With the possible exception of religious fanatacism, this debate must win the award for the one that has aroused much name calling and passion on both sides.

I wonder why that is? Leaning to one side of the camp of public opinion or the other is perceived (it would appear) to say something about who we are and what we believe? The perception that we might be cast out as a paedophile sympathiser or a wowser. The posters who simplify it as such do the debate an injustice and it certainly does not leave much room in between.

Sexualisation of children whether in art or in the wider media is not an issue to be taken lightly and it is about balancing rights with freedoms. The so called freedoms that we take for granted do not make us truly free unless we also acknowledge our responsibilities. Is an artist's right to freedom of expression more worthy than the right of children to be protected from exploitation?

Does art hold a special place devoid of any responsibility in pursuit of this artistic freedom?

Under-age children in sexually explicit poses is not art despite the psuedo intellectual camp that would argue that art knows no bounds in its relentless pursuit of 'freedom'.

CJ,

I wonder how you would feel about art that trangressed upon one of your sacred beliefs. For example, is it OK for Art to promote RACISM?

I'm just wondering what your position was on that Dutch parliamentarians film was?What I'm getting at is, is there ANYTHING which you would consider unacceptable in art? How is "Art" defined. If someone says something is art, does that make it art?

Unless you are saying anything is acceptable in Art, then all we are arguing about is where to draw the line.

It then makes the wowser/pedophile dichotomy entirely irrelevant.

I read total article and little bit understand about it. David strike in my mind. Would David be in survival if this view were to break through society? We cannot put restrictions on it, like our own life. And with this flexibility to express ones self in art, we will always be faced with reactions that can sometimes be uncomfortable and evoke negative emotions.
___________________________________________
alizia
http://www.mydebtconsolidation.name

Paul.L: << I wonder how you would feel about art that trangressed upon one of your sacred beliefs. For example, is it OK for Art to promote RACISM? >>

While I don't hold any beliefs that are technically sacred, I do regard racism as one of the most insidious social blights that the world faces. However, that wouldn't be sufficient reason in itself for me to try and silence a racist artist, or advocate censorship of a work of art because I think it's racist. Unlike some, I think that the notion of freedom of speech is bigger than my own values, beliefs and ideals.

Art works at many levels of meaning: aesthetic, intellectual, political, psychological, emotional, overt, subliminal etc etc. That's why those who've made such idiots of themselves with this little moral panic have so badly missed the point - and in so doing have displayed their artistic illiteracy. There's far more to all of these artworks than little girls' naked bodies.

I don't blame the losers of the debate for feeling chagrined at having to acknowledge that they are out of step with our society's aesthetic standards. Perhaps they should see it instead as an opportunity to open their minds a little about an area of culture in which they are apparently lacking.

If artists were left to their own merits rather than being proppet up by public funding then I'd guarantee that we'd see a lot less "Artists" and a lot more good art. I just wonder how many of those "Art lovers" who pay these insane amounts of money for some incomprehensible image actually buy it because they like it rather than because of the artificial hype to boost it's investment value.
To display photos of a little girl posing is merely a perversion to satisfy closet paedophyles.

CJ Morgan

‘I don't blame the losers of the debate for feeling chagrined at having to acknowledge that they are out of step with our society's aesthetic standards. […]Perhaps they should see it instead as an opportunity to open their minds a little about an area of culture in which they are apparently lacking.’

I’m not sure who or what you define as a loser in this debate. In my view, ‘winning’ posts like those of Jay Thompson and Pelican above portray the much needed nuances, contexts and social relativity that are missing from arguments by the cardboard cutout defenders of freedom of expression that you represent.

And as for open-mindedness, I believe Steel shares your stance on this debate. His awesome knowledge of this ‘area of culture’ is worthy of a re-quote:

‘!@#$ing feminists again. Check this woman's submission history. Completely biased, sexist rubbish.’