The visual arts community has been the source and centre of controversy for many centuries. Beginning from the 16th century, artwork has continuously fell victim to destruction and restriction for the purpose of censorship; a protective measure set in place to regulate representations that are too radically departed from morality and aesthetic convention. Not much has changed over the numerous decades leading to the present era, as controversial art pieces dealing with obscene subject matter are questioned and criminally tried for the purpose of determining their constitutionality under Section 2(b) of the Canadian Carter of Rights and Freedoms; the Freedom of Expression. However, this raises the question: To what extent should the Canadian
…show more content…
The depiction of art and its creation has drastically changed over time, especially with the evolutionary artistic movements that set the directional quality of art’s manifestation. Today, artists employ a variety of techniques, some of which distort and abstract the subject matter in such a fashion that the interpretation of the meaning, intention, and subject matter of the artwork varies greatly from person to person; as each person’s personal life experiences and exposure to the arts community differ, as well. Although the concept of art is subjective, the Canadian government continuously attempts to censor expressions that encompass sexually explicit material and the obscene, especially those that concern the depiction of minors in a pornographic setting. However, this brings forth the challenge of determining whether this content has an artistic merit, and therefore; constitutional under the Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter. According to Brenda Cossman and her book, “Censorship and the Arts,” she stated that, “the assessment of artistic merit currently surrounds the role and purpose of the artwork in question; whether the role and purpose is to provide a different perspective to the community, giving rise to a necessity to provoke and/or confront the viewer.” Although this assessment, also known as the “Obscenity Test,” assists in categorizing artwork as harmful or beneficial to society, this evaluation has not eliminated the subjective and moralistic elements of the law. The courts cannot help but continue to make judgements concerning the legitimate and illegitimate sexual representation based on their own “subjective understanding of appropriate sexual norms and values,” (Cossman). As a result, all sexually explicit artwork are “suspect” to immoral or obscene charges. An example includes the case, Regina v. Cameron, [1966], where
The depiction of art and its creation has drastically changed over time, especially with the evolutionary artistic movements that set the directional quality of art’s manifestation. Today, artists employ a variety of techniques, some of which distort and abstract the subject matter in such a fashion that the interpretation of the meaning, intention, and subject matter of the artwork varies greatly from person to person; as each person’s personal life experiences and exposure to the arts community differ, as well. Although the concept of art is subjective, the Canadian government continuously attempts to censor expressions that encompass sexually explicit material and the obscene, especially those that concern the depiction of minors in a pornographic setting. However, this brings forth the challenge of determining whether this content has an artistic merit, and therefore; constitutional under the Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter. According to Brenda Cossman and her book, “Censorship and the Arts,” she stated that, “the assessment of artistic merit currently surrounds the role and purpose of the artwork in question; whether the role and purpose is to provide a different perspective to the community, giving rise to a necessity to provoke and/or confront the viewer.” Although this assessment, also known as the “Obscenity Test,” assists in categorizing artwork as harmful or beneficial to society, this evaluation has not eliminated the subjective and moralistic elements of the law. The courts cannot help but continue to make judgements concerning the legitimate and illegitimate sexual representation based on their own “subjective understanding of appropriate sexual norms and values,” (Cossman). As a result, all sexually explicit artwork are “suspect” to immoral or obscene charges. An example includes the case, Regina v. Cameron, [1966], where