|
You are the
Ha ! I fooled you. This is actually a picture by Picasso - 'Nude Woman In A Red Armchair (1932)' to be precise. It is part of the Tate Gallery's permanent collection (catalogue number N06205) & © DACS 1994. What is the difference between Art & Pornography ? Who gets to decide ? What makes them more qualified to make the distinction than you or me ? In the UK, the Obscene Publications Act says that 'that which tends to deprave & corrupt' is illegal pornography - which begs the question of who gets to decide what is depraving & corrupting ? & how come those people to whom the Law gives the responsibility of decision have not become depraved & corrupted by the material they have seen themselves ? In late august / early september 1996, the Fan did a sterling job of helping gardeners everywhere spread compostible material around as far as the Internet was concerned, when first of all the so-called 'French Letter' got sent to Internet Service Providers countrywide instructing them to remove all newsgroups containing the string 'sex' in the name from their servers, & soon after whilst the arguments were raging a national newspaper, The Observer, published a libelous article labelling a director of one of those providers, Demon Internet, as a peddlar of child porn. On october 3rd, I was on the train to London in order to appear on an episode of the late-night programme 'Cybercafe' along with the editor of The Observer to discuss the article, when by coincidence I noticed in a copy of the Daily Mail that had been left by a previous traveller the following:
-----------------------------
BOOKSHOP CHAIN IN 'ART PICTURES' PORN INQUIRY A police porn squad is examining child-nude material stocked by High Street book chain Waterstone's. Pictures copied from art books stocked by the stores are said to be being exchanged on the Internet by paedophiles. Detectives are now considering sending a file to the Crown Prosecution Service, which will decide if any offence has been committed. Obscene publications officers have visited Waterstone's in Manchester city centre in undercover operations to buy material from the photography section. They started receiving a complaint from a writer who visits the store every week. Graeme Donald, 46, from Stockport, said yesterday: 'I have noticed that books in the photography section have been becoming steadily more controversial. 'Some cater for sexual fetishes, which might be OK for adults. But when you see pictures of naked little girls, you begin to wonder what sort of people the books are aimed at. 'I don't know if they are legal or not, but they are surely not decent & should not be stocked by a reputable High Street chain'. Police on Merseyside, who have also received complaints from browsers, are understood to have been in touch with the Manchester squad. One book which caused offense, featuring pre-pubescent girls, was by American photographer Jock Sturges. Two other controversial publications are by photographer David Hamilton. Waterstone's said yesterday: 'Book shops are not arbiters of morality. We would never wish to cause offence, but we have to be led by publishers in this country. 'We cannot discriminate, but we will co-operate as fully as possible. If these books are subject to an investigation by the police & they decide we should not stock them, then we will not stock them'. The publishers of Sturges's work said the book was 'art not pornography' & depicted development from youth to adulthood. Zurich-based Scalo said it was published in conjunction with the highly respected Frankfurt Museum of Art & reflected its collection. No one was available for
comment at Aurum Press, which publishes David Hamilton's work. I found myself wondering just how long it was going to be before the nation's art galleries were going to be purged of those highly seditious & offensive examples of the most evil examples of child porn, namely Rubens' Cherubs ? Soon after occurred the so-called 'Princess Diana Video Scandal', in response to which I wrote the following:
"Well, we have yet another
instance of what gets called 'the excesses of the press'.
In an example of sloppy journalism which is being compared to the Hitler Diaries hoax, The Sun newspaper crowingly printed pictures excerpted from what it proudly purports to be princess Diana cavorting around with James Hewitt, which is splashed right across the breadth of this morning's newspapers at various degrees of smug satisfaction - this morning's Mirror devotes a whole 7 pages to the story. It is traditional after events like this for a whole barrage of politicians & other Defenders Of The Public Good to indulge in another few days of screaming hysterical demands for regulation of the press - because after all, is it right & fair that Joe Bloggs down the road who's only claim to being a public figure is that he is a primary school governor can be at the same risk of such a gross intrusion of privacy ? My question - are those same newspapers who have recently been vigourously campaigning for regulation of the Internet going to be campaigning against the expected renewed calls for regulation of the press with equal vigour ? Or are they going to drop their campaign for regulation of they Internet, finally realising that those of us prominent in both media share the same interests & objectives ? Sadly my prediction is the former - that they are nothing more than liars, cheats, & hypocrites. I dare them to prove me wrong." For further reading, try these links: The UCE Mapplethorpe
Controversy |
