Its OK... its only art!

No pictures this blog!

If you have been watching the news you may have heard the latest controversy over the sexualisation of children. This time, an art critic father, is endorsing the publication of frontal nude photos of his then 6yr old daughter. The photos were taken by her mother.

It has been interesting to note the course of public discussion on the merits of these "images". Arguments in favor, tend to suggest that if the image can be shown to have artistic "intent" rather than the "intention" to provoke sexual arousal, then it is permissible. This is in fact how our laws work. It is only considered pornography if it can be shown that the creator "intended" it as such.

As Christians it is important to think carefully about how we respond to such controversies. We may have the right instinctive moral response... but, can we articulate it in a way that exposes the poverty of the world's viewpoint?

Notice that the arguments in favor, say that it is the "intended" purpose of an image that determines its worth/value. If an image was not intended as porn... then it isn't. This is actually an attempt to excuse art from the critique of moral judgement. It is to suggest that "art" (however we may define it) has some intrinsic value that is above moral judgement. However, to say that any human endeavour is above moral judgement, is to open a "pandora's box" on injustice. The question is not only "did the artist have immoral intent"... but rather "does the image in actual fact expose someone or some group to degradation or abuse" (even if unintended).

No doubt the mother did not have "pornographic intent" as she took the photo. But did she not expose her child to possible degradation or abuse at the hands of others? At school, children are taught not to share too intimate-a-detail with strangers online, in order to protect them from those who may abuse what is otherwise innocent. These controversies are not about freedom of expression, the place of nudity, censorship or pornography. They are about the duty of the strong (in this case the parents) to fail in safe-guarding the weak (in this case their then 6yr old daughter).