The Guardian carries at

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/nov/01/art-child-porn-old-masters

a piece by Laura Cumming considering modern, historical, and
changing attitudes to nudity and sexuality in relation to
children in art.  Somewhat surprisingly, perhaps, Balthus has no
mention, but the paintings Cummings does discuss are readily
accessible on-line.  Bronzino's Allegory with Venus and Cupid is
on the site of the National Gallery, where the slide bar at right
can be used to zoom in to considerable detail at

http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/bronzino-an-allegory-with-venus-and-cupid

and is also (with a larger image if you click "Full resolution")
at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Angelo_Bronzino_001.jpg

The Greuze is at

http://cache-media.britannica.com/eb-media/99/45899-004-FB6C308F.jpg

or

http://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/092.html

The Fragonard is at

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jean-Honor%C3%A9_Fragonard_019.jpg

or

http://www.abcgallery.com/F/fragonard/fragonard25.html

The immediate context of Cumming's piece is the widely covered
withdrawal from an exhibition at the Tate Modern of Richard
Prince's "Spiritual America" (a photograph of a photograph of
Brooke Shields nude and made up at the age of ten), which has
apparently been exhibited without legal incident in the US and
Western Europe and which is discussed on the same site at, for
example,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/sep/30/art-tate-modern

and

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2009/oct/03/brooke-shields-nude-child-photograph

and

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/oct/14/brooke-shields-tate-modern

and also at

http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Richard-Prince-photo-withdrawal-not-in-public-interest%E2%80%9D/19595

However, there is also a wider context in several recent cases of
police involvement with photographs at various venues, some of
which are mentioned at

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/6251130/Brooke-Shields-photograph-the-sexualisation-of-children-for-art.html

and also in other official action like the Internet Watch
Foundation's (http://www.iwf.org.uk/)
blocking, subsequently
rescinded as reported at

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/10/iwf_reverses_wikiban/

of a Wikipedia page on an album by German rock band Scorpions due
to the album cover, and despite the fact that the same artwork
remained available on the band's site, on the sites of on-line
retailers, and on copies of the album in British music shops.
There have also been similar complaints in Australia, as over a
1936 sculpture of a nine-year-old, reported at

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,23820025-5017009,00.html

and photographs of adolescents at a Sydney gallery as reported at

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,23819607-948,00.html

and a photograph on the cover of Art Monthly Australia as
reported at

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/art-or-abuse-fury-over-image-of-naked-girl-862068.html

My reason for posting is not just the comment on changing
attitudes (perhaps also influenced by the emergence of
photography, and the blurring of lines between traditional and
modern definitions of "art"), but also the apparent question
raised by all this of whether the ever more elaborate legal
framework might eventually, or indeed in some cases already,
technically include historical works of art, not just early
modern, but also ancient, such as vases depicting paederasty in
the British Museum and others.  This is because, as mentioned in
Cumming's piece, several jurisidictions are now lowering the
traditional barriers between drawings and such, and photography,
when it comes to "obscenity" or "pornography" laws and charges,
while the UK for example now has a law on "extreme violent
pornography" for which there is no "art" or "literature"
exemption and that apparently covers even stills or excerpts from
films and television programmes that are certified for
distribution as whole (though there has yet to be a case that
really tests the limits of this), and some MPs and peers are
apparently pushing for an amendment that would bring even text
descriptions under this law, again breaking with legal tradition
(ever since the Lady Chatterley trial effectively rendered
prosecutions of written works for obscenity pointless in England)
and potentially bringing works of literature as well as works of
art into consideration.


Terrence Lockyer
Johannesburg, South Africa

Humanities & Social
Sciences Online

Copyright © 1995-2006 - Contact Us
RSS | Validate: XHTML | CSS