Can Child Pornography Be Art?

Ontario resident Robert Katigbak was acquitted of possessing child pornography in 2008 which he claimed was art in the making. But now the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously overturned the 2008 decision and want another trial.

Katigbak says hundreds of images and video clips of “real children and real abuse” would have gone toward an art exhibition on child exploitation.

“Models should show a broken spirit, fear, helplessness — show a child w/an adult in the background (looming or doing up his pants after the abuse has occurred),” wrote Katigbak in a notebook used as evidence.

Gathering child pornography could be excused if done on the basis of “artistic merit” or “educational purposes,” Katigbak’s defense claimed in 2008. A trial judge agreed, though the Supreme Court did not, and changed his acquittal to a conviction with a trial ordered.

And it’s not the first time this has happened. At Operation Ore in 2002, Pete Townsend claimed he was researching child abuse for campaigning purposes. Opinions were mixed, with celebrities publicly supporting the musician and tabloids calling for blood.

And in 2008, Australian artist Bill Henson’s exhibition which included naked pictures of children was raided by police. Again, celebrities like Cate Blanchett rallied round. The police eventually dropped pornography charges against Henson after advice from the Classification Board.

Child protection is important. Gaining and promoting understanding of child abuse is also important. At what stage do we judge whether an art exhibition is exploitative or informative?

My reaction when I hear of stories like this is skepticism. If I were researching child pornography, I wouldn’t use a pornographic website or my credit card. There’s also a danger of attaching blame to a blameless person, because their actions are publicized.

Research, art or abuse? I don’t know.

Contact the author here: miriam@morningquickie.com