Is it Art? or Porn? Censorship

[Kym]

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/warning-this-art-debate-may-contain-adult-themes-20110417-1djv8.html


ARTISTS could be forced to have their work classified before being displayed and some work could be blacklisted despite being legal, if recommendations to a federal inquiry into Australia's film and literature classification scheme are accepted.

The Senate inquiry, launched by the conservative Christian Guy Barnett, has heard submissions calling for any film containing full frontal nudity to be refused classification; artworks and books showing nudity to be classified; and all artworks to be restricted to certain age groups. ''Artistic merit'' should be abandoned when classifying art.

The executive director of the National Association for the Visual Arts, Tamara Winikoff, said many of the organisations that had made submissions to or spoken at the inquiry's hearings, and members of the inquiry, had tried to demonise artists and paint them as child pornographers.

Another interesting discussion.

To me there is a place for artistic merit and some of these recommendations probably go to far.
On the other hand open slather is also not an option.

_______________________

Again an emotive topic, so keep the discussion on topic and don't get personal.

[WhoDo]

I wonder what classification Mr Barnett would give to religious art depicting nudity? I think society has well and truly moved on from the forelock-tugging deference to religion represented by fig leaves and hair extensions. I feel so sorry for religious fundamentalists who seem to have let their own gnosticism colour the beautiful messages of their religion's founders with regard to the wonders of creation. :confused013

[ving]

look at who is the complainant and the reasoning is plain... :rolleyes:

I am a self classifier when it comes to my own photos... I classify them all in the same category: awesome! :th3:

one could say there is a difference between nude art and porn... but is not porn an art unto its self?
I dont have an answer here... :confused013

[ElectricImages]

It's clear that cultural prudes such as these won't stop at images of nude minors, but that their longer-term agenda involves banning or censoring ALL nudity in art. How do you feel about the prospect of every fine art or glamour shoot you've ever done making you liable for imprisonment or a fine? How do you feel about the prospect of you needing to pay for, and wait for, classification - and censoring - of your work, before you can have it exhibited?

The people who clamour for greater censoring of art are of much the same ilk as the church morons who, from the 16th Century, banned the depiction of genitalia from art works. From the mid 16th century, existing depictions were defaced or covered - in the case of statues, this involved removing the genitals with a hammer and chisel, and replacing the missing appendage with a plaster fig leaf. In the case of paintings, the works were painted or printed over, such that works by Renaissance masters were covered with badly rendered slops of paint.

Those involved are widely, and justly, thought of as intellectual and cultural philistines today. Ditto those involved with China's "glorious" Cultural Revolution, who burned and destroyed thousands of years of pre-Maoist writing, art, and Chinese culture. And again, those responsible for banning D.H. Lawrence's books due to the textual description of love scenes, deemed "obscene". In every case, history remembers those who destroy, ban, or censor culture in the very poorest of lights.

History therefore suggests that the proponents of censorship and creative subjugation today will be remembered in likewise poor terms, by the generations to come.

EDIT: some references:
from http://arthuride.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/fig-leaves-popes-and-genitalia/:


Pope Pius IX (1846-1878) were especially diligent at defacing and destroying works of art. Marble nudes of classical antiquity had their phalluses whacked off because of Pius IX’s fear that the sight of a penis would arouse passion and lust among those housed in the Vatican (allegedly all males), and demanded that thong-size fig leaves of plaster and marble attached to their gaping wounds.

Read about erotophobia, and how fear of nudity spreads even more fear of nudity: http://www.pivotalpress.com/the-politics-of-lust


Though modern society seems enthusiastic about sex, most of us secretly fear our own sexuality and that of other people. This condition (called erotophobia) has deep roots in our culture: the first reference in the Bible to human emotions involves the fear of genitals, in the story of Adam and Eve. Yet few people are aware of the condition or the complex political system that breeds it. This ignorance is unfortunate because erotophobia powerfully affects not only our sexuality but also many other aspects of our life. It even affects the way we vote!

From: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/whodecides/means.html - more ways people have dealt with controversial art and artists:


The list below is a selection of methods that affect how artwork reaches the public, including many discussed in the Culture Shock Web site and in the films:

1. banning particular books from school libraries and curricula
2. calling for the removal of certain paintings from public museums
3. campaigning to have particular types of music banned from public performances
4. rioting in protest of ballet performances
5. arresting the publishers of certain books
6. withdrawing films from public release
7. canceling funding for proposed exhibitions or artists
8. dismantling public murals
9. buying all the copies of certain books and shredding them
10. holding Congressional hearings on song lyrics
11. forcing artists to emigrate
12. burning books
13. expurgating selected passages from plays
14. bleeping words from broadcasts
15. placing fig leaves over the genital area of nude statues
16. demanding changes in public monuments
17. electronically altering images
18. defacing paintings
19. changing the costumes of performers to hide the body
20. calling for the death of particular authors
21. destroying certain works of art and all copies
22. boycotting all films by certain production companies
23. imprisoning an artist
24. killing an artist
Moronic acts by the culturally bereft. :(

[colinbm]

I could write a book on this subject :eek:
Porn is such an over-used & abused word :confused013
Nudity is not porn nor is suggestive or provocative erotic postures.
Pornography maybe beastality & other un-natural sexual acts.
Why we degrade the beautiful human form that God gave us I can never understand.
Older conventional churches from the dark & middle ages have ART depicting nudity & sexuality, in most if not all forms.
Col

[Ionica]

By these criteria, the Ancient Greeks, Renaissance artists etc were all perverts. Many years ago I read a saying which impressed me with it's meaning. I'm not sure if I remember it correctly, but " The world is a mirror of your soul " comes close. Maybe some people's actions and attitudes say more about them than the world around them, and they should take a good look at themselves.

[brownie]

& other un-natural sexual acts.

What is an un-natural sex act?



Why we degrade the beautiful human form that God gave us I can never understand.


I dont know where you got your body , but mine is a result of natural selection and more than likely some un-natural sex acts along the way. ;)

[colinbm]

The arguments about Creation &/or Evolution is probably more contentious then the arguments about nudity, porn & censorship :lol:

I think this discussion should stay on topic :th3:

********What is an un-natural sex act?**********
Is all up to the individual & their conscience & whether they are harming some living organism.
But some limits to protect our children are very necessary.

Col

[colinbm]

Just to add a part of a verse from Madona, herself............

"Poor is the Man whose Pleasures Depend on the Permission of Another......"

from the song, Justify My Love, Artist, Madonna.
Col

[colinbm]

Is this topic really too hot to handle :eek:
Over 111 lookers & a handful of responders that have made themselves public :confused013
OR is that what porn is, for lookers & not posters ?
Col

[geoffsta]

Question is... When is it art, and when it is offensive. The problem is we all have different levels of tolerance. I recently did a shoot of a pregnant girl, all great shots in mine and the clients eyes. But when my wife seen me processing them, she seen one of the girl in a bra and jeans and said I was sick.... What chance have I got of doing any semi nude shots... Bloody none unless I hide in the shed to process them, like the sicko she thinks I am.

I recently seen the movie "4th of July" with Tom Cruise. I thought the language was overly offensive, but my son could see nothing wrong with it.

The thing is... Who do we cater for. I just read a joke from a friend he'd sent by email, and states..
When our kids get old like us. Wrap music will be the golden oldie.And G Strings will be like bombay bloomers.

The only time I think it's not art, is when they use kids 10 - 16 year old. Thats my tolerance level. Other people may have a different point of view, but thats up to them, I don't condem them. Each to their own IMO

[farmer_rob]

My message to Guy Barnett - "keep your nose out of other people's business". I don't believe art should be censored, and I don't believe porn should be either. I think it is reasonable that production of images (be they porn or art) should not break other laws (e.g. depiction of minors) - but assuming it is produced by consenting adults, it's their business.

To paraphrase the "Nancy Reagan Approach" - just don't look.

(IMO banning stuff forces it underground. There is less chance to control it, more criminal involvement and more general societal harm.)

[ApolloLXII]

In my opinion, porn is an image or film where either a sexual act is portrayed or genitalia is in full or even partial view (I'm not talking about breasts here, I mean the whole box and dice). With regard to artistic nude photography, these are images where the genitalia are either covered using another body part or totally obscured from view. There is a distinct separation of the two which Mr Barnett and his moralistic crusade to win the Christian vote are attempting to blur. While I agree that pornography should be strictly censored, I do not agree that art itself, photographic or otherwise, should be censored. Unfortunately, the art censorship debate has not been helped by artists who have deliberately set out to "push the boundaries" such as Andres Serrano and Bill Henson for example. While their work has certainly attracted a lot of attention, both negative and positive, it has also served to inflame the ire of people like Mr Barnett, giving them ammunition for their cause. Art will always be subjective to the taste of the individual viewer, no matter what. People will either like it or not.

What has to be remembered is that pornography and art must always be viewed within the context of the environment in which it is exhibited. You won't find much opposition to some cheap porno being shown in a grotty cinema somewhere by a bunch of men in raincoats but you'd start a riot if the same porno came to be viewed by a bunch of kids at a primary school and the media found out about it. This also applies to art. If the artwork is of a "challenging" nature that might upset or offend some people, then it should be exhibited in an environment where access can be controlled so that those who might be offended are at least able to be warned that the art might be offensive to their particular sensibilities, giving them the option to "not look" if they wish. However, there will always be the "Art is porn" camp and the "No, it's not porn, it's art" camp. In regard to censorship it just boils down to how much people are willing to have their freedom of expression subverted by the beliefs and ideologies of others. I agree with farmer_rob that banning stuff forces it underground and it also adds a certain amount of "attraction" to people who will want to know why it was banned in the first place.

[ElectricImages]

The problem with censoring expression is where is the line drawn, and who decides what is in and what is out? Censoring art is like censoring the Internet. It may be for the best of intentions - the prevention of exploitation of children - but the cost is just as bad. Both have a chilling effect on intellectual, artistic, and cultural expression, creation, and consumption. Both are largely ineffective against the REAL exploitation that happens. For example, there is a booming trade in Australia in sexually exploited immigrants, particularly young girls from Asia, as well as exploitation of other vulnerable young people: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/redtape-frustration-as-councils-pursue-rogue-hostel-operators-20110408-1d769.html. Censoring nude images does nothing to actually help people in this country who are truly being exploited.

Just like an internet filter, an art classification and censorship scheme would be expensive, slow, and largely ineffectual, as well as being culturally and intellectually regressive.

Related: people recently defacing art:
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/04/04/art-attack-woman-freaks-out-over-gauguin-painting-at-washingtons-national-gallery/ - woman attacks Gauguin painting for nudity, has "radio in her head".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/18/andres-serrano-piss-christ-destroyed-christian-protesters - barbarians who don't understand a photograph, except on the shallowest (no pun intended) level.

[Kym]

Interesting discussions.


The problem with censoring expression is where is the line drawn, and who decides what is in and what is out?

I'll be crude here, at the most extreme CP means images and movies of an 8yo child being forced to have sex with a dog (as recently told to me by a federal police officer).
So the 'line' needs to be drawn such that all children are protected because there are filth out there who would use and abuse children.
Hence my hard stand of the Henson debate i.e. don't use children at all.

There is a place for artistic merit and the nude form in and of itself is beautiful.
But we are in a very much imperfect world that has a sicko element to it and there is therefore a need for standards and protection of children;
and for that matter adults, eg. the effect of hard core porn in Africa and even outback Australia (part of the reason for the intervention in some communities).
(do some googling)

Who decides where the 'line' is?
A: The people appointed by elected Government.
At least we can have a debate about it. Barnett is putting one part of a multifaceted debate.

[ElectricImages]

Interesting discussions.

I'll be crude here, at the most extreme CP means images and movies of an 8yo child being forced to have sex with a dog (as recently told to me by a federal police officer).
So the 'line' needs to be drawn such that all children are protected because there are filth out there who would use and abuse children.
Hence my hard stand of the Henson debate i.e. don't use children at all.
There is no difference in the lack of subtlety or distinction between a policy that, in an effort to prevent child exploitation, says "use no children" and another that says "use no nudes". Both are broad-brush, unsubtle, and completely ineffective at actually preventing sickos or exploitative works. Do you really think banning Bill Henson will make one iota of difference on criminals creating obscene things in private?



There is a place for artistic merit and the nude form in and of itself is beautiful.
But we are in a very much imperfect world that has a sicko element to it and there is therefore a need for standards and protection of children;
and for that matter adults, eg. the effect of hard core porn in Africa and even outback Australia (part of the reason for the intervention in some communities).
(do some googling)

So adults must also be protected too? My goodness, someone censor the Internet, quick! :p As I said, once you start censoring things to "protect" every possible person, or to prevent every possible offense, you end up censoring everything. This woman: http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/04/04/art-attack-woman-freaks-out-over-gauguin-painting-at-washingtons-national-gallery/ found two painted Tahitian women by Gauguin to be offensive enough to want it destroyed - and indeed, to want to do it herself. The image is, by artistic standards, quite modest. There's racier stuff on THIS FORUM. In the interest of society, perhaps this forum should be filtered out, also, then? :p



Who decides where the 'line' is?
A: The people appointed by elected Government.
At least we can have a debate about it. Barnett is putting one part of a multifaceted debate.

If we have to pander to the ultra-sensitive and culturally bereft extremists in our society, using blunt instruments to hit the wrong targets, then we will truly suffer the intellectual consequences. Banning Henson, or censoring nudes, does nothing to actually help those who need it.

[Lani]

Censorship is a slippery slope, and becomes even more so when extreme religious views influence political decision-making, it becomes even more so. There is supposed to be a separation between the church and politics for a reason.
I am all for protection of children, but fail to see how draconian regulation of 99.99% innocent artisitic endeavours will achieve this. Extremism in any form is not healthy or desirable, imho.

[colinbm]

To quote Mark Twain....
Do you ban steak, because a child can't chew it :eek:
Col

[ElectricImages]

To quote Mark Twain....
Do you ban steak, because a child can't chew it :eek:
Col

And to quote Judy Blume:
"It's not just the books under fire now that worry me. It is the books that will never be written. The books that will never be read. And all due to the fear of censorship."

Likewise, art, including photography. Chilled, stifled, and created in fear.

Or this one from Larry Flynt:
"If the human body's obscene, complain to the manufacturer, not to me."

:)

[colinbm]

And to quote Judy Blume:
"It's not just the books under fire now that worry me. It is the books that will never be written. The books that will never be read. And all due to the fear of censorship."

Likewise, art, including photography. Chilled, stifled, and created in fear.

Or this one from Larry Flynt:
"If the human body's obscene, complain to the manufacturer, not to me."

:)

Yes, this is all just fine.
But what about all the other living organisms, they don't even wear clothes :eek:
They copulate with no inhibitions what-so-ever & even communicate by smelling others genitals & #### parts !
When are humans, all, going to wake up & realise we are just a part of the animal kingdom, shock, horror !
Col

PS, Oh dear I just got censored by AP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I wrote an*l parts in the complete word & got #### blipped !
Col

[ElectricImages]

PS, Oh dear I just got censored by AP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I wrote an*l parts in the complete word & got #### blipped !
Col
Wow. No, I don't feel patronised that I'm being protected from "naughty" words... :p

[colinbm]

Wow. No, I don't feel patronised that I'm being protected from "naughty" words... :p

Yes, but genitals got passed the censor & an*l failed, I mean....... :eek:
We all have tits of some sorts & bums too, it is only our genitals that are different 50/50%, well nearly, I accept that nature has its ways of presenting its-self as not being perfect, even if we think we are.
Col

[Bear Dale]

Conservative Christian senator Guy Barnett, he and his fundamentalist views are no different than the Taliban.

[WhoDo]

And to quote Judy Blume:
"It's not just the books under fire now that worry me. It is the books that will never be written. The books that will never be read. And all due to the fear of censorship."

Likewise, art, including photography. Chilled, stifled, and created in fear.

Or this one from Larry Flynt:
"If the human body's obscene, complain to the manufacturer, not to me."

:)

There doesn't have to be an "all or nothing" on either side of such debates; on the contrary it's almost always going to result in a compromise. Such is Life (Ned Kelly, apparently). It's all about RISK. We need to protect those who cannot protect themselves while we also need to allow those who need freedom of expression that right as well. The middle ground is one of balancing the "risks" with the "rewards". Sometimes the risks are too great and sometimes the rewards are overwhelming despite the risks. The bottom line is that each society will create its own risk assessment and act accordingly.

I don't see all art being "Chilled, stifled, and created in fear" any more than all artists are paedophiles or all nudity is corrupting! As Lani says, extreme views are to be avoided and sometimes that means using crude tools like censorship despite the drawbacks. We don't need to ban the Bill Henson's of this artistic epoch; we just need to ensure that children are protected from adult decisions that carry inordinate risks for them in later life.

Do I agree with the Barnett position? Absolutely not, but I can see a lot of well-intentioned adults will find it attractive, just as many voters have found Pauline Hansen's views a plausible option.:confused013

[ving]

a forum where you can openly discuss pron and it merrits!

i wonder if it is a first? :th3:

[Kym]

Censorship on AP... type the word 'lens' (with an e on the end) and post :D

[Kym]

There doesn't have to be an "all or nothing" on either side of such debates;

Exactly! There is a line - we are really discussing where it should be vs not having one at all.

[ElectricImages]

There doesn't have to be an "all or nothing" on either side of such debates; on the contrary it's almost always going to result in a compromise. Such is Life (Ned Kelly, apparently).

These gentlemen, and I, would disagree...


"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
* Noam Chomsky


"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost."
* Thomas Jefferson

When you start to permit censorship, then different people will have different levels of tolerance and different views of "RISK". You may be okay with artistic nudes, but clearly there are other who are not. When censorship is permitted, the line is pushed further and further by those who still object to content not yet banned.


"Censorship ends in logical completeness when nobody is allowed to read any books except the books that nobody reads."
* George Bernard Shaw

And yet none of it actually protects ANYBODY. No child was exploited by Bill Henson, and banning Bill Henson does not stop or even slow the production of truly exploitative images. So while you, or the police, or the courts, or the parliament, waste your energy on innocent and innocuous activities, the real criminals are getting away with exploitation - and it's NOT in art galleries. :p

If we waste our resources hunting down artists, then the real bad guys have fewer resources hunting THEM. Now THERE's your risk.

[ElectricImages]

Exactly! There is a line - we are really discussing where it should be vs not having one at all.

Oh really? Is there a good way to censor the Internet? Where is the line there, then? :) Senator Conroy is cackling with glee!

[ving]

after reading all this i still dont know where the line is....

is this pron?
www.bouncey boobies.com/sarah (http://kiw.imgag.com/imgag/kiw/press/frog.jpg)

[ElectricImages]

after reading all this i still dont know where the line is....

is this pron?
www.bouncey boobies.com/sarah (http://kiw.imgag.com/imgag/kiw/press/frog.jpg)

I dunno, but it's not really my idea of "art," either... ;) lol

In seriousness, you've basically paraphrased the issue. If you draw a line, WHERE do you draw it?

If you draw it too wide, I believe there are plenty of laws that can be used to clobber people who have truly abused or exploited people. But if you draw it too narrow, you seriously risk punishing innocent victims, stifling expression, and chilling creativity and culture. Now THERE's a risk to a free, liberal, creative and tolerant society.

[Kym]

Oh really? Is there a good way to censor the Internet? Where is the line there, then? :) Senator Conroy is cackling with glee!

Good twist on the theme - not! No where did I even suggest censoring the 'net.
BTW the correct way to manage the 'net with children is parental supervision and education.

We are talking about the http://www.classification.gov.au/ board and the way it works, also its guidelines that are under review.

As for adults being controlled, Bevan Spencer von Einem was charged with child porn here in SA ... while he was in prison - based on stories he wrote himself.
FYI BSvE is a total creep/rockspider should should never be released.
Extreme? Yes, but he and his associates mutilated and murdered kids.

Now back on topic:
Fact: there is censorship in Australia it is in our legal framework. It affects TV, Movies, books etc. The system is under review and that ends up determining where the 'line' is.
Suggesting there should be no censorship is fanciful at best and downright dangerous at its worst, and won't happen. So lets forget that as an option.
Ditto an extreme censorship that allows nothing. That won't happen either.

[ElectricImages]

Good twist on the theme - not! No where did I even suggest censoring the 'net.
BTW the correct way to manage the 'net with children is parental supervision and education.

We are talking about the http://www.classification.gov.au/ board and the way it works, also its guidelines that are under review.

As for adults being controlled, Bevan Spencer von Einem was charged with child porn here in SA ... while he was in prison - based on stories he wrote himself.
FYI BSvE is a total creep/rockspider should should never be released.
Extreme? Yes, but he and his associates mutilated and murdered kids.

Now back on topic:
Fact: there is censorship in Australia it is in our legal framework. It affects TV, Movies, books etc. The system is under review and that ends up determining where the 'line' is.
Suggesting there should be no censorship is fanciful at best and downright dangerous at its worst, and won't happen. So lets forget that as an option.
Ditto an extreme censorship that allows nothing. That won't happen either.

Coincidentally, those are all exactly the same arguments Conroy uses to advocate censoring the Internet.

We already have a classification scheme for other stuff, and the Internet is no different
Because there are extreme and horrendous things that COULD be done, we therefore have to control all tihngs that ARE done
It isn't enough to allow adults (or children with supervision/education) to make choices, we have to choose for them

Conroy has constantly said that he wants to only ban material on the Internet that would be RC (refused classification) under current media classification guidelines. So, if we do it for movies, books and TV, the argument is that it's okay to apply it to the Internet. Or art.

If you want freedom of expression and consumption, then make it consistent. If "parental supervision and education" is the way to manage Internet use, then surely the same common sense can be applied to art exhibitions. Supervise your kids. Educate them about the context of art, and the cultural place of nudes. Banning artists, or artistic content, IS like censoring the internet.

[Kym]

If you want freedom of expression and consumption, then make it consistent. If "parental supervision and education" is the way to manage Internet use, then surely the same common sense can be applied to art exhibitions. Supervise your kids. Educate them about the context of art, and the cultural place of nudes. Banning artists, or artistic content, IS like censoring the internet.

You argument fails to consider the medium and it's pervasiveness; other media can be controlled; my point is that the only way to deal with the 'net is direct parental involvement.
As for freedom of expression... there are limits already in place for very good reasons. Quite simply there is stuff that should be (and is) banned.
As for art education - I agree it should be part of a holistic approach (been there, done that as a parent)

Classifying content (eg. art) is not like censoring the 'net. It is much more specific.

I'm also for the authorities to go after the rockspiders and do what is needed to shut them down.
As per the recent global CP ring that was busted, inc. quite a few Aussies (sadly).

[ScottM]

Interesting discussion...

If classification was required, how would this affect sites such as AP? If, by taking photos, we're creating art, does any image posted here (or linked to flikr et al) require classification prior to posting? I can imagine the moderators checking for a classification level and identifier of everything as it's posted. Alternatively will the Classification Board provide image matching software for sites to automagically search for a classification, either by comparing images to images, or an image to a movie frame (excluding pattern matching type of check)? Does posting "ASCII art" or a stick man without clothes consitute a breach?

I think we go too far sometimes. Agreed, some parts of society do need protection from harm, including adults, but each to their own, and there are already methods of protection.

Thanks anyway Nanny Barnett...

[Kym]

We already do check posts per the site rules. gen. We have taken images down in the past due to complaints (BTW very few).


[8] Because our members are of a wide age range we have to take this into consideration regarding this topic. We will allow tasteful, mature, artistic nude photography, as long as no genitalia is visible, and the poses are not sexually suggestive. No full frontal below the belt shots. All nude photos will be heavily moderated and will be removed by a staff member if we feel it is inappropriate for the public display. The moderator's decision is final and we will not enter into discussion on the matter. Most importantly, the model in the photo must be over the age of 18 and has given consent to both the photo being taken and the image posted on a public forum.

FWIW I'm not supporting Barnett, just that there is a line and we do need some control. The debate to me is about how much.

[colinbm]

I was thinking of this problem the other day, but a different issue.
Banning photography from different places & objects (tourists, sightseers museums & galleries, etc).
Surely, if we can see it with our eyes, somewhere, legally, why should it be banned from recording it (visually) by another media, besides our eyes ?? Notice I said legally.
So why ban it from being seen another way ?
Col

[Kym]

@Colinbm - the SHFA limit publishing images of Sydney harbour. Esp. for commercial gain. http://www.shfa.nsw.gov.au/
Ayers Rock is the same. And it goes on.

[ElectricImages]

You argument fails to consider the medium and it's pervasiveness; other media can be controlled; my point is that the only way to deal with the
'net is direct parental involvement.

Sooo... you would be all for 'net censorship, if it worked. :p If you could control the 'net, you'd censor it? :o Interesting.

I would argue that creativity is just as uncontrollable and pervasive as the Internet. Art happens everywhere, just like the Internet. It expresses complex ideas, like the Internet. Sometimes it is provoking or even offensive, like the Internet. And if you censor it, you end up doing a lot more damage than good.


As for freedom of expression... there are limits already in place for very good reasons. Quite simply there is stuff that should be (and is) banned.
As for art education - I agree it should be part of a holistic approach (been there, done that as a parent)

Sure there are limits. Defamation. Libel. Copyright. Trademarks. And mainstream media classification. Yes. And under laws such as classification regulations, certain material is not permitted in Australia for sale or public viewing. Why? Because it might be too shocking, too rude, perhaps offensive. But it is in the nature of art to often confront and offend. This would probably be Refused Classification: http://hahajk.com/entertainment/attackers-in-french-museum-damage-controversial-piss-christ-photo-have-good-taste/ but it's permissible as art. Most people are outraged by Sunday's attack on it, and regard those responsible as morons and barbarians.

If you ban the creation or display of controversial art, then all you're left with is folk-art and pop-art. Nothing really meaningful, nothing with a message - nothing that holds a mirror up to ourselves and forces us to examine who we truly are.

EDIT: Actually, if society ever reaches the point where this happens, then shallow and meaningless probably IS who we really are. :p



Classifying content (eg. art) is not like censoring the 'net. It is much more specific.

Nope. See above.



I'm also for the authorities to go after the rockspiders and do what is needed to shut them down.
As per the recent global CP ring that was busted, inc. quite a few Aussies (sadly).

Sure. But Bill Henson isn't one, and resources spent on him are resources that can't be used to convict real criminals.

[Kym]

Sure. But Bill Henson isn't one, and resources spent on him are resources that can't be used to convict real criminals.

In this thread where did I say he was? Twisting things again.
And in the previous thread all I said was that 12yo's generally cannot make rational long term decisions and therefore are unable to give permission.

Now going back to my 8yo example above (which happened in real life) should those images be banned? Obviously yes!! So there is some control.
The question simply becomes how far should those controls go?

And yes! If there were a practical way to stop the images of an 8yo via some form of technology I'd implement it in a NY minute.
There is not, so we take an alternate approach.

You keep arguing for zero censorship when the plain fact is that we as a society do have some levels of censorship for very good reasons.

[Paul G]

If this bill gets up it really is another nail in the coffin, another step in the direction of declaring us a nation of fully-fledged wowsers. Life is just far to regulated and controlled thses days despite most people thinking we have more freedoms than at any other time in history.

[ElectricImages]

In this thread where did I say he was? Twisting things again.

You may not have directly used Henson as an example in this thread, but the article you referenced in your first post indicated that Barnett does. I believe I'm entitled to use the references you've provided. That's not "twisting" things, nor is it "twisting" things to use the Internet as an analogy or a metaphor for discussing a common principle.



And in the previous thread all I said was that 12yo's generally cannot make rational long term decisions and therefore are unable to give permission.

Now going back to my 8yo example above (which happened in real life) should those images be banned? Obviously yes!! So there is some control.
The question simply becomes how far should those controls go?

And yes! If there were a practical way to stop the images of an 8yo via some form of technology I'd implement it in a NY minute.
There is not, so we take an alternate approach.

You keep arguing for zero censorship when the plain fact is that we as a society do have some levels of censorship for very good reasons.

No, I'm not exactly arguing for "zero restrictions". I'm simply pointing out the fact that in a free and liberal society, the risks of drawing the circle too narrowly around what is "allowed" are far greater than casting that circle too wide. There are existing laws to punish people who exploit the vulnerable. But to censor art threatens basic tenets of our society, and I believe we should vigorously defend our rights of artistic expression against the kneejerk reactionism of uncultured philistines.

I see a difference between banning specific things which are harmful (e.g. child exploitation, defamation), and censoring content based purely on its appearance. I think that the former is not censorship, but the latter is.

[Kym]

No, I'm not exactly arguing for zero censorship per se. I'm simply pointing out the fact that in a free and liberal society, bla bla...

Ok so you agree we need some form of censorship - at last we agree. Now it is a matter of defining the level that is required :D

[ElectricImages]

Ok so you agree we need some form of censorship - at last we agree. Now it is a matter of defining the level that is required :D

I see a difference between banning specific things which are harmful (e.g. child exploitation, defamation), and censoring content based purely on its appearance. I think that the former is not censorship, but the latter is.

I object (ENTIRELY) to the latter, but not to the former. :)


The Senate inquiry, launched by the conservative Christian Guy Barnett, has heard submissions calling for any film containing full frontal nudity to be refused classification; artworks and books showing nudity to be classified; and all artworks to be restricted to certain age groups. ''Artistic merit'' should be abandoned when classifying art.

- reminds me of a passage from 'Understanding Poetry,' by Dr. J. Evans Pritchard, Ph.D (actually, from Dead Poets Society XD):


If the poem's score for perfection is plotted on the horizontal of a graph and its importance is plotted on the vertical, then calculating the total area of the poem yields the measure of its greatness.

RIP IT OUT. RIP RIP RIP. [/Irony] ;)

[Analog6]

I really do not think this proposal is going to fly, frankly. Public outrage at such a limitation on our 'civil liberties' would be overwhelming.

Pornography to my mind is nudity or sex for exploitation of an individual and 'erosion' of their rights, and for titillation of the senses of the 'lowest common denominator'. I'm fine with censoring nudity in children, but I don't think a simple photo of your naked innocent infant, say under 3 or 4, at the beach or after a bath, is ever porn. I do think the years of puberty should be sacrosanct, it is hard enough to come to terms with the changes in your body yourself during that tumultuous time, without having other people gawk at you, even if the photos / images are not sexualised in nature.

I do not object to sex in movies if it is a natural progression of the storyline - by comparison in porn films the sex IS the storyline. We do not need to be nannied and over regulated and as I said above, I honestly do not believe Australians will lie down for it.

[ricstew]

Phooey does that mean I have to burn all my national Geo and medical books too? And just who would police such a policy? and as an adult am I not capable of making my own choices?

Quoting my youngest daughter here....."Does america seem to be heading towards fundamental religious bul#$%#it? They seem to be developing a lot of traits of the countries they are ‘liberating’…" When will this apply to Australia? Tell me well in advance please cause I may wanna move out..:(
cheers
Jan

[Kym]

I see a difference between banning specific things which are harmful (e.g. child exploitation, defamation), and censoring content based purely on its appearance. I think that the former is not censorship, but the latter is.
I object (ENTIRELY) to the latter, but not to the former. :)

But to ban anything requires a value judgement.
Who determines if it's harmful?
We have the classifications board and its guidelines to act on behalf of society in general; and its guidelines are the point of this thread as they are under review.

[colinbm]

................When will this apply to Australia? Tell me well in advance please cause I may wanna move out..:( cheers Jan

Where would you go to ? I can't think of anywhere I would like too ?
Col

[ElectricImages]

But to ban anything requires a value judgement.
Who determines if it's harmful?

Surely the sane principle, and a tenet of our existing criminal legal system, is "Innocent until proven guilty". There is no harm, unless harm can be shown.


We have the classifications board and its guidelines to act on behalf of society in general; and its guidelines are the point of this thread as they are under review.

The Classifications Board only rates content, and if they change their methods (as per the recommendations of the Senate Inquiry) to judge artworks devoid of artistic merit, it is the equivalent of stripping the content from its context, thereby making it utterly meaningless. :p This could only result in innocent, innocuous, harmless - even GREAT - works of art, like Michaelangelo's David, being classified as inappropriate full-frontal nudity - [Refused Classification].

[Kym]

Sure innocent until proven guilty.
But before that there needs to be a statute (standard) to assess that case.
Simplistically if there were no law against theft no-one would be convicted.
So where does the law define harm or what is acceptable in our society? That's what is being debated.

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

Also, There are no recommendations from the inquiry. There have only been positions put in some submissions.

[ving]

I dunno, but it's not really my idea of "art," either... ;) lol

In seriousness, you've basically paraphrased the issue. If you draw a line, WHERE do you draw it?

If you draw it too wide, I believe there are plenty of laws that can be used to clobber people who have truly abused or exploited people. But if you draw it too narrow, you seriously risk punishing innocent victims, stifling expression, and chilling creativity and culture. Now THERE's a risk to a free, liberal, creative and tolerant society.there is a point to most of which i type... I am just not one for long winded posts. I am glad someone got it.

the line is there and everyones perspective of where that line is is quite different. we obviously cant leave it up to the individual to draw the line otherwise we would have teddy bear humpers all over family orientated sites... and so we elect a govt to think for us and usually they are liberal minded individuals who er on the side of safety. yes the artists suffer the consequences but what are the other options? to let everyone set thier own bar/line? great in theory but not in practice for I cant stand teddy bear pron on family sites...

there is no real right or wrong answer here and it will forever be a battle of art vs pron... I'll take the safe route even if i dont 100% agree with it.

ps: where it is typed "teddy bear" insert whatever you think to be well out of line... dogs, cats, frogs, damsel flies, inanimate objects, etc...

[ricstew]

Col quite frankly there is no where I WANT to be other than Australia........but if I had to don dark glasses because someone else said I was incapable of deciding which images I want to look at I may as well live on a ship in the ocean.......but I would take my National geo mags and all my medical books with me.:)
and this is one of the reasons I think Australia is such a great country....cause we CAN debate such things.....I dont need my position of choice removed.

[ElectricImages]

I suppose it's the process that I think should be judged, rather than the product on its own.

If we focus only on the image, without context or consideration of how it was created, then I think it's possible to condemn a lot of material. How about these advertisements for the charity Barnados, for instance? http://www.adpunch.org/entry/barnardos-there-are-no-silver-spoons-for-children-born-into-poverty/ Shocking? Depiction of child abuse, and therefore illegal?

Even the Australian Government has CREATED works that are borderline child-abuse material, like the advertisement about "Children See, Children Do" - which features young children smoking, hitting their parents, etc etc: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d4gmdl3zNQ&feature=related. If we took a still from that video, could we accuse the Government of creating child exploitation material? Or do we consider the purpose and context, as well as the process (which hopefully included very careful counselling of the young actors involved in the creative process).

EDIT: the video above was not created by the Australian Government, but another community organisation/charity. Point is still relevant, however, as it was shown on TV and was therefore classified by the Classifications Board. Are they sanctioning child abuse? Or is it justified by context? Shouldn't context, and process, be considered in an educated judgment, therefore?

[WhoDo]

When you start to permit censorship, then different people will have different levels of tolerance and different views of "RISK". You may be okay with artistic nudes, but clearly there are other who are not. When censorship is permitted, the line is pushed further and further by those who still object to content not yet banned.
So? Isn't that what DEMOCRACY is all about? I'd prefer that dilemma than the "my way or the highway" approach of protagonists at either end of the spectrum.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[aurora]

Just got into this discussion. Not sure how many females are taking part and I say that because it effects and affects females in numerous ways. Art can include naked bodies in an art-form manner. The line is when it involves anyone under 18 years of age who are not able to give informed consent. There is a lot of art out there I don't like, so I can chose to not view it. Personally I don't like to view genital showing in the pix as I think its demeaning to the subject.

[WhoDo]

Shouldn't context, and process, be considered in an educated judgment, therefore?
Absolutely! I don't see anyone, at least in this particular discussion of boundaries, insisting that the line be drawn arbitrarily. Barnett's is an ambit claim; asking far more than he expects to gain in the hope of gaining more than he really expects. In any negotiation, though, both sides can make ambit claims and offer arguments in support, rational or otherwise. In the end society will draw the line somewhere down the middle for that particular place and time.

And it's not a static line either, because it moves this way and that as protagonists either side of the line seek to increase their share of the "pie". It is only at the nexus where there are problems to be addressed, if you accept the Pareto principle. Unfortunately those are also the very places where the protagonists want to fight their battles; the demilitarised zone of cultural warfare will always be where the issues are less than crystal clear. That's fine, too, as long as we don't fight front-line battles using young lives for cannon fodder.

In a nutshell; Should ALL art be subject to classification? No. Should ALL art be free from classification? No. Absolutes seldom satisfy anyone. If you accept there should be a degree of censorship and a commensurate degree of freedom from censorship, you will likely find yourself in a rational and democratic society. I sure hope that's where we are in Australia.

[colinbm]

........Personally I don't like to view genital showing in the pix as I think its demeaning to the subject.

This argument is often seen, demeaning to the subject or females etc........?
If the person (who is supposed to be demeaned) is happy to appear in / or look like this, how is that demeaning ?
They did not go into this blind ? If they were forced or exploited, that is illegal ! But if they went willingly for some purpose or reward, what is demeaning ??
Col

[geoffsta]

This argument is often seen, demeaning to the subject or females etc........?
If the person (who is supposed to be demeaned) is happy to appear in / or look like this, how is that demeaning ?
They did not go into this blind ? If they were forced or exploited, that is illegal ! But if they went willingly for some purpose or reward, what is demeaning ??
Col

And what if that person is under 16. I say 16 not 18 because in todays age there is far more free information around than when we were that age, and teens know alot more sexually than we did, at that age.
Also, Parents today don't have the control that we had when we were kids. Just ask my fathers belt/boot and my butt. Things that are not permitted now days.

I find that I @ M is the perfect example. He has done many nude, or presumed nude shots. But it's the way it is presented. Andrew (I @ M) can produce a fully naked woman in a way that can make the viewer have a bit of a giggle or just view it as artistic. Instead of viewing it as saying "Gee.. that girl has big breasts"

So there is boundries. And it depends on the viewer. But as to who should decide the difference between art and porn. Someone has to protect the majority of people who find nude offensive.

[colinbm]

No, I wasn't talking about children,
I have only defended children in the discussion here.
I also said **If they were forced or exploited, that is illegal !** I was refering to anybody, child, adult or animal.
My last post above was asking questions about "demeaning".
Col

[ApolloLXII]

If anything, this thread has highlighted just how difficult it would be to apply any form of censorship as there are some widely varying views and opinions about the subject. If there is to be censorship as proposed by Guy Barnett then the question is "Who will censor the censor?" Just how will censorship be applied that would make it fair and reasonable and without any moral and spiritual bias? I don't such a thing is at all possible. One man's trash is another man's treasure and the way an individual views a certain work of art will always be at variance with somebody else. Censorship should only ever be applied to protect the innocent or those who are offended but it should NEVER be applied to satisfy the moralistic crusade of one sector of society and that is the real threat posed by what Barnett is proposing and, as such, it should be vigorously opposed.

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 :D

[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 :th3:
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 :D 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. :p

[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=flock&channel=fds&q=definition+of+art&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t#hl=en&client=flock&hs=Ei5&channel=fds&q=art&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=EWiuTcCZNInQrQfRqvG6CQ&ved=0CB4QkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=d86f5b57a34b1a36


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 (http://www.google.com/search?client=flock&channel=fds&q=Bourgereau&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t#hl=en&client=flock&hs=rBl&channel=fds&sa=X&ei=O2quTau2J4XmrAe88tT_CQ&ved=0CCUQvwUoAQ&q=Bouguereau&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=d86f5b57a34b1a36) (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 (http://www.topofart.com/artists/Adolphe-William_Bouguereau/art_reproduction/197/The_Broken_Pitcher.php?)," 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?:confused013

[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. :p

[WhoDo]

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. :p
Well from where I sit you need to study Quote of the Day a bit less and pick up some Dale Carnegie! Advocating doesn't equate with Winning either! :lol:

[geoffsta]

When is this thread going to end.:(
We have been here not that long ago.:(

[ElectricImages]

Well from where I sit you need to study Quote of the Day a bit less and pick up some Dale Carnegie! Advocating doesn't equate with Winning either! :lol:

And that doesn't equate to a reasoned rebuttal. :) Try again! :lol:

[colinbm]

When is this thread going to end.:(
We have been here not that long ago.:(

No one forcing or exploiting you to open the link, are they :confused013

[geoffsta]

No one forcing or exploiting you to open the link, are they :confused013

That's it Col.. Your next CC will be an absolute shocker....... :lol: (just joking)

Seen the same arguements on the thread that related to that photographer who took photos of children and claimed it as art. It ended fairly heated. I feel this thread will end the same.
I read this thread cause I enjoy some of the comments, and what people feel on the subject. It's all healthy until someone gets hurt.

[WhoDo]

And that doesn't equate to a reasoned rebuttal. :) Try again! :lol:

Why? You've already admitted you have closed mind on the subject. :confused013

[colinbm]

That's it Col.. Your next CC will be an absolute shocker....... :lol: (just joking)

Seen the same arguements on the thread that related to that photographer who took photos of children and claimed it as art. It ended fairly heated. I feel this thread will end the same.
I read this thread cause I enjoy some of the comments, and what people feel on the subject. It's all healthy until someone gets hurt.

I will be expecting some real shocker crits too & for a long time :o
Just waiting for some sunshine on a free day :rolleyes:
No one needs to get hurt here, there is an exit :confused013
Col

[terry.langham]

No one forcing or exploiting you to open the link, are they :confused013

It's like a car crash, you don't want to see it but when you know there is one coming you can't look away.:p

[ElectricImages]

Why? You've already admitted you have closed mind on the subject. :confused013

No, I've admitted that nobody's presented any facts, evidence, or material that supports an alternative. :) Only fear, fear, fear... :)

[I @ M]

Oh well, if they get around to classifying everything at least we know that the politicians who we duly elected are well versed in the difference between art and porn. :rolleyes:

[ving]

how do we classify this thread? :p

[Kym]

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.


Again you fail to answer my question.
I have specifically discounted the specific Henson case and asked what specific law should there be to prevent exploitation.

BTW Currently we have CP in two categories (<18 and aggravated 14) and a SA pollie being busted for CP on both counts. http://www.news.com.au/national/mp-arrested-over-exploitation/story-e6frfkvr-1226042484463
Yet there are those that argue that this should not even be a crime as in their view it is either art or a 'natural' expression.

When does it stop being art and come under 'exploitive' porn? Again, Where would you draw the line? be specific!

[ElectricImages]

Again you fail to answer my question.
I have specifically discounted the specific Henson case and asked what specific law should there be to prevent exploitation.

There are already laws that prevent exploitation, in ALL Australian jurisdictions.



BTW Currently we have CP in two categories (<18 and aggravated 14) and a SA pollie being busted for CP on both counts. http://www.news.com.au/national/mp-arrested-over-exploitation/story-e6frfkvr-1226042484463
Yet there are those that argue that this should not even be a crime as in their view it is either art or a 'natural' expression.

When does it stop being art and come under 'exploitive' porn? Again, Where would you draw the line? be specific!

The law already draws a line around what is considered CP. You just referred to it. No additional censorship or classification scheme is required.

[WhoDo]

The law already draws a line around what is considered CP. You just referred to it. No additional censorship or classification scheme is required.
Is that YOUR answer, or the one you'd like us to accept as yours? The question was not where does the LAW draw the line but rather where would YOU draw the line! Come out of your anarchist bookshelf and fess up!!! :p