|
Many
defenders
of Bill Henson's pictures of naked sexualised children claim that the
public (Philistines) are wrong to condemn Henson's work as pornography
because they are art. (But note
that some
in the Art world's 'in crowd' were prepared to admit Henson's offensiveness before the
public noticed.)
In making this claim they appear to be confusing two
applicable dichotomies: that which divides images that are pornographic
from those that are not; and that which divides images that are Art from
those that are not. They ignore the perfectly valid possibility that an
image may be both Art and pornography. Without getting into the weeds of
definitions, it's clear enough that, whatever Art might be, Pornography is
understood and sanctioned as something belonging to a category of
items that if allowed currency would be damaging to public morality. The
following grid shows the possible combinations
and some representatives.
The
situation is slightly confused by the possibility that the current
Australian law that regulates these things (and I will not pretend any
familiarity with it) does make some allowance for artistic license. In a
previous version of the law, I believe, a disputed piece might be given a
pass on the basis of 'expert opinion' as to its 'artistic merit'. In
that case, legally speaking, the category of pornographic art is
effectively empty. (Also, if that were the case, the public would be right
to conclude that the law is a ass.) Let us suppose, however, that the
Henson defenders intend more than a purely legal claim. How then could we charitably
interpret their claims that Art should not be restricted by pornography
laws; and could such claims be reasonably defended?
If Artists want the public to
accept that a picture is de facto rather than de jure not pornography
just because it is Art, they
will need to defend that claim. Given that they accept that the very same
picture that counted as pornography when found on some dirty old man's
hard drive would not be pornography if it were hung in a gallery
and accepted by them as Art, they will have to argue that Art is defined
as Art by something external to the artwork itself. What could this
possibly be, and could whatever it is really provide a guarantee that Art
is not Pornography? Several possibilities seem most likely to be argued
here:
1.
Perhaps it is the intention of the artist that is relevant. A thing is
or is not pornography depending on whether or not the artist willed it
to be so. This seems to be a promising line: it's obviously true that
the intention of the pornographer and the intention of the artist are
supposed to be quite different - the pornographer intends to pander to
our basest preferences, and the Artist (one is certain) has some other
purpose in mind.
But
this will not do. The arguments of Beardsley and Wimsatt against the 'Intentional
Fallacy' apply here more effectively even than in the cases that
those authors intended. Recall that Pornography is understood and
sanctioned according to its feared effects on public morality, and
the intentions of the artist in the case will almost always be
irrelevant to the effects of the artwork. (In general, indeed, we have
no access to the artists intentions, so interpretation that relies on
this access is impossible.) A thing is or is not pornography without
regard to what the intention of the artist might have been in creating
it.
2.
Is it then the intention of the set of experiencers, the audience let's
say, that makes the difference; so that whether something is pornography
or not depends upon the attitudes that the audience members take to the
experience of the artwork? That is what seems to be suggested by the
objection to the previous proposal. If the audience can be relied on not
to be badly affected by the art, not to be titillated, not to have base
motives excited, etc., then surely the Artwork is not to be considered
to be pornographic. So an Artwork that appears in an Art gallery and is
seen by the Art crowd can have no evil tendencies. Therefore it cannot
be pornography.
It
is certainly possible that some specialised audiences might be more
resistant to the corrupting influence of some works than others, but
even if that were true that wouldn't support the claim being made. In
that argument the audience of the Artwork has now been restricted to
a non-random subset of the possible audience, whereas the
understanding of pornography that we have is that it is defined in
reference to the effects of the work if it is available to be
experienced by the entire possible audience (or, equivalently, to random
subsets of it.) The claim that could be made here is that the
Artwork is not harmful if the audience is an Art crowd, but that's not
the same as saying that the Artwork is not pornography. Child
pornography appreciated by the Art crowd would still be pornography.
If
it is claimed that Art should have a special dispensation from this moral
judgement - and artists have recently been keen to claim that they are
above the moral laws that apply to the rest of benighted mankind
(especially since the mid XIXth
C, see Grana Modernity and
its Discontents) - then they will need to make the case for that
privilege. I can't see any prospect of a successful argument along those
lines, but suppose that we accepted this proposal; what then? Well, since
the argument does not deny that the State may have an interest in
restricting some forms of symbolic production on the grounds of public
good, we will need to know when to apply this privilege.
1.
Perhaps we may be supplied with an uncontroversial, non-trivialising,
and impartially applicable definition of Art that will operate as a
filter: each piece may be tested against this definition and a decision
reached as to whether the thing is Art or not and the Art privilege is
to operate or not.
Unfortunately,
given the controversy that has surrounded all previous proposed
definitions of Art, I think we have good reason to believe that no such
objective and applicable characterization of Art is to be had. There is
a further irony in this case that in previous attacks on 'Modern Art,'
where it has been claimed that this
or that piece is "not Art,"
the response of the Art crowd had been to mockingly and rhetorically
demand a definition of Art from their attackers. Failing to be able to
say what is or is not Art has for some reason been seen as giving the
Artist the ability to claim that whatever he wants to do is Art. (It
should have made Artists wonder what on earth the point of their
occupation was, and it should have made Art funding bodies wonder about
what their (usually tax-derived) money was funding. But that's another
topic.)
2.
Perhaps we can can take the Art crowd at their word then, and define Art
as what Artists do. Then, anything that looks like Pornography but is
done by an artist would invoke the Art privilege. All that remains is to
find a definition of an Artist that is not equivalent to 'someone who
makes Art.' Since Artist's are to be the beneficiaries of a privilege
extended by the State, the State will have to agree on the method of
discrimination - rather like the priesthood or the medical profession.
Perhaps he is to be a member of an official body of state-recognised
artists - a sort of Arts Academy with legal teeth. How will membership
be determined? How will Artists enjoy being organized by the State? (It
wouldn't exactly be consistent with their revolutionary posturing would
it? In fact, wasn't Modern Art largely a rejection of the Academy Art of
earlier times?) And will their audiences be similarly organized in order
to benefit from the Art privilege? A State-run connoisseur's club? All
this hardly seems to be in the spirit of the defences of Bill Henson;
and a solution on these grounds might seem to be worse than the problem
it is intended to solve.
3.
Perhaps it will be claimed that Art is what happens in Art venues; but I
think it's pretty obvious that all the same problems that attached to
Art-as-what-Artists-do will also apply here m.m.
No,
I am afraid it will not do. There can be no Art privilege in these
matters. Artists will just have to accept that they must obey the same
rules as the rest of the citizenry - and Bill Henson should stop taking
pictures of naked children.
Andrew
Bolt has an amusing debunking of particularly bad arguments given in
support of Bill Henson and the Art Privilege in Prejudices
stripped bare (Herald
Sun, 28/05/2008)
|
