I have some issues

With this.

I believe the argument should not centre on the artist and whether or not they are famous. It is time for abstraction. The real issue is censorship, with a side of criminal law, and censorship ought to be discussed in broader terms than one artist, author, exhibition or book. Censorship is a wide blanket that can cover us all. It is not useful to speak about the merits of the artist or the artwork as a kind of defence against censorship, that tactic feels to me like the onus rests squarely with those that would argue against censorship. The shoe should be on the other foot. What possible rational argument can there be for censorship of this kind, I am yet to see any.

Parts of this discussion must be heard in court, it must be established whether or not a crime has been committed. Art is not exempt from the law and it must be established whether or not a crime has been committed. If a crime has been committed then this is good and rational argument for censorship in this particular instance as the models are now technically victims of crime. If a crime is found to have been committed, if a crime is constructed from black letter technicalities and creaking cogs of elderly judicial minds then that is a separate matter and the law itself should be brought into the argument. I do not object to the law machine examining objects brought before it, that argument can easily be distinguished from the matter at hand.

Censorship in this instance has been fired like a cannon from a corner of the community and it is difficult but not impossible to argue against them. The artist should be removed from the argument, the specific should be pushed down because what we are talking about here is people being naked and some people saying we should not be allowed to look at them, this is censorship and I object. We shouldn't need to go through this again but it seems that we must. This is censorship and I object.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I believe you mean 'cannon'. Otherwise, well said.
DS said…
Ah, thanks. I am always getting my cannons confused with my canons. I will finish this post, after the essay is signed, sealed and delivered. Which should be soon hopefully very very soon or I may die.
Anonymous said…
I believe you meant Pachelbel, I was wrong on two accounts. Yes, well said Dale, and diehard3 for leading me in on my appalling puns, I agree, on one instance although it is funny that apparently this artist has always been working in this way one way or another and suddenly it gets press today? Remember "Mysterious Skin" and all the exposure that got, and yet where is that today, in the Arthouse section of Blockbuster video is where it is.

Actually I am not arguing or making any point here, as normally I would, because I think your point is adequate enough.

I do feel sorry for the models having all this publicly dumped on them negatively and not positives which is probably going to be harmful for some of them rather then if it was examined properly before being sprayed by the media and all due caution approached to the issue before ripping it open for public debate, they end up in the wrong space, not anybody else. But there you go.

Rups xo
DS said…
Yes, the individual people involved in this must be supported but separately from the main argument about censorship.