Wowsers and puritans and insane campaigners are at it again.
Shocked, disturbed, outraged, the whole catastrophe as children are again placed in mortal danger. PM again disgusted!!
In the interests of freedom of expression and the fight against moral crusaders, I post this pic.
In fact here is a really really pornographic pic of Lexcen...
4 comments:
You'd have to be pretty twisted and hard up for sex to find either of those suggestive. The problem is that there are fuckheads out there who probably do - and probably more of them than we realize. It's icky to think that someone might be turned on by this and so some people want to censor it as a preventive measure - also perhaps to keep from having to draw the line elsewhere -say if that same young girl were in the same pose in a boudoir with bright red lips. Innocent girl - not so innocent situation. What if we were to find out the artist was a pedophile? Would that make a difference in how we viewed the art? It's really too bad that the sickos can ruin things for others.
Jeannie, I wonder if that painting in question is actually a real portrait or a just the product of an artists imagination. How do we deal with that supposition?
It's a tough issue. Depicting something that isn't true - good or bad? I don't know - it would take a more educated person than me to make that judgement call. Censoring tends to increase interest in some who might otherwise not pay any attention. However, depicting something that society in general has an issue with, whether or not it's real, as if it could be would have the same impact. Photoshopping the girl into a boudoir for instance, shows a certain intent on the part of the person doing it which I'd be inclined to think was less than wholesome. But perhaps I am more prudish than others - perhaps because I was sexually abused as a child and I see intent where others may not - who is right?
Michael Jackson may have very innocently allowed young boys to sleep in his bed but who really believes that?
Jeannie, I think the issue of your personal experience is very serious but not related to censorship. Pedophiles have existed long before there was access to porn. The same goes for rapists. I am not justifying child porn but merely stating that the problem existed before porn became available. Of course I am aware that the desire to create and sell porn has increased the incidence of child abuse to epidemic proportions. Again that is another matter.
The issue of how to protect children and how much protection is necessary or adequate is a burning issue of modern times. Misguided censorship in itself will only bury the problem but not eliminate it. Targeting art in the name of good intentions is misguided and futile in the extreme.
I would be more concerned for example with the Islamic tradition of child brides than with children being used as artists models.
Everything must be considered in perspective.
Post a Comment