Here come the 'entartete Kunst' art police!

[MisterCat]

Art obscenity charges - Arts - Entertainment - smh.com.au
The art world has denounced a 'dark day in Australian culture' after police seized up to 21 photographs of naked child models and said they would lay charges. - Sydney Morning Herald Online

;078

=^..^=

[Kami-Tux]

Well, no one is exempt from the law just because he calls his deeds art. And I do not want to turn this into a KiPo discussion.

[SleepyD]

I'll just say this:
By US law, pornography is the representation in books, magazines, photographs, films, and other media of scenes of sexual behavior that are erotic or lewd and are designed to arouse sexual interest.
Nudity does not necessarily mean pornography.

Well, it's been a while since I've been in a good, intelligent discussion, but if you insist, I'll stand down.

[MisterCat]

My concern is censorship of art by the state, which I find repulsive irrespective of the merits (or lack thereof) of the art in question.  Police being mobilized to carry off art, at the behest of a political activist, is something I cannot abide.

Had the art been removed by the artist, or even by the gallery/museum, I'd be disappointed but not concerned.  However, agents of the state doing this sort of thing is too reminiscent of despotic governments for my taste.

I respect contrary opinions and in no way refute them, but the manner in which this particular art is being dealt with is just plain wrong in my view.  Definitions of what comprises art ought to be determined on an intellectual basis, not decided by governmental force of arms.

;137

=^..^=

[SleepyD]

You have a point there.  The police did that without any prior discussion or warning.  

Reading the article, I was personally thinking along the lines of how the more socially conservative people have a stronger voice than people who are more moderate, despite them being in larger numbers.  I thought it was more of a US issue, but I guess it's not just limited to us.

Like you, I do respect their opinions. I don't hate people like that (many of my family members would probably take the view that it's porn), but the fact that opposing viewpoints don't seem to be taken into consideration before doing something so drastic bothers me.  

I do despise this method of censorship, but if this is anything like the violence/sex in video games debate, I think there's a deeper problem that permeates the government and society as well.

[Kami-Tux]

I'll just say this:
By US law, pornography is the representation in books, magazines, photographs, films, and other media of scenes of sexual behavior that are erotic or lewd and are designed to arouse sexual interest.
Nudity does not necessarily mean pornography.

Well, it's been a while since I've been in a good, intelligent discussion, but if you insist, I'll stand down.

This was in Australia and while I do not know the legal definitions of child pornography nor the pictures in question,I guess if the australian law considers these pictures illegal, there is no excuse for it being art. Artists can do VERY morally questionable things. And should not be considered above the law just because they are artists.

The thing about no notice beforehand is not a point. The Police does not give someone who shares kipo on bittorrent time to take it down before they raid the building and arrest the person in question.

[NejinOniwa]

What the hell is Kipo anyway? -.-

[MisterCat]

It -- the subject of this thread -- is a complicated matter, isn't it?  There are questions:  What is art?  What is 'pornography'?  Who decides?  Is the law above reproach?  Is censorship of art desirable/permissible?  What's next?

Snap judgments designed to garner votes for politicians or advance careers of political activists usually go down well with corporate mainstream media of communication, which love transforming complex matters into black-and-white talking points.  Of course, such simplification supposedly relieves the general public from having to actually think about anything.  Just go shopping and everything will turn out fine!

Here's an excerpt from Book burning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

In his 1821 play, Almansor, the German writer Heinrich Heine â€" referring to the burning of the Muslim holy book, the Qur'an, during the Spanish Inquisition â€" famously wrote:

“Where they burn books, so too will they in the end burn human beings.” (“Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man auch am Ende Menschen.”)

One century later, Heine's books were among the thousands of volumes that were torched by the Nazis in Berlin's Opernplatz in an outburst that did, in fact, foreshadow the blazing ovens of the Holocaust.

Mind, I'm not attempting to equate the magnitude of censorship and persecution in 1930s/1940s Germany with this latest art confiscation.  But it does make me wonder:  "Where is society being taken; down what road are we being driven?"

;137

=^..^=

[NejinOniwa]

Just look at China. By hael, look at China.

Also, civilian surveillance. No personal integrity at all. A law like that, in my Sweden? Unlikely? Not at all. July 1:st if nothing goes...right.

[CaptBrenden]

Well here is my berif take on it.  I am an artist, and also to some degree Im also in the law enforcement profession (well Im an armed security officer, so I dont have the same legal abilities, in some cases I have more rights then the state, sometimes less)  so I for one see both sides of the argument.  

However, that being said, in this preticular situation, Im with the police.  The police arnt the ones that decide, or should decide, wether something is art or not.  If a person has pictures of naked children, which I concider the explotation of children a most henious crime, the police are just the ones that do the confenscating, then the courts can look at them, decide the legality of them then return them if they are deemed acceptable artwork. The line between art and porn is too undefined, there is too much grey area. I belive it safer to take suspected child pornography and return it if it decidedly artwork.

BUT! I personaly do not belive children should be posing nude for art or otherwise.  One could argue the artistic value of anything. One persons trash is anothers masterpeice, but we are talking about naked chidren. Just because you intend it as art, doesnt mean some predator isnt wanking to it.  If child pornography is deemed illegal, but nude child "art" I can see more pedophiles using "art" as an excuse to exploit children.  Its a grey area that one should not even BEGIN to enter.   If you want to do child "art" draw it, and leave real children out of it.

[Kami-Tux]

What the hell is Kipo anyway? -.-

kiddie pr0n.  ;013

[CaptBrenden]

humm I feel I agree with Kami on this one.. perhaps we shall avoid any more discussion on kipo/CP.

[MisterCat]

Well, as it happens, the highest censoring authority in Australia (the scene of the confiscation) decided yesterday the removed artwork is in fact permissible for display.  That ends the present legal battle, but I'm sure the war isn't over.

Indeed, Captain, the police were doing their job and thus aren't open to criticism.  Any blame or praise falls upon whomever ordered the police to act.

Personally, I find confiscation of art or literature to be reprehensible.  But if avoiding discussions such as this particular one makes for more peace here in the valley, I won't post any more news articles involving the subject of alleged artistic child exploitation.

:smoke:

=^..^=

[NejinOniwa]

Art is Art, but it can still be pretty distasteful at times.

Oh well.