The real world issue concerns individuals who are fined or jailed for perusing or drawing artwork of children engaged in sexual behaviour. Two cases are brought up: A person is fined $3000 for drawing girls performing sexual acts and another is jailed for 20 years for 74 counts of owning manga depicting lolicon, or children engaging in sexual acts. This podcast presented the testimonies of two different sides of this issue. On one side we have Charles Brownstien and the argument of freedom of expression. An artist should be able to paint or draw what he wants to. Also, because the characters that are drawn are fictional, do they really fall under the classification of child pornography? We cannot prosecute people for ideas, represented on a piece of paper with lines. On the other hand, we look at the danger of artworks which fall into these categories. Marie Leery claims that we can never provide evidence to confirm that there is a direct correlation between people who are exposed to these artworks and whether or not they themselves turn into offenders. There is still social harm being cause when the material is fictional but still obscene. Where is the legal line for comic artists?
We think that the knowledge issue here is where do we draw the line between the freedom of expression and the safety of the public. On one extreme, we can say that any harmful ideas or thoughts should be prosecuted. Any painting, or film, or game which suggests the slightest bit of violence or sex should be banned. There will be total censorship over everything. This is absurd because almost all materials can be suggestive of some form of immorality. And besides, what is moral and what is not? Something that is considered to be an unspeakable act of horror in one culture might be appropriate and accepted as something normal in another. On the other extreme, if there is complete freedom of expression then people would be allowed to express their rage at someone by murdering them. There would be no consequences for any action, and the world will be chaotic. Clearly there is a middle ground where we have to sacrifice some aspects of each extreme for the benefit of a quality from the other.
In an article on how the quotes we associate to various famous people are actually idealized versions of what they really said, we see the same knowledge issue appear. Are we recasting the knowledge of great thinkers in the shape of our illusions? Do we, and should we, idealize to protect ourselves from harmful knowledge? In this case, the middle ground would be closer to the freedom of expression, because it is better to accept the words of great thinkers for what they are, even if they do not promise what we want to hear. If we changed these quotations to reassure ourselves of what we want to hear, we are protecting ourselves from harm by deluding ourselves and conforming to one chain of thought. In the case of the fine line between porn and art, when we allow artworks which suggest child pornography to be published, we are also deluding ourselves to some extent, that these artistic expressions are in fact pointing toward the notion of child pornography. However, we have to respect the same freedom of expression at the same time, at the cost of public safety.
There is another case where the line between pornography and art is extremely unclear that involves real-life characters. Klara and Edda Belly-dancing (click at your own risk!), a photograph by award-winning American photographer Nan Goldin, depicts two young girls dancing, one of them naked. Both of their legs were spread out. This was displayed as part of a 139-image collection in the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art in Gateshead. This piece was removed from the gallery by police, and it is up to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to decide whether to prosecute under the 1978 Project of Children Act that prohibits showing "indecent" photographs of children. In this case , the issue is not only whether or not the piece of art is porn or not - it's whether or not it is meant to be porn and how people perceive it as porn or not. For a piece of artwork, the reaction of the audience to it is an essential part of the message of the piece is. Not everyone has the same opinion on a photo of child nudity. While Goldin and some people might perceive the photo as capturing a realistic moment of children playing, others might see it as material for masturbation for pedophiles. What the audience think and does in reaction to the artwork, which could be harmful, might not be the intention of the artist.This is a good example of a work that that is potentially "immoral" where it's conviction is still a question. Since reactions to the photo are split, it is fair to take a middle ground with this case and take a risk with public safety in exchange for the freedom of expression.
Going back to the real world issue of artistic expression versus the social harm in artwork which suggest child pornography, we have to decide what is more important in this case, the freedom of expression, or public safety. We have to acknowledge the fact that while fictional characters are not actual people, they do represent them; an illustration of child depicted having sex is representative of child pornography. Because of this, if there is in fact a correlation between reading these illustrations and going on to perform the same acts, drawing such artwork or mangas should be illegal, unless the art in question has values in literature or science or represents something else aside from child pornography.
No comments:
Post a Comment