Saturday, December 27, 2008

Left 4 Dead is Right 4 Censors

Apparently the cover art for a video game titled Left 4 Dead has been censored outside of the United States. Left 4 Dead is a survival horror first-person shooter that follows the story of four survivors of an apocalyptic pandemic. In other words, the Left 4 Dead game borrows heavily from George Romero’s classic film, Night of the Living Dead.

The United States cover depicts the hand of a zombie (victim?) reaching up-- the thumb having been bitten off. Apparently censors in Europe and Japan observed the cover art-- the missing thumb-- as “too grotesque for the general public.” Needless to say, the thumb has been returned on cover art for the European and Japanese version of Left 4 Dead.

So why am I mentioning this on a blog dedicated to art? First, cover art for a video game is art-- depending on who you ask. Second, I find it interesting when cover art is censored-- especially outside of the United States. The US often has a bad reputation for censorship. So it is interesting that this cover art has been censored elsewhere.

Consider this an open debate about art and censorship.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
www.myartspace.com

Labels: ,

Monday, October 27, 2008

Banksy: One Nation Under CCTV scheduled for removal

Banksy and his team created One Nation Under CCTV last April. Banksy and company erected scaffolding in a Post Office yard in Newman Street near Oxford Circus in order to create the 23ft-high mural. Apparently the team was in full view of a security CCTV camera during the process. Banksy had worked behind polythene sheeting in order to conceal his identity. The piece is now scheduled for removal.

The Westminster City Council has ordered the removal of the 23ft-high mural stating that it encourages graffiti. The consensus of the Council is that it should be removed for the greater good. This is not the first time that a piece by Banksy has been removed for the "greater good" and I doubt it will be the last.

What do you think about this decision? Should street works by artists of note be protected from removal? Do these works encourage graffiti in mass? What say you?

I learned about this story on the Coxsoft Art News blog. Coxsoft previews London art exhibitions and reports on anything of special interest in the visual arts worldwide-- from ice sculpture to body painting. Check Coxsoft out!

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
www.myartspace.com

Labels: ,

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Bill Henson Controversy: Art will no longer be an excuse for child exploitation.

Bill Henson Controversy Fuels Legal Action

Australia-- In the wake of the Bill Henson controversy laws regulating child nudity and art will be overhauled in New South Wales. If passed the new laws will prevent photographers and filmmakers from using “artistic purpose” as a legal defense for working with nude underage models. For those who don’t know, Bill Henson has been under media fire in Australia due to a controversial exhibit involving photographs of nude models as young as 12. The outrage was fueled further when it was revealed that a principal had given Henson an unauthorized tour of a school-- the artist visited the school in order to scout for potential models. Henson recently censored his own exhibit at a New York gallery in a step to keep the controversy from following him overseas.

The new legislation will include a new offence involving voyeurism and tougher laws that target teachers and other adults who abuse their position of authority over children. The legislation will also include a new offence to address the practice of meeting a child after exposing the child to indecent material for sexual purposes. That offense alone will carry a maximum sentence of ten years.

The swift change in rules regarding underage nude models and the breakdown of the “artistic purpose” defense was fueled due to public outcry over an exhibit of Henson’s work earlier this year. Law enforcement had been informed of the exhibit from upset individuals who received an invite by email from the gallery. The invite included a nude image of a 12 year old girl. Thirty-two images were seized from the gallery after police shut the exhibition down.

Bill Henson was not charged with any violations. In fact, the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions, Nicholas Cowdery, refused to prosecute the artist. The 32 seized images were declared non-pornographic. However, the ruling on Henson’s photographs opened the floodgates for the new laws and the termination of the “artistic purpose” defense due to concern that individuals with ill intentions would exploit the ruling in order to justify their otherwise illegal photographs and films. Under the proposed laws adults in a position of authority who are found guilty of indecent offences against children will be liable to a maximum sentence of 25 years in jail.


Links of Interest:

The Bill Henson Controversy: Art or Child Porn?

Art Critic Benjamin Genocchio Makes Poor Choices About Controversial Photographer
www.myartspace.com/blog/2008/10/art-critic-benjamin-genocchio-makes.html
Take care, Stay true,
Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor

Labels: , ,

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Art Critic Benjamin Genocchio Makes Poor Choices About Controversial Photographer

Untitled #8 by Bill Henson

I have to disagree with the art critic Benjamin Genocchio concerning the Bill Henson controversy in Australia. In my opinion, Genocchio made some poor choices in his recent article about the steps that the photographer has taken in order to avoid a similar controversy at the Robert Miller Gallery in New York. The exhibit is Henson’s first exhibit since his troubles in Sydney. Apparently the artist has decided against showing some of his more graphic nude images of young teens. Instead, the Bill Henson exhibit at Robert Miller Gallery is set up more like a mini-retrospective displaying examples of his work from the last decade.

Benjamin Genocchio is apparently disappointed by Henson’s decision to censor himself. In the article he stated that Henson’s work exploring early teenage sexuality is not “all that controversial”. The art critic went on to say that teenage sexuality, “exists, get over it, let’s move on”. Apparently Mr. Genocchio is not aware that part of the Bill Henson controversy in Australia is connected to the fact that the photographer had toured, some have described it as “prowled”, a school in order to find potential models for his future work. The news of Henson’s visit to the school-- which was supervised by the former principal of the school-- outraged some parents and alarmed the Australian academic community. Not mentioning that aspect of the controversy was the first poor choice that Genocchio made in reporting about Henson.

In his article Genocchio mentioned a recent exhibit of Andres Serrano’s work at the gallery involving feces . I can only assume that the art critic mentioned Serrano’s work in order to defend the validity of Bill Henson’s practice and to project the idea that people should have been more outraged at the Serrano exhibit than Henson‘s current exhibit at the gallery. There is a difference that the art critic is missing that is at the root of this controversy. To put it bluntly, Serrano used his own feces-- he did not visit a school in order to observe fecal matter in student restrooms.

Genocchio then compared the recent Bill Henson controversy to the controversy that involved the late Robert Mapplethorpe’s photographs of graphic homosexual sex that had been exhibited at the Cincinnati Contemporary Arts Center in 1990, which resulted in an obscenity trial. Again, there is a difference that the art critic is missing. Mapplethorpe’s photographs did not involve touring schools without the knowledge of parents in order to discover potential models amongst children.

Henson has stated that if he observes a child of interest he will contact the parents of the child in order to ask permission to photograph the child nude. The artist has went on to say that some parents refuse while others are thrilled to see their children involved with his work. Perhaps Bill Henson should allow parents to contact him instead of visiting schools in search of potential models? Perhaps Bill Henson should reveal documentation that proves that he has had parental permission for every young nude model that he has photographed due to the information that has been exposed in Australia? Is it wrong for parents to allow their children to be photographed in the nude? Maybe. I’m sure these questions will continue to be debated as they should be.

I suppose the choice of being photographed by Henson is up to the children and their parents to decide. That is the key issue over this controversy-- choice. The parents who have children at that school should have been aware of Henson’s visit. They should have been allowed to make a choice about the issue. Bill Henson is a world renowned photographer, but that does not mean his practice is above concern nor does it mean that his practice is above the choice of parents in issues involving their children. Especially when one considers the times in which we live. In my opinion, Benjamin Genocchio made some bad choices in his article by not mentioning these issues.

For those who don’t know, Benjamin Genocchio is a former chief art critic for The Australian and is currently an art critic for the New York Times.

Benjamin Genocchio's article about Bill Henson:
Artist tries to avoid Big Apple controversy
[The Australian]
Links of Interest:
Henson publisher linked to school [The Australian]
Take care, Stay true,
Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor

Labels: , ,

Friday, October 17, 2008

Is it Art? Student creates art with feline corpse

Is it Art? Student creates art with feline corpse

Apparently there has been some controversy at Alfred University over an art student who displayed a dead cat as art. The art student had placed the altered corpse on display in an exhibit space located within the university student-operated Moka Joka coffee shop. So far the identity of the art student has yet to be made public. However, according to a Morning Times reporter the school has acknowledged that the student had posed the decayed corpse of the cat in a manner that made it appear as if it was in the process of being electrocuted by electrical wires that had been forced into its decaying flesh.

According to the article the student had discussed the controversial piece during an art class shortly before placing it on display. The piece, which was not preserved, was removed by campus officials due to concern over student safety and health within a location where food is served. However, some individuals are defending the controversial piece as being no different than the preserved animal corpses that British artist Damien Hirst has utilized within the context of his work. Maybe art critic Robert Hughes was correct when he suggested that Damien Hirst is responsible for the decline in contemporary art? What say you?

If an animal corpse in a Hirst piece can be considered art does that mean an animal corpse that has been utilized by an art student within his or her work should be considered acceptable as well? Or is it an issue of ‘good art, bad art’? Where should the line of ethics be drawn?

Link of Interest:
www.morning-times.com

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
www.myartspace.com

Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, October 05, 2008

The Bill Henson Controversy: Art or Child Porn?

Untitled #8 by Bill Henson

Photographer Bill Henson has been criticized for his practice as of late. In May of this year his exhibition at the Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery in Sydney was closed after several individuals filed complaints with law enforcement due to the questionable nature of Henson's photographs depicting naked children. The complaints were filed due to an email the gallery had sent concerning an invite to a private viewing of Bill Henson's photographs at the gallery. The email contained a photographic image of a nude 12 year old girl which sparked the controversy. The gallery, with Henson’s approval, decided to cancel the opening of the exhibit due to being the focus of negative media attention and law enforcement involvement. During the process of the investigation a number of images from the exhibit were seized by police as potential examples of child pornography. The police also forced the gallery to remove specific graphic images of Henson’s work from their website.

Local authorities and child protection advocates had strived to charge the Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery and Bill Henson with ‘publishing an indecent article’ under the New South Wales Crimes Act and child protection legislation. However, in June of 2008 New South Wales and the Department of Public Prosecutions declined to file charges against the gallery or the artist. In fact, it was declared that the photographs of naked teenagers were “mild and justified” and were given a PG rating. It seemed the controversy was settled-- until now.

After months of shying away from publicity Bill Henson has decided to be vocal in defending his work and to speak out against accusations that his photographs are nothing more than child pornography since his work involves photographing naked children. Henson claims that the girl depicted in the Roslyn Oxley9 email invite supports the image along with her family. The mother of the 12-year-old girl at the center of the controversy has stated that the photographs had captured a "beautiful" moment. Henson went on to say that people can discover that he is a legitimate photographer by doing a Google search of his name and that he only regrets the public controversy that the image has caused. In a statement to Fairfax he stated that he has been doing similar work for over 30 years and made it clear that he was often in a position of asking parents whether they would allow their children to be photographed nude or not.

It has been suggested that Henson’s vocal defense of his work was spurred by recent information involving the investigation of his practice. Late last month it was revealed that Henson had visited a primary school in order to scout for models in 2007. Apparently the principle of the school had escorted Henson around the playground of the Melbourne school so that Henson could observe potential models in order to photograph them naked with parent consent. It has been suggested that it would be wise for Henson to allow parents to contact him directly about photographing their children nude instead of 'prowling' for talent at primary school playgrounds. Needless to say, this new information has angered parents who have since demanded action from their government.

The outraged parents have stated that Henson’s visit to the school was a betrayal of trust. The fury of anger has provoked a response from authorities against Henson and the principal. The principal of the school in question has since been reprimanded by officials for allowing Henson into the school and is now working at another location. Education Minister Julia Gillard stated that nobody should be allowed into schools without a legitimate purpose upon learning of Henson’s visit. Victorian Premier John Brumby announced an investigation into the fresh controversy and told Melbourne reporters that an individual walking through the school grounds in order to view children as potential nude models is “inappropriate”. Needless to say, the situation does not look good for Bill Henson and the validity of his work.

In recent years the charges against world renowned photographers who photograph nude children has reached a boiling point. In the eyes of child advocates the fact that an artist has exhibited in prestigious galleries and museums does not make photographs involving nude children anymore legitimate than child pornography. You may recall that in 2007 an exhibit of Nan Goldin’s photographs were seized from the collection of Sir Elton John due to similar charges that Bill Henson is now facing. Do these works walk a fine line between artistic freedom and exploitation?

What are your thoughts concerning photographs of nude children for the purpose of art? Are these works legitimate or should artists like Bill Henson be charged with crimes? Do parents, by giving consent for these images, violate the rights of their own children? Should the ability for parents to give consent in this manner be terminated? Should laws and penalties be in place in order to halt works of this nature from being exhibited in galleries and museums? Should museums lose government funding for supporting artists like Bill Henson? Should Henson have to provide information that proves parental consent for all of his known works involving nude children? Or is this controversy nothing more than censorship? What say you?

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
www.myartspace.com

Labels: , ,