In Japan and Russia it is not illegal to possess child pornography, I will not dwell on the reasons why these countries consider it's citizens have the right to collect and enjoy photographs depicting child rape and abuse. I cannot understand how, when there is an obvious victim, the existence of a market and the potential for profit from the suffering of children that these countries can find any argument to defend the continuation of these practice.
Another concern is Japanese Loli and Shota cartoon/ animations. Loi (lolita) depicts child sex including the abuse of babies and toddlers by adults and other children, Shota is involved with images of schoolgirl and teacher/adult sex.
As artists how do we justify our right to freedom of expression and accept these images are obviously made for the sexual gratification of adults.
I will break down the argument as I see it. Firstly there are different types of image
- Images made by modifying actual photographs through graphic manipulation.
- Images made from the imagination or memory.
There has been a loophole in the law which allows digitally manipulated photographs to be fundimentally different to actual photographs. The source of these images is obviously a photograph or video still. Anyone who understands the changes in representational images with the advent of photography will understand there are degrees of sophistication but it is possible in most cases to see when a camera has been used.
Images made from the imagination or memory. In this case I think there is are genuine questions concerning artistic motive and artistic freedom. Manipulated images originate in an actual event, there is a victim, a market and profit motive, to own/buy such material perpetuates the market in cruelity and abuse.
Can the same be said for made images? there is a market and profit motive even if the depiction was made from imagination or memory. The artist might say their right to depict anything is a basic freedom. This is where freedom and context come into question. It is essential that artists have the freedom to explore the boundries of society. The work produced may shock or offend but the artist should take responsibility and explain their motives. Images of such a sensitive nature have to be justified. The artist must therefore be prepared to stand by the intellectual as well as the visual content of their work.
The cartoons and animations produced for the adult market do not have any pretentions to art, they are designed to excite the perverted desires of individuals who indulge or imagine having sex with children. There is no intellectual motive. These artists would argue that to stop them producing such images would be censorship and remove a fundimental freedom of expression. I would argue that the freedom they talk about is purely abstract, in reality all freedom is limited and maintained through personal responsibility. By producing child porn the artist (?) is feeding the market and helping to perpetuate it.
The artist might argue that their work acts as an escape valve for child abusers, surely it is better they look at depraved images which depict rather than are sourced from reality? It is difficult to counter this argument as there is little information about how imagery is used or incites action in this field. Paedophilia is not an illness but a perversion of an individual's sexuality so it cannot be cured as such, by denying any form of sexual release to this group of individuals could possibly make the problem worse.
I do not believe that illustrated child pornography can be considered as art, it is another part of a perverted market. I do not believe the argument for artistic freedom is relevent to individuals who depict these images because they do not accept their work could be seen as incitement to perform a sexual crime against a child, they want freedom without responsibility. Regarding whether illustrated child pornography provides a sexual outlet which could prevent actual child abuse? I cannot find evidence either way.
Finally I think the context in which the image is viewed can define it's purpose, Images presented in a gallery are not usely shown in isolation, the artist, dealer, gallery is expected to at the very least explain the motivation. The gallery is a cultural space, for example if on visiting the National Gallery I saw someone masturbating in front of a Rubens I might consider this inappropriate behaviour, Whereas someone sitting at home in front of a computer screen doing the same thing could just be considered a rather sad chubby chaser. We cannot control the interpretation of art but the artist can take responsibility for the reasons behind its production.
