It looks like the state government is about to impose a ham fisted law to try and resolve the " art " or " pornography " issue when it comes to the nude photographs of children.
This reached a crescendo recently when the works of artist Bill Henson were seized by police. After everybody had fulminated from either side of the debate, the photographs were returned - and the art show resumed - but the rumblings continued because the issue had not been resolved.
Now it is proposed that " art " may be a defence, but that defence will lapse once a determining body has declared the work pornographic.
The sticking point is the nature of that " determining body ".
People have very different ideas about which side of the divide such scenes fall - and we apply double standards. Let us examine such an example.
One of the most acclaimed sculptures in the world is the statue of " David " - which is complete with genitalia. It is views by millions - and there is no call for it's genitals to be covered.
Contrast that to a recent " Art by the sea " exhibition on the Sydney coastline. Someone entered a statue of a " little boy lost ". Like many children on beaches - he was naked ! There was an outcry - and the statue had a costume imposed.
The composition of a " determining body " will be a political decision. No doubt " balance " will be an issue, but whatever decisions it reaches will not please everyone - and governments usually opt for what pleases the most voters.
Once a mechanism for judging " art " is put in place it tends to be set in concrete - and that takes no notice of changing public attitudes.
Perhaps the decision to enter this field of combat comes under the heading " of where angels fear to tread ! "
No comments:
Post a Comment