TimmyHPornography or Art – The simple solution
July 8th 2008 00:48
Much debate has been circulating in Australian social circles about the use of children in “artistic” images in recent weeks. The Furore began when renowned artist Bill Henson was vilified for his portrayal of a young girl in a photographic image in his most recent exhibition.
Art has always been a contentious medium and artists have been well known for readily offending public opinions. Pushing the boundaries of what society finds to be morally acceptable is naturally accepted as one of art’s most important social purposes. But where do we draw the line? At what point is it right for social or legislative leaders to decide that something is grotesque rather than artistically brilliant?
I myself find the use of a child’s image for the pleasure (pornographic or artistic) of adults to be somewhat disturbing under any circumstances. However, as a journalist, I find media censorship in all its forms to be an unacceptable intrusion. Thus the use of a child’s image in art is difficult for me, both to refute and to support. Child protection advocates have been widely critical of the use of children in artistic images. Many have denounced the practice as little more than pornographic
What should be appreciated here is the definition of art and similarly that of pornography. There is surely a point at which the two overlap. But for now let us consider the sickening reality that is, child pornography.
Does anyone remember a recent case involving the former NSW Aboriginal Affairs Minister, Milton Orkopoulos? He was found to be in possession of child pornography and pled guilty to this charge in court. But what was this so called pornography? In an intriguing discussion of this case by ABC Radio Journalist, Nick Rheinberger, I discovered that the piece of “pornography” that Orkopoulos was charged to be in possession of was in fact, fiction. Yes, correct. A fictional story in Australia which depicts a sexual act between an adult and a child can be considered pornography.
Is anyone else not startled by this revelation? Almost everywhere else in the world, a piece of literature, a film, photograph or any other medium which captures the personality of a child can only be considered child pornography if there is a victim in the work.
What does this mean? That a picture or movie must show the child’s face, or a piece of literature must reveal the name of a real child. Unless there is a victim in the work who could be damaged by its publication, it cannot be considered child pornography. The US, UK, EU, Canada and New Zealand as well as almost every other Western nation in the world demand that child pornography can only be considered as such if it indeed has a victim. Australia does not.
Why is this relevant? I would contend that child protection advocates, whilst acting on the purest possible motives, have got it wrong. Yes, there is a danger that a child could become a victim of child pornography if their image is used in some artworks. But that does not mean that the use of a child’s image should be restricted under all circumstances.
There is a simple solution to this problem.
Government legislation should be passed that restricts the use of a child’s image in art until that child is old enough to give adult consent to its publication.
While some might condemn this as fence-sitting, I call it temporary censorship. The premise being, that the use of a child’s image in artwork which might otherwise be considered pornographic can only be done with the adult consent of that child. In practical terms, this means that the publication of a child’s image would be suppressed for anywhere up to 18 years.
However disturbing one might find the use of a child’s naked image in art, if this were the case it could not be claimed that there is any victim in the publication of the artwork. If the artwork has no victim and subsequently is not pornography by world standards I see no reason for it to be removed from the public sphere.
Art has always been a contentious medium and artists have been well known for readily offending public opinions. Pushing the boundaries of what society finds to be morally acceptable is naturally accepted as one of art’s most important social purposes. But where do we draw the line? At what point is it right for social or legislative leaders to decide that something is grotesque rather than artistically brilliant?
I myself find the use of a child’s image for the pleasure (pornographic or artistic) of adults to be somewhat disturbing under any circumstances. However, as a journalist, I find media censorship in all its forms to be an unacceptable intrusion. Thus the use of a child’s image in art is difficult for me, both to refute and to support. Child protection advocates have been widely critical of the use of children in artistic images. Many have denounced the practice as little more than pornographic
What should be appreciated here is the definition of art and similarly that of pornography. There is surely a point at which the two overlap. But for now let us consider the sickening reality that is, child pornography.
Does anyone remember a recent case involving the former NSW Aboriginal Affairs Minister, Milton Orkopoulos? He was found to be in possession of child pornography and pled guilty to this charge in court. But what was this so called pornography? In an intriguing discussion of this case by ABC Radio Journalist, Nick Rheinberger, I discovered that the piece of “pornography” that Orkopoulos was charged to be in possession of was in fact, fiction. Yes, correct. A fictional story in Australia which depicts a sexual act between an adult and a child can be considered pornography.
Is anyone else not startled by this revelation? Almost everywhere else in the world, a piece of literature, a film, photograph or any other medium which captures the personality of a child can only be considered child pornography if there is a victim in the work.
What does this mean? That a picture or movie must show the child’s face, or a piece of literature must reveal the name of a real child. Unless there is a victim in the work who could be damaged by its publication, it cannot be considered child pornography. The US, UK, EU, Canada and New Zealand as well as almost every other Western nation in the world demand that child pornography can only be considered as such if it indeed has a victim. Australia does not.
Why is this relevant? I would contend that child protection advocates, whilst acting on the purest possible motives, have got it wrong. Yes, there is a danger that a child could become a victim of child pornography if their image is used in some artworks. But that does not mean that the use of a child’s image should be restricted under all circumstances.
There is a simple solution to this problem.
Government legislation should be passed that restricts the use of a child’s image in art until that child is old enough to give adult consent to its publication.
While some might condemn this as fence-sitting, I call it temporary censorship. The premise being, that the use of a child’s image in artwork which might otherwise be considered pornographic can only be done with the adult consent of that child. In practical terms, this means that the publication of a child’s image would be suppressed for anywhere up to 18 years.
However disturbing one might find the use of a child’s naked image in art, if this were the case it could not be claimed that there is any victim in the publication of the artwork. If the artwork has no victim and subsequently is not pornography by world standards I see no reason for it to be removed from the public sphere.
| 37 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
