downfall of the human race". Only that it would impose significantly on the freedoms of Australians, and would have a chilling effect on art, culture, and expression.

Racial vilification is covered under its own law. Child exploitation is covered under its own law. The lines are already drawn. But art has to be taken in its own context. For example, there are plenty of works of Nazi, Socialist, Communist and extremist nature in the world. While WWII Nazi art may be highly offensive, only a cretin would burn them. They have intrinsic cultural significance. They remind us of our own ability for horror, as humans. To "protect" children from an understanding of the horrors of WWII is to set them up to repeat them.

Lest we forget. Lest we be silenced.

Oh I dunno. I think you'll find that there are plenty of people who can see the "forest" just fine, and aren't myopic over the removal of a single "tree" to ensure there is sufficient light entering that forest to promote new growth! Just because some people may not agree with you about WHICH trees are dispensible to that end doesn't make them ignorant or blind, any more than continually repeating your own well-aired views is going to "enlighten" them in your estimation. I'm sure it would be healthier at this point for you and I to just A2D on the subject, so I'll withdraw from the discussion for now.

I think you've got that backwards. Censoring expression threatens the whole forest. For the sake of irrational fear over a few trees, which are healthy and fine. The trees that actually need help - unfortunately, you don't even see.

Feel free to A2D if you wish. I've studied and advocated on related rights issues for over a decade, and I'm unlikely to change my mind given that there's a lot of fear, and very few facts here (in this thread) to change it.