Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rights of artist vs rights of subjects

Rate this topic


SapereAude
 Share

Recommended Posts

You must justify that nude art is pornography, and then we talk the moral debate. So long as the children were not subjected to unwelcome sexual treatment (in this case they were merely photographed for artistic purposes) no evident crime is identifiable. You may argue that someone out there inevitably will use it for sexual purposes, but that indeed has no bearing on whether or not the artist is at fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The woman, now an adult says her father (the artist) forced this upon her. Forcing her to expose herself so he could take close up pictures of her genitals.

That begs the question... couldn't any pervert do this and call it art? How many paintings, photographs or sculptures does one need to sell before anything goes with children in the name of art?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason why the government isn't all over this is that it (apparently) doesn't satisfy the requirements of pornography, which requires sexually explicit content. The issue reduces to the fact that Rivers abused his parental privilege and responsibility, to act as the custodian of the child's rights. So now we have a problem of "poison fruit" like the problem of medical data obtained from Nazi doctors in the death camps. Despite his moral obligation to obtain consent from his victims, he didn't do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason why the government isn't all over this is that it (apparently) doesn't satisfy the requirements of pornography, which requires sexually explicit content. The issue reduces to the fact that Rivers abused his parental privilege and responsibility, to act as the custodian of the child's rights. So now we have a problem of "poison fruit" like the problem of medical data obtained from Nazi doctors in the death camps. Despite his moral obligation to obtain consent from his victims, he didn't do so.

Then that gets to the issue of the article.

The art is now privately owned by a foundation that wanted to display it.

The victim sued to keep the photos from being displayed and ultimately wants them to be destroyed.

My opinion is that since the resulting "art" is a direct result of the victim's abuse at the hands of her parent her desires should trump that of private ownership since the "arts" existence is a continuing violation of her rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion is that since the resulting "art" is a direct result of the victim's abuse at the hands of her parent her desires should trump that of private ownership since the "arts" existence is a continuing violation of her rights.
The problem is that the law has not properly worked out the relationship between privacy and property. As a starting point, presumably it's obvious that you can't rightly photograph a woman in the nude without her permission (though I imagine that point could confuse some libertarians), and this is regardless of whether you want to classify the photo as porn or art. The subject of a photograph has a property interest in the result, which they may just waive, or they may sell for money. In this instance, there was no waiver or transfer of the property interest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...