The law is sometimes a useful means of regulating activity, but in the area of art it has no place.
That is why calls from morality campaigners and knee-jerk legislators to ban the use of naked children in art are fundamentally flawed.
Over the weekend, the ever shrill Hetty Johnston, a morals campaigner, suggested that legislation be introduced nationally “that removes artistic merit from the child p-rnography laws”. This legislation should control “what artists can do in relation to the use of children in art.”
No doubt Ms Johnston’s call will appeal to populist politicians like Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson who are working themselves into a considerable lather over the decision by Art Monthly to place on its front cover a lovely photograph of a young n-ked child who is clearly not striking a s-xual pose.
But to legislate to criminalise the conduct of Art Monthly, or any artist, publication, gallery or even website would make the law what it is clearly not mean to be — an ass.
Let us illustrate the absurdity of Johnston’s hare-brained idea this way.
A blockbuster exhibition from a European collection is about to tour Australia’s major capital cities. This exhibition includes Caravaggio’s Amor Vincit Omnia and Cranach’s Venus — both famous 16th century works portraying n-ked teenagers. Under the Hetty Johnston law, these extraordinary works of art could not be shown in Australia. They would be classed as child p-rnography and gallery directors would be prosecuted for hanging them on their walls.
Johnston’s proposed law would require state and territory police forces to employ a morality squad. Their role would be to run around art galleries, search websites, and even private homes with warrants to remove paintings, photographs, sculptures and films which depicted n-ked children. The law would make paedophiles and child porn fet-shists out of innocent people and institutions. Judges and magistrates would be placed in the invidious position of having to enforce a law that was patently unjust.
And our courts would have to grapple with absurd definition issues like what does n-ked mean? Does it mean completely unclothed, or partly unclothed? If a child is fully dressed will we have experts telling us that because the child is pouting then this amounts to child p-rnography? What if the face of the child cannot be seen? Does this make a difference to a prosecution? The list of twists, turns and legal machinations is endless and ultimately so ridiculously complex as to render the law unworkable.
And it would not only be artists who would be affected. Film-makers would be in the gun as well. Laws that ban completely the showing of children n-ked would make criminal a perfectly innocent scene of children ripping off their clothes on a hot summer’s day and jumping into the local river — a practice that generations of Australian children have gained countless hours of pleasure from.
Johnston’s proposal is also grossly demeaning to children. She, along with the hot and bothered Rudd and Nelson, think that if a child is portrayed in art then it must be for a s-xual purpose. How said that they have such a warped view.
Hell, I have three photos of my naked kids in the bath when they were about 2 and 6. They hang in the bathroom. When I have guests they use the bathroom. Should i cover the photos?. If i dont or the cover falls off, can I expect a bang on the door from Hetty, Kevin and Brendon in the middle of the nightcalling me a kiddie fiddler with a commercial ‘current affairs’ show in close tow.
The worlds gone mad
If such strictures as Hetty Johnston suggests became law, then all putti (naked cherubs) would have to be removed, garden statuary policed, the depiction of mermaids only permitted if the facial features show sufficient maturity and images of the Virgin and child doctored. Really this is so narrow-minded and wrong-headed and totally irrelevant to the real issues facing Australia and the world that I wonder why on earth our Prime Minister should even get involved, let alone allow himself to be drawn into making such black and white judgements. For those of us old enough to remember, we’ve been here before with moral crusaders. Coming originally from Britain, I well remember similar hysteria whipped up by Mrs Mary Whitehouse. She and her movement were defeated by the time-honoured tactic of ridicule. Where’s the Chaser team when you need them?
It would appear that the comments made by so called moral campaigners like Hetty Johnston and our populist political leaders – who are always willing to float to the bottom in issues such as this (pun intended) – say far more about themselves than the subject they purport to represent. Where do they get these perverted thoughts – hardly from the art they criticise. Perhaps it is they who need psychiatric help? I recall a famous Simpsons episode in which Marge becomes a moral campaigner but has second thoughts when Springfield decides to invite an exhibition of Michelangelo’s David to their local museum…
HERE! HERE! Great common sense, Greg. Hope Kevie and Brendan are listening.
There is a problem with opinions in this debate. Firstly, Hetty Jonston is a self proclaimed representative of an organisation that has apparently well intentioned goals. That sai, when she makes a pronouncement she does so without any particular skill, expertise or research behind her. She is expressing a personal opinion – no more, no less. By cloaking that personal opinion with her organisation’s platform of good she elevates its status beyond its real worth. It is probably no more valuable a personal opinion than asking the proverbial “man in the street”. I too have a personal opinion on this topic and Ms Johnston’s opinion disturbs me greatly. By cloaking her personal opinions regarding censorship of art as protecting children, she seeks to weaken any opposing view.
Which brings me to the opinions expressed by Kevin Rudd. Because in his own words, the opinions expressed by Mr Rudd on this topic are his personal opinions. I would submit that it is almost impossible for any Prime Minister to express a personal opinion without it being cloaked with the authority of the office of Prime Minister. If that is true, a Prime Minister should refrain from expressing personal opinions on matters of public debate. This notwithstanding my personal opinion that his views are equally disturbing.