|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| bernd |
|
|
Reply with quote | #1 |
Every so often the right of individuals in society to express themselves comes up against the collective fear of others in that society that such expressions threaten some aspect of their lives. Unfortunately such a time is again upon us.
The protection of children is paramount to any society for obvious reasons. Children are vulnerable and easily exploited. The exploitation of children for whatever reason is heinous and abhorrent. Such exploitation ranges from the extreme of child pornography for the titillation of paedophiles to the far more subtle sexualisation of children in order to create new markets for children's products. Most societies have put in place laws to protect against the former, but little has (and probably will) be done about the latter.
Within the last week, we have witnessed child protection laws being invoked against an established and internationally recognised artist for publishing and displaying images of adolescent children, some naked. As an aside, the fact he has openly and publicly been doing this to some extent for many years raises some interesting questions. But that's another matter. Advocates for this action argue that it is justified because the laws in place clearly prohibit such images. They also argue that intent is irrelevant, as is artistic merit. Intent is irrelevant because pictures of naked children are pictures of naked children ... full stop. Artistic merit is irrelevant because aesthetics don't come into it. Pictures of naked children are pictures of naked children ... full stop.
Not full stop. Laws are drafted and promulgated by people. People are not infallible. People, with the best of intentions do the best they can. The written word of the law is not the law. The law requires interpretation in order to uncover intent. The intent of the words laid down and the intent and actions of an alleged offender must be analysed to see if they match and if they do then, and only then, does the law apply in that case. I am not a lawyer. Nevertheless, I would be surprised if the intention of the child protection laws being invoked in the case of Bill Henson is to solely and exclusively prohibit the creation and display of images of naked children. On the contrary, I would imagine the laws are there to protect against exploitation of children. Yes, pictures of children (naked or otherwise) are used to exploit children, but that may not always be the intention. And, in the current case, it can be argued it is not the effect as well. Almost all accounts I've seen indicate the images are not pornographic or intended to create sexual excitement. Pictures of naked children are pictures of naked children but intent (and therefore applicability of the law) is not simply black or white but subtly shaded.
The link between nudity and sex is a construct. It is a construct in the minds of most individuals in western society and in the collective mind of that society. We are reminded of the narrowness of this construct from time to time whenever society swings back to fundamentalism. But, it has to be said that the image of a naked human being (no matter what age) is simply that ... an image of a person without clothes on. Whatever else it is subsequently perceived to be is a psychological overlay of the observer's mind. Such an overlay reflects the beliefs and biases of the observer. (As an aside, most artists are aware of and strive to work with this phenomenon in order to convey meaning through form, colour, texture and such). When we get to a situation where the majority of a society perceive nudity to be exclusively and irrevocably shackled to sexual stimulation and child nudity to be likewise shackled to perversive exploitation of children then we have major problems. It is ironic that in striving for a safer society we end up with a more repressive and dangerous one.
|
| |
|
|
| |
