args

Illegal art should be made accesible

My opponent claims that a person's right to view material should be quashed. Decide to view obscene and offensive material, and you will find yourself a pedophile. I have argued consistently that this is utterly false and a flawed argument. The following arguments spring to mind, I, nor anyone else can remember a previous period where we made a cold calculated deliberate choice to establish a lack of respect for children in art, available in an online museum. Not to say that some people may do this however those abusing children in this way have their own means of acquisition and dissemination and are not dependant upon a museum for their searches. I call on a point of order. Your argument that the proposition would encourage lewd misuse of illegal art is not entirely true. There is much research to say that it is not only nude images that encourage pedophiles. Many are encouraged by relationship and other aspects. Clearly you assume that art work will give access to material for pedophiles again not true, as seen on the above film clip this material is already accessible. I am calling for a museum, a place where history is recorded, meaning is debated and formed. Importantly Bill Henson 15 years ago produced a series of teenage nudes sprawled across car bonnets. Not titillating, more akin to a nightmarish car wreck. Some of this series of nudes are on show at the Newcastle Regional Art Gallery, where they have barely raised an eyebrow, let alone a scandal. Yet the recent teenage nude photographs caused such a scandal, only when Kevin Rudd commented publicly about his dislike about the photographs, was police action taken. His response was deeply felt and genuine, but emotional and aimed at maintaining political image. How is it ok with the public, police and Kevin Rudd that there have been nude teenage art works by Bill Henson displaced in Newcastle for 15 years, but the current photographs are so despised? He's forgotten what the role of art is in a democracy. Accessibility should be made available to the public. To ban anything in art can be both politically and socially dangerous. Any supposed moral or social offense surrounding the work is entirely in the eye of the beholder. A blanket response of 'disgust' in the face of nudity, child or adult, reflects more upon the viewer than on the work of art itself. That is, some people will find it objectionable where others won't. The whole purpose of digitisation on the internet is so users can have access to whatever their heart's desire, including exhibitions they have missed out on seeing physically because it was deemed as illegal, obscene or offensive art. This should not be allowed to stop people making up their own minds for themselves and seeing the work or prevent accessibility on the internet. In today's society, culture is very much controlled as you mentioned. Google is a great example. Our accessibility to any culture is so difficult, because of the copyright laws. It is understandable how some people would get offended by "illegal" art and would not want to view it physically in an art gallery. However the people that do see beauty in it should have the right to view it through the digitisation on the internet in their privacy. I thank my opponent once again for accepting this debate, and appreciate their insight. References For a full list of references see delicious.com dedicated tag jtc107