Silvia: "One of the major topics across all the Visual Culture classes this year will be ETHICS. As professional photographers you need to develop a comprehensive understanding of the ethical, political, social and moral issues of representing people via photographic images. Just today this report was published in Crikey, and I found it alarming and important for our class discussions. Please read it and think about it. We will address it in class."
The matter of Ethics within the Art Community has long been a topic of debate. Children are often represented as pure and innocent and Adults, tawdry and perverse (especially from an artistic point of view). When the roles are reversed, it often confuses and infuriates the viewer because it is, of course, taboo to view children in a sexual light (It is also against the law).
A lot of critics have accused photographers such as Bill Henson, Sally Mann and even Annie Leibovitz for condoning Child Pornography because of the ways in which they have represented children in their photographs.
In the article "Naked Aboriginal Kids on postcards: the line between art and exploitation", Bob Gosford (who hails from Alice Springs) has drawn the distinction between the postcards of naked aboriginal boys and child pornography. As an ethical issue, he feels that if the children were Caucasian and not Aboriginal, most people would draw the same distinction.
I feel that Mr. Gosford has lost sight of what is important in Art, which is the intent of the work of art and the way in which that intent has been shown through artistic devices and semiotics. A picture of a baby's naked bottom under soft light or a naked child being cradled by their mother is no-more erotic than a painting of a naked cupid holding a bow and arrow. A photo of a naked child holding a whip, however, would be . If the artistic intent of the photograph is clearly not sexual in any way, then the photographer may be excused for taking photos of... to be continued.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
