Ian Leake
10-28-2007, 02:47 AM
hi Dave
well said, and you raise valid points, but surely what happened after the gallery employee raised the issue to authorities was not under their (the employee's) control
if the episode became a messy, expensive and futile excercise isn't that another matter that raises more questions
why did it become messy?
how do the authorities handle such issues?
who are/what is the CPS and why/how do they get to decide such issues?
who/what should decide such issues?
Ray
The authorities seem to have handled this by the book which is, on balance, the right thing to do. One can't expect the average police constable to know the background of any particular photograph. The CPS (Crown Prosecution Service - in the UK the police investigate and then pass a dossier of evidence to the CPS who decide whether to prosecute) also seem to have been sensible about this.
The lack of judgement is clearly within the gallery. And because of this poor judgement they've not only lost an exhibition and made themselves look ridiculous, but they've also wasted police and CPS time that could have been spent dealing with some real criminals.
Ray, I infer from your earlier post that you consider this person to be a 'whistle blower' not a moron. It seems to have been the gallery management who called in the police. I'd expect the management of a contemporary art gallery to have an understanding of contemporary art. And if they're involved in a 'big name' exhibition then I'd expect them to have done some research on the artist's background and all works to be displayed. It seems to me that they did none of these, instead they had a panicky reaction born out of ignorance. That's incompetence not whistle blowing.
why does anyone need to view such images in other than a personal, private or family setting?
That's not a fair question. It's using the same argument that authoritarian politicians routinely trot out when they're taking away our civil liberties: "Why would any law abiding citizen complain about... ?" It implies that people arguing the other case are criminals, or at best apologists for criminals.
In a liberal society we have to defend the rights of people 'who aren't the same as me' to do things when our response is 'I wouldn't do that.' Given that this particular photograph had already been assessed by the authorities, it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect a gallery to have shown it.
well said, and you raise valid points, but surely what happened after the gallery employee raised the issue to authorities was not under their (the employee's) control
if the episode became a messy, expensive and futile excercise isn't that another matter that raises more questions
why did it become messy?
how do the authorities handle such issues?
who are/what is the CPS and why/how do they get to decide such issues?
who/what should decide such issues?
Ray
The authorities seem to have handled this by the book which is, on balance, the right thing to do. One can't expect the average police constable to know the background of any particular photograph. The CPS (Crown Prosecution Service - in the UK the police investigate and then pass a dossier of evidence to the CPS who decide whether to prosecute) also seem to have been sensible about this.
The lack of judgement is clearly within the gallery. And because of this poor judgement they've not only lost an exhibition and made themselves look ridiculous, but they've also wasted police and CPS time that could have been spent dealing with some real criminals.
Ray, I infer from your earlier post that you consider this person to be a 'whistle blower' not a moron. It seems to have been the gallery management who called in the police. I'd expect the management of a contemporary art gallery to have an understanding of contemporary art. And if they're involved in a 'big name' exhibition then I'd expect them to have done some research on the artist's background and all works to be displayed. It seems to me that they did none of these, instead they had a panicky reaction born out of ignorance. That's incompetence not whistle blowing.
why does anyone need to view such images in other than a personal, private or family setting?
That's not a fair question. It's using the same argument that authoritarian politicians routinely trot out when they're taking away our civil liberties: "Why would any law abiding citizen complain about... ?" It implies that people arguing the other case are criminals, or at best apologists for criminals.
In a liberal society we have to defend the rights of people 'who aren't the same as me' to do things when our response is 'I wouldn't do that.' Given that this particular photograph had already been assessed by the authorities, it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect a gallery to have shown it.