Moral Philosophy and Photographs

Saturday, August 16th, 2008

The debate about children in art and the surrounding morality started with Bill Henson’s photographs of naked pubescent children. It is wider now, extending in several directions.

First has been the front cover of Art Monthly Australia with the photo of a naked six-year-old Olympia Nelson, a photograph staunchly defended by her father, and then savagely castigated by Miranda Devine. Next has been the request by the Minister that the arts community come up with a set of protocols. But the final reason the debate has widened is the most intriguing - and difficult to answer - and that is the pitting of people with respected social consciences on either side of this debate.

It opened with Cate Blanchett against Kevin Rudd.

Not long after, a highly regarded Julian Burnside, defender of refugees, took a position opposite to an equally respected Clive Hamilton, Professor of Ethics at Charles Stuart University. But the most important question is, in discussing these issues with many people, I find some whose opinions I have long respected, see no wrong in exhibiting photos of naked children. Others, in contrast, intrinsically believe the exhibitions are wrong.

These paragraphs are an attempt to discover why the community differs, and whether we can find an answer. It will not be easy for the arts community to develop protocols.

A first step was to explore what guidelines the great thinkers on moral philosophy have left us. They will not give us an absolute ruling but they might help decide. Immanuel Kant seemed the most appropriate: if you are unwilling to allow everybody to adopt an activity whenever they wanted to, then that activity is not morally acceptable. Would we allow photographers to photograph and exhibit the photos of every pubescent child who was willing to pose for him? Even when the parents of the willing children gave permission - for whatever  reason, for the child to do so?

Kant’s second categorical imperative was even stronger which was that we should not use anybody for our own purposes. It is a superb injunction that asks us to respect the autonomy, individuality and self-respect of other people.

What ever the parents’ motives might be, or the photographer’s, be it an artistic desire, a search for notoriety, or to make money, they are using their children for their own objectives. A naked full frontal is unlikely to be the photographic objective of any child, but even for those that it is, the children are not old enough to make these decisions.

We only have to look at the experiments of Stanley Milgram in the 1970s that showed us the extent that adults will obey people they believe to be in authority, even when such obedience is against all basic instincts. Would it not be more so with children?

Another major moral guideline comes from John Stuart Mill, which we know as utilitarianism, or consequentialism. He said create happiness, avoid harm. This theory, which is probably the most widely used moral theory today, is only partially useful. We are not sure whether the photos cause harm. Did Olympia Nelson suffer any harm? Will she, or any of the child models, as adults, feel mortified when the photos surface in adulthood?

Aristotle and then Aquinas supposedly gave us the virtues to guide our moral decisions but the virtues are rarely of much use in today’s difficult decisions. I can always find a virtue to support one side and another to support the opposite view. In this case, none of the seven virtues provide any guidance.

So a wider search becomes necessary. From social gatherings to a survey of attendees at a national ethics conference, listening to the public debates, as well as this paper, all became methods of determining why people’s opinions differ.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

Australian artist Bill Henson speaks out over child porn accusations

Saturday, July 19th, 2008

In a thinly veiled reference to the furore, in which officers raided galleries exhibiting his work, Henson said art allowed people to escape from a “world of moralism and opinionation and claptrap”.

The raids in May sparked fierce debate about censorship and child protection in Australia.

Speaking at the opening of an exhibition at the National Gallery of Australia in Canberra, Henson ignored questions about the controversy, but did address the subtext of his work.

The artist said all photographs were “necessarily about death.”

“The greatness of art comes from the ambiguities, which is another way of saying it stops us from knowing what to think.

He also made reference to a request by Australia’s Classification Board, which rates films, videos, exhibitions and books, to submit the June edition of Art Monthly Australia for review because it featured a naked girl on its cover.

“People do sometimes only see what they want to”, he said.

Following the raids on Henson’s work, police threatened to charge him with pornography, but later dropped the case after the Classification Board declared the images “mild and justified”.

Tags: ,

Related posts

Cate Blanchett joins art censorship row in Australia

Friday, May 30th, 2008

Officers scoured the National Gallery of Australia in Canberra in search of works by controversial photographer Bill Henson, one of the country’s most acclaimed and successful artists.

The confiscation of the photographs by police has caused a furor, with the prime minister, Kevin Rudd, describing them as “absolutely revolting”.

But many Australians said the police raid was a clumsy attempt at censorship and a

dangerous attack on freedom of expression which would embarrass the country internationally.

In a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald, a former police superintendent and now art gallery owner said he was dismayed at “the purse-lipped paragons of public morality” who condemned Henson’s works as child pornography.

On Wednesday a group of leading writers and artists, including Oscar-winning actor Cate Blanchett, signed an open letter expressing dismay at the actions of police and the allegation that Henson was a pornographer.

The prospect of Henson, whose work has been shown in New York, Paris and at the Venice Biennale, being charged had done “untold damage to our cultural reputation”, the letter said.

Henson’s photographs were not titillating but part of an artistic tradition that stretched back to ancient Greece, Caravaggio and Michelangelo.

One of the few politicians willing to defend Henson was Malcolm Turnbull, a former head of the Australian Republican Movement and now the conservative opposition’s treasury spokesman.

He said he owned two of the artist’s works, but neither depicted naked teenagers.

“I don’t believe that we should have policemen invading art galleries. I think we have a culture of great artistic freedom in this country and I don’t believe the vice squad’s role is to go into art galleries,” said Mr Turnbull.

In addition to scrutinizing the National Gallery, police reportedly ordered a gallery in Newcastle, north of Sydney, not to exhibit two Henson photographs featuring nude teens, and descended on another gallery in the city of Albury.

Police have said they intend to prosecute Henson for obscenity but no charges have yet been laid.

The investigation has stalled because Henson has refused to reveal the identity of the girl he photographed nude for the exhibit.

The chief of police in New South Wales, Andrew Scipione, weighed into the debate, saying that as a father he strongly disapproved of the photographs.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

Snapshot of a small-minded people

Friday, May 30th, 2008

BILL HENSON has dominated the headlines during the past week for all the wrong reasons but when the hysteria dies down we might find this affair has coughed up a few revelations.

First: the level of public ignorance that exists in relation to the visual arts. In 2005 Bill Henson was the subject of huge retrospectives at the Art Gallery of NSW and the National Gallery of Victoria, which were advertised in the media and even on bus shelters. His work is held by most of the important public collections in Australia and he is every bit as internationally successful in his field as Cate Blanchett or Hugh Jackman are in theirs. He has been making works that use teenagers for almost 30 years, exhibiting and publishing at the highest levels. And yet, when this furore breaks, it seems that his detractors have never heard of him.

This should be a source of concern to art museums, arts funding bodies, art educators and organisations with cultural responsibilities such as the ABC. It seems that most people in Australia could not care less for the visual arts unless they are presented in the form of a page one scandal.

The second eye-opener is the irresponsible way the politicians have responded to this affair. From the Prime Minister to the Premier, to the leaders of federal and state oppositions, every one has blurted out a litany of damning, inflammatory comments, having seen nothing more than a few blurry snapshots.

It is no secret that rank populism is now a fact of life in Australian politics. But in an age when every message is refined and spin-doctored to avoid offending anyone’s delicate sensibilities, it appears to be OK to pronounce judgments on unseen works of art in the name of public morality. The comments of the politicians have provided tremendous support for one-eyed activists such as Hetty Johnston, who claim to be speaking in the name of “the community”.

Directly or indirectly, our leaders have encouraged the police to act in a high-handed manner by confiscating works of art, thereby setting the scene for an ugly and futile battle in the courts. Finally, they have helped create a climate in which self-appointed witch-hunters and vigilantes can ring the Roslyn Oxley gallery with threats of violence.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

Archives

November 2008
M T W T F S S
« Oct    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Other

Syndication


website statistic