Re: Art, Pornography & Paedophilia
 

"There is one justice, and that should be the same for everyone," Besson said on French radio. "I have a daughter, 13 years old. If she was violated, nothing would be the same, even 30 years later."

Backlash grows against campaign | News | The First Post

Re: Art, Pornography & Paedophilia
 

There are certainly 'artistic' artifacts that make me feel uneasy. For one thing, I'm quite squeamish. I don't like gore. I have no desire to watch the kind of film that some people (I think) call 'torture porn'. I really don't see the appeal at all. I even understand that it might be possible to disqualify something as art (at least on very strong subjective grounds) because it is 'sick'. However, bad things happen in the world all the time. That is, in a chicken-and-egg scenario with 'bad things' and 'sick art' being the chicken and egg, my guess is that 'bad things' come first. They exist independently, so to speak. If they exist, why should we not be able to imagine them, think about them, talk about them and depict them?

Not being a parent, I don't have to worry about the issues you mention, but I feel censorship with regard to children is basically a parent's responsibility. In other words, I don't see why anyone should be stopped from expressing themselves simply because children exist. The issue must be to do with the accessibility of material that is deemed psychologically harmful to children. Although it doesn't concern me, I understand the reasons for things like TV watersheds, the film rating system and so on.

I've watched a very interesting documentary recently:


This might seem like a tangent, but it's an example of why I don't agree with censorship. Tourette's is apparently neurological and incurable. However, one interesting aspect of the condition is that the person who suffers the condition, if s/he has a verbal tic, tends to have the compulsion to say (shout etc.) whatever is the worst thing to say in any given social situation. In other words, knowing what is the worst thing to say must, in some way, make the sufferer compelled to say it. I can't help thinking that this fact says a lot about the nature of taboos and the way that human beings are drawn to them specifically because they are taboo. If they were not taboo, no one would be interested and there would be no attraction.

Re: Art, Pornography & Paedophilia
 

Tourette's syndrome sounds a lot like Poe's imp of the perverse, which can be uncontrollable as well. I would like to go back to the original post and say that in my experience (being a very minor offical authority figure) the authorities almost always screw things up. When they don't it is usually because the upper authorities don't interfere with the decisions of a lower authority. Once upper management gets its hands on something it gets ruined. Always. Everywhere. Every time. So the official screw-ups of the Polanski case are not unusual. Another thing to consider - and even people in the USA don't seem to realize this - is that this country is very different from every other country. The local LA judge won't be happy until Polanski is in the courtroom in person. Then, even if the case is dismissed for cause, the judge and most Americans will feel that justice has been served. Don't forget that all of the Puritans came over here. They haven't left. p.s - I prefer Isle of Jura.

Re: Art, Pornography & Paedophilia
 

I have three children, two of whom have profound mental disabilities, and as such, are especially vulnerable to abuse. I have been CRB checked myself and used to oversee the checking of staff who worked with children. I therefore may have some understanding of the issues involved. I also have a relative who worked in the probation service at a senior level on several high profile cases who confirmed the most cynical views one could possibly hold.

Notwithstanding this, I still strive to remain independent and objective. I think that the crime Polanski committed was despicable, but I also think that the media and judiciary has treated his victim with equally cynical disregard. Indeed, after re-acquainting myself with the her views via Quentin's link to an article she wrote for the press, I am particularly impressed by the dignity with which she expresses herself. She really is a very kind and clever individual who should probably be an ambassador for some worthy cause. She has displayed greater courage, integrity and tolerance than the media, the judge or Polanski himself. In fact, her behaviour has been almost saintly (a claim I do not use lightly).

JK







JK

Re: Art, Pornography & Paedophilia
 

To quote Morrissey:

"I crack the whip and you skip
Because you deserve it - you deserve it."


The same song has the words:

"There's more to life than books you know - but not much more."

[Every time The Smiths are mentioned, I smile, remembering that I saw them play in London when I was 17 on 'The Queen Is Dead' tour.]

Jura........1984 was authored there, but notwithstanding it's.....erm, standing, as one of the bestest novels ever written, it doesn't have you bopping in the aisles like 'Handsome Devil'. Good grief, I'm not gay, but The Smiths made me think that I might be.

[JK glances at aspects of his CD collection: Erasure, Soft Cell, Abba, Frankie Goes To Hollywood, Queen.....]

Withnail, you bastard!

Re: Art, Pornography & The Artist
 

This thread has become a source of concern and disgust for more than one member, and I am compelled to respond both as a mediator and as a member. I am equally horrified by pedophilia and would even go so far as to advocate a death sentence for the greatest offenders, as the lives they destroy can carry as great or greater a weight than the lives a murderer takes. I am not happy to have the subject arise at TLO, and removed the referenced link within the original post, but found nothing within the post which promoted or condoned such behavior. To the contrary, Chris made the following statements throughout the thread:
There are two controversial elements to Chris's statements which I sense must have offended some members beyond the occurrence of the subject itself. The first is that Chris expressed his personal opinion that art should not be devalued by the inappropriate behavior of an artist if their art does not celebrate the behavior.
I do not believe that an artist should be formally banned in either instance. Instead, the public has the option to pass judgment on their own and diminish support for the artist. I myself find it difficult to distinguish art from the artist, however, and I find myself steering clear of artists that have a despicable reputation for whatever reason. In some instances I am making a clear decision not to support the artist. In others, I find myself distracted by their private life and consciously searching for evidence thereof within their art. I am not always pleased with this position, however, and sometimes wish that I could allow myself to enjoy the art without being annoyed by my awareness of the artist as a flawed individual. Note that Chris asked for the opinion of others while stating his personal perspective here, and I believe everyone has the right to consider or ignore an artist as a person when subjected to their art.

The second position that I detect offense with is that Chris questioned the motives of the authorities to act at this time and the value of punishment with consideration to the victim, who is apparently speaking on behalf of Polanski at this time. It is my understanding that the validity of the case is also in question, due to the investigation being flawed and the original confession being allegedly coerced. This is for the courts to decide, and should not be an argument against extradition, however. Furthermore, it is my personal opinion that if he was found guilty and there is no subsequent reversal by the courts he should serve the full sentence plus evasion charges, regardless of the time passed or the support of the victim. I am neither a judge nor lawyer, however. I am merely a jury of one by proxy, with my verdict to be the expression of my opinion and the sentence passed to be my reaction as a consumer. I personally believe that the motives of the legal system and the effectiveness of the punishment are ultimately irrelevant with regard to the application of the law, as it should be applied without prejudice. Extenuating circumstances would be considered by the judge and jury with regard to sentencing, but should not dictate the relevance of prosecution. Punishment is designed as a deterrent to both the criminal and the public, as they are witness to how the system will respond should they commit the same crime. Again, elements of my personal opinion here appear to differ from those expressed by Chris, though I do not recall him explicitly expressing that Polanski should not be punished at this time. Even if he did, this is a matter of opinion and Chris has been clear that he condemns such acts.

This thread has offended multiple members. However, I do not believe that the opinions expressed therein at any point condone or excuse the crime itself. If at any point I believed this to be the case, appropriate action would be taken. I have not acted on the request of Chris to reprimand Alberto for his response, as I believe one should expect emotional responses to such a sensitive subject.

To diminish the shock and dispel potential face-value misinterpretation, I have renamed the title to "Art, Pornography & The Artist". A warning at the beginning of the content will be added to clearly establish controversial content and the position of TLO. If any content within this thread or any other at TLO is deemed to be grossly offensive to any member, I encourage the post to be reported. I alone cannot read the entirety of content posted by members. My position with this content is that though the subject matter is sensitive and ultimately received as controversial, the opinions expressed have neither condoned nor excused illegal acts. Furthermore, the exploration of ethical tangents were proposed from an intellectual perspective and with a reasonable amount of respect for a difference in opinion to be stated. Some of you may disagree with my interpretation, and are welcome to voice your opinion publicly or privately. I am not beyond fallacy in my judgments, but I do my best to consider all perspectives and arrive at an unbiased and fair position. This should be evident in the fact that my personal opinion on this subject is quite conservative, while my position relative to the expression of the opinion of others is ultimately liberal. There is a fine line when approaching controversial subjects, of course, and I encourage all members to be respectful of others with regard to the subjection of inappropriate content as well as the opinion of others in response to such matters.

Re: Art, Pornography & The Artist
 

Have to say that I didn't find anything in this thread that was more offensive than you might find in a newspaper article discussing the same subject matter. In fact, I found it less offensive than many such newspaper articles.

Re: Art, Pornography & The Artist
 

As a matter of public record, I have apologised to Dr Bantham for having started such a contentious thread, and for having posted links to pictures which whilst referencing a contemporary media story, may have caused offence to some members of TLO. I also wish to apologise to anyone else for any perceived offence.

I honestly did not start the discussion with the intention of courting controversy, although I do acknowledge that I have something of a track record for puckish mischief-making. In my opening post and in successive ones I hope that it is obvious that I was striving to tread a careful and responsible line.

It goes without saying that Dr B did not ask that I apologise. I offer this purely of my own volition.

Whilst I am personally able to discuss issues like the Polanski and Shields' cases objectively and dispassionately, I can see that others may find such discussions unpleasant because of the subject matter, or to be simply unable - through no fault of their own - to hold in check their disgust and outrage about such emotive issues. I should have been more sensitive to that, and to Dr B's role as moderator, to say nothing of his obligation to keep the TLO web-host happy.

I am not particularly interested in the original cases since both seem pretty sordid and clear-cut to me: Polanksi committed an appalling crime, and the Shields' photographs are pornographic rather than artistic. No, it's the wider political and media issues which fascinate me, issues which I thought might be of relevance to TLO members, such as press hysteria, political intrigue, etc etc. However, I can see that the Polanski and Shields' scandals might not be the best foundation for such a discussion, given that the cases themselves are in many ways so morally repulsive.

JK

Re: Art, Pornography & Paedophilia
 

Poe was quite ahead of his time. Not that the syndrome didn't exist then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociolo...le_individuals

He was interested, though, in extreme human psychology even before Freud was born. It's Poe's bicentenary this year, of course, as must have been mentioned elsewhere on this site (I don't doubt).

Here's a story of his that was censored after initial publication:

http://www.eapoe.org/works/tales/bernicea.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berenice_(short_story)#Publication_history_and_cri tical_response

Re: Art, Pornography & The Artist
 

Mr. Polanski's crime is merely one incident in a strange life. In my opinion too much attention has been focused on this action by one man. For example as I write 100s are dead and 1,000s are homeless in Southern Indian due to the terrible flooding going on. I think that this is much more important than the tribulations of a couple of people. Is it possible that we are too concerned with the doings of the rich and famous and have lost sight of what's really important?