Should Art be Censored?
May 30th 2008 06:00
In Australia recently, there has been debate about Bill Henson’s photographs. Bill Henson could face charges regarding his photographs of naked adolescents. Many artists and other people have spoken up in support of Bill Henson’s work. But Kevin Rudd said that he finds them revolting.
I think the reason why this issue has created such debate, is not solely because of Bill Henson. It’s because of art is general and whether it should or should not be censored.
I generally believe in freedom of expression, but I do believe that art should be censored. There has to be a line between what is acceptable in art and what isn’t acceptable. I also believed that Bill Henson crossed that line.
I don’t think art should ever be harmful or damaging to another person. Freedom of expression should never be at the expense of other people’s emotional of physical wellbeing. In terms of the Bill Henson photographs, I think that naked photographs of adolescents could be considered damaging. They are not yet old enough to decide whether they want to be photographed naked and could suffer emotional consequences later on.
But when I say there has to be a line, it’s obviously a very blurry one. Matters like this are never black and white. If we refuse to allow any art that may be harmful or damaging to another person, we could be banning simply everything. Art is meant to provoke some kind of emotional response. Anything that does that, is bound to be possibly harmful for at least one person.
I love nudes. I think the nude is one of the most beautiful art forms – provided it’s not of young girls. I find some artwork of Jesus offensive, but I don’t mind if I don’t have to look at it. I have a friend who dislikes reading swear words in books. At soon as she comes across one, she closes the book and picks up another. I don’t mind seeing graphic or frightening images, but don’t want my children looking at the same thing.
So I suppose when I speak of this blurry line, it’s more a matter of whether it might be damaging or hurtful. It’s how damaging and hurtful it might be and whether people have a choice. I don’t want to see violent artwork in my son’s school. Even though I have nothing against nudes, I wouldn’t want to see them pasted on billboards – because they might offend some people. I don’t believe naked 11 to 13 year old girls should be photographed, because they’re not old enough to make the choice of whether it will harm them.
A lot has been said about the fact that Bill Henson is a well-renowned photographer and artist. But I think that has nothing to do with it. People should not be allowed to photograph whatever they want just because they’re good at what they do. If an amateur photographer decided he wanted to photograph naked adolescents, what happens then? Are these photographs only acceptable when the artist has a certain amount of prestige attached to his name? And if not, what is to stop people creating pornographic images of children and claiming that they are art?
Because there’s another blurry line here. What is art and what isn’t? No doubt the creators of work that we would consider pornographic believe that they’re creating art. Who gets to make that judgment about what is allowed, because it’s considered good art, and what isn’t allowed? And if the fact that it is “good art” gives the artist free reign, then do we ever draw the line? I’m sure an x-rated movie could be done in such a way that it is considered good art.
| 85 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by S. L. Bradish
A cartoon of the "prophet" Muhammed with guns in his turban caused riots and murder. The cartoonist didn't claim to be creating a "work of art" at least.
Apparently it depends on who is being offended by what... It's one thing to support freedom of expression, but using my taxes to pay for twisted people to create ugliness is a whole 'nother matter.
Comment by samaritan
Fringe Faith
Samaritan's Stories
And I think you're right. A lot of this stuff isn't art. It's just shock value. Besides the beauty aspect, I quite like art that makes me think - even when it is disturbing. But there's a difference between art that is disturbing and art that is just plain offensive.
Comment by Anonymous
as much art as possible, I'm afraid that if they stop Bill Henson
showing his work - which I have only seen here, which to be honest as a
56 year old woman I can find nothing offensive at all in what I have
seen here, so all the people who screamed about it must have seen all
the works, where do I get to view all the works so I can make an
informed decision? if they dare to shut his work and prosecute
him, well they better line up the many thousands of other artist around
the world who have done art works of the human body ........ I am the
biggest one to protect children as most of us are and paedophiles are
disgusting and dangerous people, but remember some of the terrible
criminals in the world have chemical brain injury from exposure to
neurotoxins, one of the most widely used neurotoxic chemicals is
pesticides, insecticides, herbicides, et al - we must all protect
all children, and I've just remembered something, didn't I see Hetty
Johnston who is from Bravehearts fighting for the protection of
children, (which is a wonderful thing to do) on the hit man pest control
advertisement, pesticides are dangerous poisons, damaging many people around
the world, so I hope Hetty Johnston will stop using pest control as sponsors of
her campaign to protect children,
and she can then truly protect all children from sexual assault and chemical
assault - for a fantastic website on dangers to all life from pesticides et al see Steve Tvedten's
website. Thank you, Catherine. Your text goes hereYour text goes hereYour text goes here