In the United States, Australia and Britain a handful of art museums and galleries have come under scrutiny for displaying photographs of children.
Work by photographers such as Nan Goldin, Bill Henson and Sally Mann depicting children expressing a bodily awareness have provoked a reoccurring debate cast in two competing concerns. Voices generally sympathetic to the arts community defend the fundamental right of freedom of artistic expression and emphasise that children are able to give consent. Those calling for institutions to censor art accuse artists of perpetuating the sexualisation of children and ‘playing into the hands’ of paedophiles.
A more critical dialogue on the ethics of exhibiting photographs of young people’s bodies has been hard to find in these debates. The issues are bound up in the display of their image are addressed only during crises of controversy and too often presented as mutually exclusive, while voices of now-adult models remain profoundly absent.
Among the handful of models that have voiced their opinions in media, Sally Mann’s daughter spoke of her experiences as “teaching her the power of art” and inspiring her own career as an artist. Despite the media’s efforts, the now adult models of Bill Henson reflect on their collaboration with the artist as “empowering“. It seems that within circumstances that prioritise the needs and interests of the child, young people can experience an active engagement in art that is inspiring.
Yet not every parent or artist prioritises the best interests of the child when encouraging them to model, making this a particularly difficult ethical territory for museums to negotiate. An inherent power imbalance between parents and/or artists and young people allows some to pursue self-goals over the well-being of the child.
Adolescence is a time in which young people develop their identity, sexuality and thinking in adult-like ways, *while still remaining vulnerable and sensitive to expectations of adults* but also during which they have particular vulnerabilities and remain sensitive to expectations and coercion of adults. A young person might not see the implications of posing in certain ways as problematic until growing into adulthood. *I’d suggest making a new graph here*Consent is fluid and changeable because a person’s feelings may change according to the embodied experiences of adolescence. The meanings a photograph might evoke in other viewers might not become evident until later in life. In addition, photographs are mutable and can be read in very different ways that are temporally and culturally contingent.
In 2010, Vanity Fair published an article that exposed the emotional damage caused by Pop Art pioneer Larry Rivers on his two daughters by filming them naked during their early teens. Rivers made tapes of Emma and her older sister Gwynne on different occasions during the late 70s, “sometimes just with their breasts exposed, sometimes naked, as their father asked them questions about their bodies and budding sexuality“. Although film is inherently different from photography, it shares similarities in this context in that it is expected to show a supposed reality, the true image of a person. One of his daughters later said the film, Growing, contributed to the eating disorder and mental health problems she experienced during her adolescence and adulthood. Despite requests to have the tape destroyed, the archive’s keepers of The Larry Rivers Foundation have decided to keep the film behind closed doors in his daughter’s lifetime, but insist the collection should be kept for the sake of art.
Emma’s account embodies the idea that there is something predatory about the act of taking a photograph, as Susan Sontag asserted in On Photography. Photographs can blur the boundaries between reality and fiction and assert control over their subject, by turning a person into an object that can be possessed. River’s daughter is one of few who has attempted to gain back control over her image and ultimately failed to do so. Although the embargo on the video is partial, it does not grant her control.
Consent is negotiated and defined at the site of construction of the artwork by the relationships between the artist, parents and the autonomy of the child, but cultural institutions play a role by collecting, giving access to, exhibiting and publicising images. A museum grants the image a status inside the realm of art, but also brings work such as Larry River’s from the private into the public sphere. Outside the contemplated context of a gallery or archive, there is little space to negotiate the terms at which a photograph is used. Without any right of ownership of images of themselves, can a young person truly give lifelong informed consent for their image to be used?
No research exists that can enrich this discussion and more significantly bring to light how young people and adults reflect on their experiences. Moreover, a more open and interdisciplinary dialogue between lawyers, children rights advocates, medical ethicists, police, artists and museums is needed to equip institutions with the knowledge to encourage more informed and transparent decision-making and at the same time safeguard themselves against both censorship and self-censorship. A helpful way forward might take the shape of a more dynamic museum ethics discourse that appreciates the complexities of the context in which photographs are made and is rooted in an ethic of care towards the child on display.
Ceciel Brouwer is a young academic doing a PhD at the School of Museum Studies in Leicester. Her research explores how museums negotiate the ethical issues involved in collecting, interpreting and displaying photographs of children that express a bodily awareness. She became interested in ethics, consent and representations of young people when reflecting on the impact of her own experiences as a child participant in medical research and treatment. Her research is funded by the AHRC and Midlands3Cities.
Index on Censorship is saddened to hear of the death of Eric Avebury, a staunch defender of human rights. Lord Avebury continued to campaign despite declining health and we will, in particular, remember his defence of our friends and colleagues in Bahrain being persecuted for expressing themselves freely.
In October 2014, Lord Avebury spoke at Index on Censorship on the need for “genuine reform” in Bahrain, including the allowance of freedom of expression, “which is totally banned” in the country.
If there was any room left for doubt, the closing months of 2015 were enough to prove that Portuguese journalism is facing a serious challenge from which it probably won’t emerge the same. From October to December 2015, four media groups announced that they preparing to lay off workers, including journalists.
These recent cuts are a continuation of the long-term trend: between 2007 and 2014, more than 1,200 journalists — about 20 per cent of the total number of media professionals — have lost their jobs in Portugal, according to a study by Observatório da Comunicação.
The latest round of attrition began in November 2015 when the largest Portuguese media conglomerate Impresa announced it would terminate the contracts of 60 people, 20 of whom worked for the television channel SIC.
In December, the management of Público, a newspaper, announced that, due to a predicted €3 million in losses for the year of 2015, it was launching a voluntary redundancy programme for journalists and other professionals. The announcement came with a deadline: 6 January would be the last day for workers to reach a settlement with the managers. Index on Censorship has learned from an employee at the paper that 24 people have reached a deal and are set to leave the newspaper.
Despite the voluntary redundancies and cuts that included the folding of 2, the newspaper’s Sunday magazine, the company said that more layoffs may be required to reach its cost reduction targets. Público’s management has not yet to announced if more staff cuts will be made.
Público is owned by SonaeCom, a branch of Sonae, one of the biggest companies in Portugal. In 2014, Sonae had a turnover of €4.9 billion.
Within days, Diário Económico, Portugal’s leading business newspaper, revealed that due to a €30 million debt, fiscal authorities appropriated the title’s revenues until it solved its financial problems. In a statement to the newspaper Expresso, the editor-in-chief of Diário Económico, Raúl Vaz, admitted that the “situation has become much worse and more complicated, not to say dramatic”. The 26-year-old title may be forced to close, leaving 160 unemployed.
The most unusual of all dismissals happened at the Newshold media group, owned by Angolan banker and businessman Álvaro Sobrinho. On 30 November, employees at the Newshold newspapers Sol and i were told that the company was going to withdraw its investment in the two titles after claiming losses of €4.4 million and €3.8 million, respectively. The papers wouldn’t be folded under the Newshold plan, which would transfer them to a new management entity but axe two-thirds of the staff.
In the Newshold case, Mário Ramires, then CEO of the company, called a newsroom meeting at which he requested that employees staying with the papers sign new contracts that included smaller salaries. Crucially the new contracts would offer less legal compensation in the event of another round of layoffs, according to the recording of the meeting.
Ramires then asked the nearly 120 people who were losing their jobs to give up legal compensation that the company is obliged to pay under Portuguese law. He told the departing staffers that if they didn’t accept this, they would be putting the future of the papers and their colleagues’ jobs in jeopardy.
“All companies die today, they’ve been broke a long time ago. Nobody is entitled to anything because the companies have no money,” Ramires is reported to have said to his employees. “Whoever feels like crying, complaining that this is too tough and stuff like that, it’s best for them go home this second.”
The two-hour meeting was filmed with the consent of the employees. Two days later, following a visit by representatives of the Journalists Union to the news offices of i and Sol, Ramires ordered the audio of the meeting to be published on the websites of both titles. In it, Ramires, who is now editor-in-chief of the two newspapers, mentioned his wife and two sons, who he brought to the meeting. “I’m not giving up, and even if everybody jumps boat I will not give up,” he said. “And that’s why I brought my children here.”
The Journalists Union issued a statement appealing to all the Newshold journalist to “not sign, for the time being, any documents” presented to them. However, as one employee involved in the process who asked to not be named told Index, all the journalists signed documents in which they absolved the company a legal requirement to open a bank account where severance payments would be set aside. Ramires said the company could not afford to open the account at the time and assured the exiting employees that they would receive their money in January 2016, which occurred for most of the journalists. Some of the former employees are involved in disputes over vacation time and have not yet settled with the company.
Ana Luísa Rodrigues is the acting president of the Portuguese Union of Journalists and a journalist for RTP, Portugal’s public television channel. In an interview with Mapping Media Freedom correspondent João de Almeida Dias, Rodrigues said she believes that the shortage of journalists working in newsrooms — a consequence of several collective layoffs that took place in the past five years — has a negative effect democracy and press freedom in the country. Another effect has been “numbing” of media workers that avoid raising questions in fear of losing their jobs.
Index: Do you feel that the quality of the journalism that is made in Portugal has decreased as a consequence of fewer people working in the media?
Rodrigues: I think it’s there for everyone to see, it’s not just us journalists who notice it. Consumers feel that too. For example, it’s now commonplace for two newspapers to have the exact same article. That often happens in Jornal de Notícias and Diário de Notícias [two newspapers owned by the Global Media group], where they publish the same content written by the same journalist. So here’s two newspapers, which are in theory made for two different audiences, publishing the same article. And this happens with topics of the utmost importance, sometimes they have the same front page headline. This is not an exception, it has become the rule. We’re now beginning to accept this as normal. But why should it be normal?
Index: Who is to blame for the layoffs?
Rodrigues: I’m not in a position to pass judgment, but it’s important to point out a few things. First, this is an administrative decision which is made by people who think that running a media business is the same as running a sausage factory. The level of social responsibility is very low. Then, this is possible because of the complacency that some editors, who think that there is no alternative. But if we think that two different newspapers can publish the exact same article except for a tiny change of words in the headline, then one day we may start thinking that journalists aren’t needed anymore. If we accept this now, then we may start accepting many other things in the near future. And that leads me to my last point, which is the journalists. Considering the lack of job security in journalism and the high unemployment figures in the media, not a lot of people can walk out the door from a newspaper where they don’t enjoy working. And this has numbed a lot of media workers. The things that outraged us 20 years, 10 years, five years ago, seem normal to us, now.
Index: You often say that the less employed journalists there are, the more endangered democracy is. How so?
Rodrigues: If we have fewer people in our newsrooms, then we have fewer people to cover many topics that are important to our society. And those who still are in the newsrooms don’t have much time to do their job, because while there are fewer people in newsrooms, there is more work to do compare to a few years ago when there wasn’t cable television news channels or the internet. A journalist needs time to investigate phenomena and subjects that are surreptitious. So this leads to the impoverishment of a fundamental tool for the rule of law. Newsrooms have fewer eyes, fewer hands and less thinking heads which can reflect on our times.
Index: Do you believe that the state of affairs in media businesses also affects press freedom?
Rodrigues: Yes, in the sense that the work of journalists has a smaller margin. We are just like everybody else, we have bills to pay and children to raise. And when you live in an environment where there are mass layoffs or where journalists are compelled into leaving their jobs through contractual agreements, it’s obvious that the exercise of the amount of freedom every media worker must have can be compromised. I can tell you that the current environment does not favour press freedom. It takes us to situations where journalists apply self-censorship in a way that they don’t go as far as they should to contest editorial options made by those above them. Apart from that, the pressure to publish something or to do otherwise is not a new thing. But what we have now is an environment which can augment that.
Rodrigues: The Union of Journalists have already stated that cutting an article short before it’s even written or published is an attack on press freedom that should be fought against and denounced. This prohibition by default makes absolutely no sense. But having said that, the act of a journalist becoming an assistant to a case with the sole purpose of writing about is something that doesn’t dignify journalism. But it’s still very clear that there is still no reason for a court to prohibit the press from publishing something that hasn’t even seen the light of day yet.
Rodrigues: It’s worrisome in many ways. It’s clear that there’s a certain mentality that makes no differentiation between running a media company, which means you have a higher degree of social responsibility to fulfil, and any other type of company. That’s a problem. Another problem is when one invests in a newspaper and at the same time behaves in a manner that is not friendly to the values of freedom. But I have to stress that this is not exclusive to those cases [of Angolan investors]. It’s important to understand that the concentration of media ownership is a worrisome reality which has been growing lately.
Index: Do you think it’s time for the government to begin a state subsidy that goes into financing newspapers, news channels or news radio stations?
Rodrigues: I think this shouldn’t be a taboo. It should be put on the table alongside other options. What I can tell you is that RTP and RDP (public television and radio) are financed with public money and I don’t think that anyone can honestly say that they’re more favourable to the government than the other media outlets. Besides, if you watch a Portuguese movie or go to the theatre, those productions will most likely have public funds, and that doesn’t mean that they’re acting nice towards the government. The ghost of the government’s involvement in journalism is something that should be discussed. We have to be honest about it. Why should we regard private investment as bona fide and think otherwise when it comes to public funding. This is something that we have to talk about. We can’t afford not to do that.
This article was originally posted at Index on Censorship
Beyoncé has joined an array of artists using their music to bring light to injustices black Americans have faced throughout the history of the US. Her newest single, Formation, poignantly addresses issues such as police brutality, slavery’s impact and the US government’s response to the flooding of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. However, after Beyoncé’s Super Bowl halftime show performance of the song, some people weren’t happy with her political message. In response, Index created a playlist of hip-hop protest anthems from the last 30 years.
1. N.W.A – Fuck tha Police
The second Dr. Dre asks Ice Cube “well why don’t you tell everybody what the fuck you gotta say”, hip-hop changed for good, as Ice Cube launches into the woes and frustrations of being confronted by the police in Compton as a young black man. One of the most confrontational songs ever recorded, the group was banned from performing the song on their 1989 tour. In addition, partly because of the song, their debut album Straight Outta Compton was one of the first covers to feature a “Parental Advisory” label.
2. Public Enemy – Fight the Power
With the bombastic production of the Bomb Squad behind them, Chuck D and Flavor Flav lit a torch of rebellion with their declaration that “Our freedom of speech is freedom or death/We got to fight the powers that be”. Partially made for Spike Lee’s classic film Do the Right Thing, the song’s legacy continues today, with Chuck D saying: “I feel like Pete Seeger singing We Shall Overcome. Fight the Power points to the legacy of the strengths of standing up in music.”
3. KRS-One – Sound of the Police
With the recognizable “WOOP WOOP, that’s the sound the police” opening, KRS-One provided people with a tenacious account of how police brutality had affected not only his life but nearly every generation of his family before. KRS-One even had the idea to point out the similarities between the words “officer” and “overseer”, essentially comparing certain police officers to plantation overseers.
4. Kanye West – New Slaves
One of the 2000s ultimate button-pushers, Kanye West used this track to outline what he believes as consumerism taking the place of the control slavery and the Jim Crow era had on blacks in America. Highlighting this point, he raps: “You see it’s broke nigga racism/that’s that ‘Don’t touch anything in the store’/and it’s rich nigga racism/that’s that ‘Come in, please buy more’/What you want, a Bentley? Fur Coat? A diamond chain? All you blacks what all the same things.’”
5. Kendrick Lamar – Alright
Kendrick Lamar’s To Pimp a Butterfly is full of politically-charged tracks, but none encompass resilience and strength against injustice as well as Alright. A song that’s been adopted by the Black Lives Matter movement as their anthem, Alright articulates many issues the black community faces, but with Lamar promising at the each line of the hook “we gon’ be alright”.
Index on Censorship has teamed up with the producers of an award-winning documentary about Mali’s musicians, They Will Have To Kill Us First, to create the Music in Exile Fund to support musicians facing censorship globally. You can donate here, or give £10 by texting “BAND61 £10” to 70070.
Index on Censorship is saddened to hear of the death of Eric Avebury, a staunch defender of human rights. Lord Avebury continued to campaign despite declining health and we will, in particular, remember 
