Archive for the ‘Art’ Category

« Older Entries

Braving the limits of permissible expression

Sunday, January 23rd, 2011

In connection to MTV’s decision to tone down its new show “Skins” rather than risk prosecution under child porn laws, Solon has an interesting summary of how the participation of children mainstream imagery has tested the boundaries of expression permitted in the “land of the free”.  Most of the examples will probably be familiar to you, but it’s interesting to revisit the pictures in the current  environment of fear encouraged by government and the media in their perpetual pursuit of self-serving public attention.

I watched the 1978 movie “Pretty Baby” last night.   While I had already seen it soon after it was released, I don’t really recall any sense of shock at its content.  This time, watching it in the context of today’s paranoia that a pedophile lurks behind every tree, I sincerely doubt the movie, if released today, would have seen the inside of a theater without serious editing.

While these examples are about child nudity, U.S. Justice Department  has again moved the line so as to broaden their definition of a prosecutable offense, under the term “child erotica“.  Under this strategy, Alabama photographer Jeff Pierson was indicted in 2006:

In a federal indictment announced this week, the U.S. Department of Justice accused Pierson, 43, of being a child pornographer–even though even prosecutors acknowledge there’s no evidence he has ever taken a single photograph of an unclothed minor.

Rather, they argue, his models struck poses that were illegally provocative. “The images charged are not legitimate child modeling, but rather lascivious poses one would expect to see in an adult magazine,” Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the northern district of Alabama, said in a statement.

The ease with which the government can curtail free expression in the name of protecting children encourages more and more of it and, indeed, almost all internet censorship crusades worldwide currently leverage off the public’s enthusiasm to sign over their freedom in exchange for a vague promise of security for children.

Posted in Art, Censorship, Child Pornography, Movies, Nudity, Television and Radio, United States | 6 Comments »

Smithsonian censors gay art exhibit

Wednesday, January 12th, 2011

The National Portrait Gallery in Washington, DC sponsored a an art exhibit called “Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture,”  which focused on gay artists of the past century.  Things went well for a while, but then…

From HuffPo:

Nearly six weeks into the show’s run, some members of Congress led by GOP Leader Congressman John Boehner, encouraged by the ire and financial backing of certain religious zealots, decided that one work, in particular, must be removed from the exhibit, David Wojnarowicz’s A Fire in My Belly. Without even a moment of public discourse, the Smithsonian team ‘stepped and fetched.’

As in every case of art, he who pays the piper, calls the tune.  When the artists rely on government handouts, they shouldn’t be surprised when government officials impose restrictions as demanded by favored interest groups, in this case Catholic League president William Donohue, who dubbed the video “hate speech”.  Hate speech is, of course, a term used to summarily dismiss expression in a way that discourages debate.  After all, who could possibly support hate speech.

The arts could survive just fine without government financial support and if some work needs government support to exist, then I question its value and why I should be forced, through my taxes, to subsidize something that no one else cares about or likes.

Another problem with government support of the arts is that the government  becomes the arbiter of what constitutes legitimate art.   Artists then tend to tailor their work so as to not be excluded.  In that way the government suppresses what it doesn’t like and encourages artists to express what is politically acceptable.

It’s a disgrace that Congress would fund a museum that excludes First Amendment protection.  If they want to be in the museum business, they should perhaps consider incorporating a higher level of integrity into that endeavor than they are used to with everything else they do.  A lot higher.

Posted in Art, Censorship, District of Columbia, LGBT, Politics, Relgious Zealotry | 1 Comment »

Sydney Children’s Hospital steps on its own dick

Wednesday, January 5th, 2011

A charity event at the Sydney Children’s Hospital fell apart after hospital officials rejected one of the exhibited works by artist, Del Kathryn Barton.  The offending piece is a photograph of the artist’s six year old son naked from the waist up.

While the decision cost the hospital a $200,000 from the proceeds of exhibit, the real stunner is that the hospital embarrassed itself so thoroughly in front of the entire world by abandoning the exhibit to begin with.  The degree of paranoia associated with child nudity has soared way beyond the bounds of rationality into the land of utter lunacy.

From the Sydney Morning Herald:

Tamara Winikoff, the executive director of the National Association for the Visual Arts, said decisions such as this were ”absurd and tragic”.

She said that since the Henson scandal, when photographs of youths and children by Bill Henson, one of Australia’s most famous artists, prompted media outrage and a police investigation, authorities were scared to associate themselves with any images of children.

”In our zeal to protect children we are erasing them entirely,” she said.

She said nudity was being conflated with pornography, even though representations of nudity had been part of Australia’s artistic tradition throughout history.

I posted briefly about Australia’s reaction to Bill Hensen back in January, 2010 (3rd item down).

The Henson scandal came after similar incidents during the previous two decades in the US where groups – often Christian – attacked artworks, which prompted failed police actions.

Christian groups in the U.S. attacking art?  I’m stunned!  I guess they must only believe in the part of the First Amendment that pertains to their religious proclivities.

Posted in Art, Australia, Censorship, Nudity, Relgious Zealotry, United States | 4 Comments »

Friday night at the movies.

Friday, October 1st, 2010

It looks best if you open it to full screen.

Nuit Blanche from Spy Films on Vimeo.

Yeah, it’s off topic, but who knows?  Maybe she’s a hooker.

Posted in Art | 1 Comment »

Is Lady Justice underage?

Friday, September 17th, 2010

While browsing through my Google Alerts, I came across this picture of Lady Justice.  Upon close inspection, I would have to say that she is definitely “young” (ie: no doubt adolescent by rescue industry standards) and is therefore probably being exploited.  Scantily clad and posed seductively, she would probably fetch a fairly good rate of return if marketed on Craigslist.

I’m joking, of course. Regardless of the artist’s intent, this picture can be viewed as being entirely non-sexual, but there is no doubt that many will see elements of sexuality in it.  Neither perspective is necessarily wrong.  They are just different points of view.

Of course, Lady Justice’s career as a model most likely escalated when U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft ordered partially nude statues covered in the Hall of Justice.  Now, if you do an image search for “Lady Justice” you will probably not be surprised to find a wide range of art ranging from erotic to the chaste.

Posted in Art | Comments Off

“Tillman Story” Rated R for 16 instances of “the f-word” (that’s FUCK, for anyone with a brain).

Friday, September 3rd, 2010

From The Chicago Tribune:

He was a U.S. Army Ranger who dropped the occasional f-word. As do some surviving members of his family.

Was that reason enough to slap the new documentary “The Tillman Story” with an R rating?

Yes, according to the Motion Picture Association of America’s ratings and classification board. Habitually easy on violence but far more nervous regarding language and skin, the MPAA ratings board issued director Amir Bar-Lev’s film an R rating for its 16 instances of the f-word.

When I was a kid, I wasn’t allowed to use foul language.  But, at no time were my parents so paranoid that they actually believed that merely hearing the words resulted in any harm.  Oh, how times have changed.  Even the Chicago Tribune, in a story about the word, refuses to actually spell it out.   While it’s highly unlikely that anyone is ever going to suffer more than a mild discomfort at its mention, certainly the power imparted to the word by its completely irrational avoidance leaves children with an indelible impression that some words, instead of being a means to communicate, are dangerous by their very nature, which is an open invitation to censorship.

While I don’t have a problem with non-governmental movie ratings, the MPAA (originally known as the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America) was created as a direct response to widespread government censorship of motion pictures in the U.S. which were deemed to be outside the protection of the First Amendment.    I wouldn’t shed a tear if the MPAA was disbanded tomorrow.  While it’s iron grip over movie content has waned, it continues to support irrational notions about language of which this is just the latest example.

If the “The Tillman Story” has any educational merit (and I suspect it has a lot), the R-rating severely limits its chances of reaching much of the audience that could benefit most from seeing it.   If there is any group of people who have a vested interest in learning about military service and the reality of war, it’s those who are soon to enter that phase of life from which the pentagon recruits fresh meat for its next “adventure”.   For the MPAA to deny “The Tillman Story” to the very people whose lives it is most likely to influence in order to protect them from a mere explicative is indefensible.

The monopolistic MPAA is, and always has been a destructive force for the suppression of movie content and has no place in any culture that values free expression.

Posted in Art, Bad Words, Censorship | Comments Off

Spencer Tunick goes to Israel.

Friday, September 3rd, 2010

According to Green Prophet, Spencer Tunick is at it again:

Spencer Tunick, famous for his mass nude photographs of people set against unique backgrounds and landscapes, has chosen the Dead Sea to shoot his eco-sexy art. That means hundreds to thousands of Israelis will need to volunteer to strip to their birthday suits, all for an important cause: The Dead Sea is losing water every year, and it is feared that it could turn into sludge if it continues to dry up at the current rate.

Maybe after he’s done there he could swing through the Arab countries.

Posted in Art, Israel, Nudity | 1 Comment »

Deep Throat on Broadway and Hollywood

Wednesday, July 28th, 2010

The story surrounding the 1972 porn production of Deep Throat is slated to open on Broadway in September.

From the New York Press:

David Bertolino’s The Deep Throat Sex Scandal is a behind-the-scenes look at the chaos that surrounded Gerard Damiano’s 1972 film, a project that brought pornography to the mainstream and endured several obscenity trials before developing a cultish following that exists to this day.


From the official website for the play:

In 1972, a hairdresser from Queens made a little movie that grossed over 600 million dollars and ignited the sexual revolution.

THE DEEP THROAT SEX SCANDAL takes you into the secret world of adult film making and introduces you to the legendary Linda Lovelace and Harry Reems.

Follow the bizarre journey from the creation of the movie, through the raids, arrests and the banning of the film, to the political fallout of the ensuing courtroom drama.

If  you watch the news at all, you’re already aware that a movie is also in the works to tell the story of Deep Throat star Linda Lovelace. The movie, directed by Matthew Wilder and entitled Inferno: A Linda Lovelace Story will star Lindsey Lohan in the lead role.

Instead of focusing on the political and social ramifications of Deep Throat, this is a biographical drama centering on the story of the star herself who, after the low budget porn movie became a success, claimed that she had been forced into the role by her controlling husband.  She subsequently separated from him and became an anti-porn activist.  Linda Lovelace, born Linda Boreman died in 2002, but the movie she starred in is an icon of the adult film industry holding the record for the most successful porn film ever produced.  If Inferno goes forward, it’s schedeuled for release in 2011.

Posted in Art, California, Movies, New York, Pornography, United States | Comments Off

The naked and the veiled

Tuesday, May 18th, 2010

Morrocan artist Majida Khattari is taking on the controversy surrounding the wearing of the burqa,  a traditional Islamic veil for women that completely covers the head and body.  Khattari is presenting at the Martine and Thibault de la Châtre art gallery in France where she now lives.  France has recently been considering legislation that would ban the wearing of the burqa in public.  As the issue heats up, there are now reports of ‘burqa rage‘.

Of course, the real incitement is the juxtaposing of nudity with intense religious fundamentalism and confronting the supposition that the burqa is necessarily evidence of oppression.  The topic is bound to ignite some strong feelings.   The artist makes an interesting statement:

“Art is provocation. And we need provocation to move forward. I’m trying to highlight the ambiguity and the complexity of the situation,” she says.

This is, of course, precisely the opposite of what art has become at almost all public venues in all but the largest and most liberal cities in the United States.  Most government run museums shun any kind of controversy in what they display, sanitizing exhibits to be fit for third graders and avoiding anything that challenges the social mainstream. A visit to the vast majority of art museums and public galleries in the U.S. is like entering a vast empty cavern where you can count the other visitors on one hand.  Rather than being a center of popular community interest, it is instead a shrine to some self-serving politician paid for by the taxpayers.

Khattari makes another interesting observation:

Khattari doesn’t understand why, in France, laws must be passed to decide how people should be dressed. “It’s absurd to create laws to tell us that veils need to be banned in public places. After all, we are in France because it protects our freedom.”

Indeed, France is often thought to be one of the more liberal of European countries toward the issue of sensuality and social conformity.  In contrast, the U.S. is proudly called “the land of the free” even though intolerance of non-conforming appearance is a continuous topic of local legislative consideration whether it be nudity or baggy pants.

But then there’s the perspective that the burqa needs to be eliminated because those who wear it are victims.

“It’s as if you’re saying that women not capable of making their own decisions and you’ll decide for them. Or that they must have chosen to wear the veil because they are completely dominated, that there could be no other reason for such a choice. I’m sorry, there are many women who wear the veil out of their own free will,” says Khattari.

Well, that sounds familiar.  Sounds exactly like the attitude many people have toward women in the sex industry.  They must be completely dominated and couldn’t possibly be involved with such a despicable business voluntarily.  The only thing surprising about that is that many women accept and even endorse that insult to their intelligence and autonomy.

Posted in Art, France, Relgious Zealotry, United States, Women's Rights | Comments Off

Wikipedia, a haven for child porn?

Friday, May 14th, 2010

A few weeks ago, Foxnews broke a story about one of the co-founders of Wikipedia reporting to the FBI that Wikipedia was intentionally hosting child porn.

According to technewsworld.com:

Last month, Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger, who parted ways with the organization in 2002, outed the Wikipedia’s parent, Wikimedia, to the FBI, writing in a letter that the site was intentionally distributing child pornography. It doesn’t get more damaging than that; it would have been very hard to dismiss the claims as the grumblings of an ex-executive gunning for payback, since Sanger had specific examples in two Wikimedia Commons categories, “pedophilia” and “lolicon.” The listings included drawings depicting children engaging in sexual activity with adults.

Of course, child porn laws which are intended to protect children, really don’t cover depictions that don’t involve actual children.   To get around that technicality, the feds usually employ obscenity laws.  In any case, media sources don’t often make that distinction preferring instead to use the much nastier sounding term, “child porn”.

That the story was reported in Fox News has entertainment value in itself since no other mainstream news organization comes close to Fox when it comes to capitalizing on sex to attract viewers.

The technewsworld article takes the standard position that Wikipedia doesn’t need to include the offending images, which it repeatedly refers to as “child pornography” to support articles on topics like pedophilia and lolicon.  Whether a media outlet needs to include certain content is utterly immaterial in a country that encourages (or at least claims to encourage) free speech.   In a free country, expression is governed by the choice of the author rather than “need” as determined by some third party who sees himself as an all-knowing arbiter of what other people should be permitted to see.

To date, the FBI has not filed charges, although there was apparently a mass removal of potentially offending content in order to fend off a Federal attack.  Since no one knows what is legal and what isn’t without actually going through a costly and controversial jury trial, you can be certain that a lot of legal content was summarily deleted simply to “err on the side of caution”.

Since the removal sidestepped procedures already in place to deal with such issues at Wikipedia, the ultimate damage might come not from the original accusation, but from the violation their own policies.

I’ve always found Wikipedia to be a useful reference and use it quite often in my posts, but a major part of its usefulness is to give you enough information to enable you to find additional outside sources which will be richer in detail, especially when it comes to graphics and image content.   Wikipedia is often assailed for its potential lack of accuracy, but I have yet to find a single source of information on the web that couldn’t be attacked for exactly the same reason.

As is the case for any source of information, it is unfortunate that Wikipedia must feel compelled to police its content for fear of coming within range of murky and highly subjective federal obscenity standards.  Wikipedia’s popularity and utility are partly why it attracts attacks from thought-crime crusaders like Larry Sanger and those at Fox News.  Users will now be forced to go to lower profile sources to access legal content that Wikipedia eliminates in order to provide itself with a margin of safety against federal intimidation.

Thanks, Mr Sanger.  You’re a true American hero.  You and your fellow self-serving hysteria-spewing crusaders won’t be happy until every mainstream information source on the planet has been sanitized for third graders.

Posted in Art, Censorship, Child Pornography, Obscenity, United States | Comments Off

« Older Entries