Through a Veil of Tears, I See No Porn
October 28, 2007 by VM
Dear, dear Diary,
Only now, after a decent interval has elapsed, can I face your soft, creamy pages again. Even though my eyes are red from weeping, I cannot see any rosy tint. Mistress Ruthie has decided that she prefers a hot, rigid, full-on machine to the more delicate joys which I could offer. Dear Diary, when I think of her handling that beast, it is all I can do not to send Tucker out with his trusty weapon and orders to shove it in the spokes. But I shall remain a lady at all times and none but you shall know that inside my heart is molten with red-hot rage, anger and despair.
Now then, that feels better. Dearest Mama always said that one should never let the sun go down on one’s wrath.
I know that a vast number of you have wondered what I think about the decision that Ms Goldin’s photo is not pornographic. Dear Diary, that is possibly the least surprising news I have ever heard.
What it amounts to, is this: the paid staff of what purports to be a major gallery, get a fit of the vapours about a photograph already exhibited internationally. Rather than take the responsibility their self-proclaimed expertise, and salaries, would dictate they call in the police. PC Clod gives in to his prurient interest in anything to do with the semi-naked and launches an investigation. The CPS then decides that, having already considered the matter in 2001, the chance that public mores may have become more restrictive since then, justifies a further look. But, shockingly, the authorities discover that no one gives a flying-fart in 2007, just as no one did in 2001. Oh, please catch me for I am about to faint.
In reality, what has happened is that responsibility has been ducked by everyone involved. The result is a bill, picked up by the taxpayer. Ms Kerrie Bell of the CPS managed to work out that the previous displays would give rise to a defence of distribution for an innocent purpose; namely display as art. Well done Kerrie! Only, why has it taken four weeks for a senior CPS lawyer to appreciate the most basic point in this entire sorry tale? Perhaps Kerrie was very busy with other serious matters, such as Newcastle’s burgeoning crime rates?
At least the CPS has named its decisor. The police are silent on the topic. Perhaps they are all too busy admiring their new building?
As for the Baltic: dear Diary, did you know that ‘Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art’ is an anagram of ‘well paid morons, frightened witless’? The Centre for Contempt for Art is supported by The National Lottery through Arts Council England, Gateshead Council, Northern Rock Foundation, the European Regional Development Fund and One NorthEast. Each and every one of those organisations should cease such support forthwith.
The Centre for Contempt for Art has the following vision: “BALTIC exists to enrich people’s lives with a programme that deepens their knowledge, understanding and love of contemporary visual art while increasing and broadening its impact.” Dear Diary, this is hard to understand, being written in a language known as ‘crap’ so, as a public service, let me translate. It says: “BALTIC exists to enrich the people who work for it by means of a programme of unaccountability and craven unwillingness to take artistic decisions, while still allowing them to receive the public’s money.”
If PC Clod can spare time from staring vacantly at his new building, he might try looking instead at the Baltic, at how the Centre for Contempt for Art gets its funding and whether the payments are received in exchange for promises which are not being fulfilled. Then, if Kerrie is not too busy, they could all stop looking at revealing but ultimately innocent photographs 
and start looking at the Fraud Act 2006.
I do find this this whole business desperately sad. I find it hard to believe that there are any more paedohpiles around now than were around 20 or 40 years ago. Whilst awareness of the problem has helped protect potential victims we are in danger of moving from concern to hysteria.
People derive sexual arousal from odd and varied things. Ruthie has heard that there are men who become sexually aroused by smelly shoes, some lawyers become excited by wigs and gowns. However smelly shoes and wigs and gowns in themselves will not turn someone who does not have a prediliction for such things into a fetishist.
Declaring pictures of naked children pornographic, brands all viewers paedophiles, and robs children of their innocence.
There may be some people who see this picture and become aroused in the same way that some people become excited by shoes, but no-one suggests we should ban shoes. The purpose of the photograph is not to arouse, the children are not being exploited or denigrated, but are simply engaged in an innocent act.
Those who wish to view child pornography sadly have avenues of easier access than treking to their local art gallery.
Anyway dear VM, the bike is a mere physical pleasure with which, no doubt I shall soon become bored. After I have exhausted my passions I will be content to lay my head on your bosom, breathing the sweet scent of your dress…
[...] of a possibility and that there was no threat of prosecution. Honest. This is not, of course, the first time outrageous art has been subject to twee busybody tut tutting, nor one imagines the last. Now [...]
I don’t believe that Goldin intended to exploit the children and I don’t believe that she should get into trouble for it.
However, I do believe that we need to realize that these are children. They shouldn’t be exposed. When someone takes an innocent naked picture of a child they love and protect that is different then when someone does that same thing and then posts the naked picture on the internet.
Why did she pick this picture to show? Why not another picture where the little girl isn’t so exposed?
People do get sexual thrill from all sorts of crazy things but if someone gets turned on by something like shoes I don’t care if they go and ruin some shoes. If they feel that way about a child then it’s a differant story.
So take nude pictures of your baby, that’s fine. But don’t expose him/her to everyone else.
It seemed like there was only your side of the story and people writing to you to regurgitate what you already said. I thought I would just put in a differant view.