"...genuine artistic expression".

this article put up against peter sellsiks pathetic crowing today, to me sees australia moving even more and more to the neo christian moralistic right than its been (since half heartedly, and for a brief moment, in the 1980s and early 90s we actually took an interest in a diversity of cultural expression)

it will take a great deal of effort to claw any sense of sanity and rationalism back into the centre of australian life, and perhaps never actually, perhaps we are now and will ever be a society regulated by madmen (and women :

Child pornography is horrible.

This comment is not exactly about child pornography, but it is certainly about a form of sado-masochistic pornography that is widely championed by "conservative" religionists all over the world.

Many children were no doubt taken by their parents to see it.

It is even framed with the words "good news".

The many images to be found on this site are pure sado-masochistic pornography.

http://www.spiritlessons.com/PassionofChristPictures.htm

It is also interesting to note that the former head man of the Vatican, who has now been nominated as a saint, used to indulge in mortification of his body in order to become more "spiritual".
He was also reported at the time of the above film, to have said "that is how it happened".

Never mind that NONE of that is "reported" in the Bible.

Given kathy Keele's position on an government council, the old bureaucratic predilection for interference and control has risen to the surface.

"While the freedom of artistic expression is important to preserve, it comes with responsibilities"

Read: it needs to be limited,

"genuine artistic expression"

Read: Whatever a panel of political appointees find appropriate.

"and obtain appropriate consents"

Read, pay the above panel to give the nod, (which given the consequences of them letting anything controversial through, means the strictest interpretation of the law.)

Given it takes lots of money and up to 2 years for council approval on building plans, this is recipe not just for censorship, but to block all controversial work.

The simplest thing to do would be to clearly define what is child pornography and legal responsibilities to children, and allow the artists to work within this.

Governmental interference in art will mean that the only good art comes from overseas.

This is a reasoned, reasonable argument. Apart from the opening I tend to agree with it.
Being who I am, I see all art in its prevailing time context, purpose, skill in which it was created (intrinsic worth)

Clearly I take a different view of "art" than the author and therefore, have limited sympathy for artists freedom of expression as an argument for defense against pornography charges and or special consideration for grants.
To me the role of art has changed from the times of the say Vézère valley artists, there their purpose was an attempt to control their little understood world.
Hieronymus Bosch, painted in a time where art, specifically Church are was to inspire awe and doctrine to the illiterate masses.

Late Turner and such were experimenting in techniques but by this time art had become a form of entertainment much like movies.
Contemporary, abstract art tends to follow this mould, patchy,with the added feature overly self importance often bordering on esotericism and elitism. Where the emphasis is on its creator, provenance not the artifact per se. This includes subsequent artificial pecuniary value. i.e. Picasso, Jackson Pollock, Andy Warhol et al. This is easily testable
I posit that art today is entertainment should be viewed as such. Not as some mystical spiritual event.

It is from this perspective, I say that art (entertainment) should have limitation. Like everyone else they are entitled to push the boundaries go too far then like speeding they have the right to suffer for their 'art' but why should everyone else. I would challenge anyone in simple terms to point out the intrinsic worth cultural, informational of nude photos of children with out referring to esoterica.
Absolute rights in anything don't exist everything is a compromise , the trick is finding the balance. On that level I in theory agree with the harmonizing of the laws.

Shadow,
Emotion knows no logic,consistency or objectivity? Is there something I missed?
What was the point you are making in the first and last sentences?
They seem either party political or inconsistent with your philosophic basis and your stance in everything else.
You seem to be saying that art is something special above all other reasoning.
"Governmental interference in art will mean *that the only good art comes from overseas*."< Isn't that a consequence of the both the basis of capitalism (survival of the fittest) principal and practice of international trade (fittest = might)? This post seems in *principal* diametrically opposite to your argument in GM seed.

Ex,

There is a clear delineation between what is illegal and what is offensive. I support the government and police in preventing what is illegal, but when they stray into protecting the public from what may be offensive, they have crossed the line to restricting basic human rights.

When Bill Henson displayed his photos, there was a outcry from a vocal minority, and Rudd stepped in and set the police on the gallery. Shortly after that the police informed the press that the photos in no way infringed the child pornography laws, and the photos were put back on display.

After the Rudd gov got egg on it face, it would appear that it is trying to change the way the game is played. By making it a requirement to get consent, the artist can be prosecuted for not getting consent even if there is legally nothing wrong with his work.

Given that any consent is unlikely if there is chance of public outcry, this is a de facto censorship of anything that is not politically correct.

Given that art is often used to push the boundaries, all that will be left is banality. The Australian film studios are beset with the same PC requirements which is partially why the film "Australia" was such a dud.

As I said, all that is required is simplification of what can legally be done with children and what cannot. It is then up to the police to punish those that over step the boundaries. Having some mindless bureaurocrat deciding what I can see based on what he thinks may be offensive is anathema to me.

With GM, the state governments were controlling the farmers on what was politically correct, and not the scientific evidence. I see no conflict.