Art and
Ethics
Child Images Cause Controversy Down Under
By Father John Flynn, LC
ROME, JUNE 8, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Artistic freedom and
ethical standards are at the center of a debate in
Australia after police recently confiscated photographs
at an art exhibition.
The Sydney Morning Herald reported May 23 that
authorities seized images from the Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery
in Sydney of naked children in sexually suggestive
poses.
The photographs were taken by Bill Henson, whose work,
according to the paper, has generated controversy for a
number of years.
The images of 12- and 13-year-olds were declared as
“revolting" by Australian prime minister, Kevin Rudd,
reported the Australian newspaper May 23.
“Kids deserve to have the innocence of their childhood
protected. I have a very deep view of this. For God's
sake, let's just allow kids to be kids,” declared Rudd.
Concern over the exhibition was raised by Sydney Morning
Herald columnist Miranda Devine. In an article published
by the Sydney Morning Herald on May 22, Devine commented
on the erosion of community standards and how it is
impossible to shield children from a culture laden with
sexual imagery.
Public opinion is beginning to show concern over this
trend, and Devine noted that at the national level there
is a current Senate inquiry into the sexualization of
children in the media.
The police action, and the prime minister’s remarks,
soon came in for criticism from members of the art
world. A letter signed by artists, writers and others in
the media industry decried the events, saying they
damaged the nation's cultural reputation and risks "a
repressive climate of hysterical condemnation," reported
the Age newspaper May 28.
Limits to license
Some commentators, however, supported the confiscation
of the photos. Author Kevin Donnelly, writing an opinion
article in the Age on May 25, argued that in any
civilized society there are restrictions on artistic
license and that the rights of artists have to be
balanced against law and what the public considers to be
decent.
Donnelly also noted that if the photographs that were
confiscated were to be put on the Internet or somebody's
laptop, those responsible would be charged with child
pornography.
“Presenting young girls in such a vulnerable and
voyeuristic way is especially wrong given the way
children's sexuality is being commodified and exploited
in advertising, marketing and popular culture,” he said.
In the end, however, police announced they will not
prosecute Hanson over the photographs, which are now
expected to be returned to the gallery, reported the
Australian newspaper June 6.
Concern over contemporary art isn’t limited to the use
of pornographic photos. Last year Carol Strickland, art
writer for the Christian Science Monitor, authored a
three-part series on what is wrong with Western art.
In her first article, dated Dec. 19, Strickland
commented that modern art isn’t only shocking people,
but it also leaves them cold. This is happening because
it either targets our senses or our mind, but not both
simultaneously. As well, she noted that a good deal of
recent art is pervaded by a juvenile jokiness, cynicism
and commerce.
Heart, mind and spirit
Strickland recommended instead the creation of art “with
significant form that communicates ideas and emotions to
the heart, mind and spirit.”
The second part of the series, published Dec. 20, called
for art that grabs our attention, but not only in a
sensationalistic way. “Good art grabs our attention,
then deepens our engagement with multiple layers that
expand our knowledge of the world and ourselves, and
make us see and feel and think in different ways."
These are sentiments shared by Andrew Frost, writing an
opinion piece published by the Sydney Morning Herald
April 19. He commented on a number of recent art
exhibitions in Sydney. One of the works of art on
display asked spectators to stick their heads into a
garbage bin to see a video.
“The experience made me realize that what I would really
like to see is a masterpiece,” said Frost.
Many claims are made in the name of contemporary art, he
added, saying it is challenging this or undermining
that. The reality is that most of it plays safe, said
Frost.
“I have no problem with being asked to put my head in a
bin; I just ask that once it is in there I can see or
experience something that has the desire and ambition to
vault over the everyday into some place new and exciting
and really challenge its audience,” he concluded.
Contemporary art has lost its connection with beauty and
spiritual values, commented Roger Kimball, co-editor of
New Criterion magazine, in the June-July issue of the
magazine First Things.
“By universalizing the spirit of opposition, the
avant-garde’s project has transformed the practice of
art into a purely negative enterprise, in which art is
either oppositional or it is nothing,” he said.
One of the problems in modern art, Kimball explained, is
the excessive faith in the power of human reason and
technology that has made it difficult to maintain the
traditional vision of beauty as united to being and
truth.
He observed: “When human reason is made the measure of
reality, beauty forfeits its ontological claim and
becomes merely aesthetic -- merely a matter of feeling.
“Without an allegiance to beauty, art degenerates into a
caricature of itself."
Truth and beauty
On the question of art The Catechism of the Catholic
Church notes: “Indeed, art is a distinctively human form
of expression; beyond the search for the necessities of
life which is common to all living creatures, art is a
freely given superabundance of the human being's inner
riches” (No. 2501).
The Catechism goes on to say, “To the extent that it is
inspired by truth and love of beings, art bears a
certain likeness to God's activity in what he has
created.”
More specifically on the question of moral standards in
art, in its 2006 plenary assembly, the Pontifical
Council for Culture looked at the theme of beauty and
evangelization. In its concluding document the assembly
commented that we are often faced with the situation of
decadence, where art and culture hurt human dignity.
The document observed, “Beauty itself cannot be reduced
to simple pleasure of the senses: this would be to
deprive it of its universality, its supreme value, which
is transcendent” (Section II.1).
Given that our perception and expression of beauty
requires education and is dependent on human
subjectivity, the council’s conclusions warned against
letting beauty being reduced to ephemeral aestheticism
or allowing itself be “instrumentalized and made servile
to the captivating fashions of consumer society.”
In his 1999 letter to artists, Pope John Paul II
acknowledged that society needs their contribution to
society for the growth and development of the community.
The Pontiff noted, “Obedient to their inspiration in
creating works both worthwhile and beautiful, they not
only enrich the cultural heritage of each nation and of
all humanity, but they also render an exceptional social
service in favor of the common good” (No. 4).
The Pope also warned, however, saying that they must
carry out their task, “without allowing themselves to be
driven by the search for empty glory or the craving for
cheap popularity, and still less by the calculation of
some possible profit for themselves.”
“There is therefore an ethic, even a ‘spirituality’ of
artistic service, which contributes in its way to the
life and renewal of a people,” John Paul II added.
Artistic freedom, then, needs to be lived in relation to
a deeper ethic and ideals, or else it runs the risk of
degenerating into decadence.
