Obscenity, morality and emotivism

Is the undoctored version of this picture (via) by Nan Goldin, taken from the Baltic Centre, obscene? For me, the question raises lots of awkward general philosophical questions.
One set was raised by Richard Cork on Radio 4’s Front Row. He said (around 5 min in):

If I found it on the internet, I’d go completely berserk…but context is all.

My immediate reaction was that this is unacceptable in two ways. First, it’s an anti-democratic and elitist attempt to claim a “benefit of clergy” of the sort Orwell deplored in supporters of Salvador Dali:

The artist is to be exempt from the moral laws that are binding on ordinary people. Just pronounce the magic word ‘art’ and everything is OK.

And secondly, “context is all“ is a slippery slope which leads to a moral relativism in which anything goes: stoning gays is acceptable in the context of a fundamentalist Islamic society.
But are these reactions legitimate? Many occupations need some form of “benefit of clergy.” We don’t judge soldiers in the way we would judge ordinary killers; context is all on the battlefield. And sexuality is often about context: there’s a difference between a woman going topless on a beach and on the street, a difference between a parent’s photo of their children and child porn.
So, perhaps context is all in some cases. In which case there is a space in which moral relativism is legitimate. But how do we mark the boundaries of this space?
I’ve got other questions.
1. How far are we responsible for the effects of our actions? Ms Goldin’s motives (and mine) in displaying this picture were wholly innocent. But it’s obvious that the picture can be used in ways almost all of us would find distasteful or immoral. Is Ms Goldin responsible for this wholly foreseeable effect of her work? If not why not?
2. Do our visceral reactions matter? My instinctive response to this picture is revulsion and discomfort. But is this a meaningful reaction? Why are my feelings important? Or is it that I just lack sophisticated aesthetic judgment? Or is it instead that supporters of this work are themselves just striking a posture of what Fabian calls pseudo-iconoclasm, an empty and phoney “challenging” and “transgressing” our sensibilities?
3. Might there be a genuine conflict between aesthetic and moral values - that something can be morally horrible and yet good art ? Might it be that our “want it all” mentality stops us seeing this trade-off, as Bryan Ferry discovered a few months ago?  Or should it be that aesthetics really should be subordinated to moral values? And if the answer’s “sometimes” how do we decide what those times are?
I’ve no idea what the answers are here. But I know that the picture raises them. And I suspect our culture, with its debased emotivist moral language, is incapable of answering them.

Comments

[Marcin Tustin]

The real question is why is this morally reprehensible? Even if it is, then we need to remain that this is in the political and legal sphere - the question is not whether "art" makes it morally justifiable, but whether the law should allow it despite its moral reprehensibility.

I don't need to spell out how this relates to the purpose and value of liberalism.

[john b]

while I'm agreed with you that the fuss is bizarre and mental, in these bizarre and mental times I'm not sure that even the censored version of that pic belongs on your front page without a disclaimer...

[JH]

Personally, I think whether such a photo is acceptable or not depends upon whether the kids in it are being exploited or abused, which - in my view - is not the case here. Therefore it is perfectly acceptable, even if you do find it revolting and discomforting.

[Katherine]

I find it extremely troubling that now it seems that any picture of a naked small child could be perceived as possibly pornographic. It turns the whole idea of naked children into something sexual when by definition it absolutely shouldn't be. By worrying that it could be taken as sexual, you thereby make it sexual. It's the same sort of mentality that says breastfeeding should be out of sight.

[Chris Williams]

I'm with Katherine. I see naked small children every day. That's cos I'm a parent. Big deal. Personally I think that by trying censor this stuff, we are actually arguing that it's sexual, when to my mind it's not.

[Sam]

What Chris said. Small naked girls are quite a common sight around my house, too. Kids like being naked. They don't have body issues. A small girl's vulva appearing in a photo of some girls playing is no more sexual than a small girl's mouth appearing in a photo.

I don't find that photo at all uncomfortable.
Take the photo, and crop it to give a closeup of the little girl's crotch with legs spread, and I would suddenly become a lot uncomfortable - you have changed the focus from "here are some little girls playing" to "get a load of these prepubescent genitals".

Of course, I don't find the photo very artistic, either. If they were my kids, it would be a cute snapshot in a family album, but as they're not, I have no interest in it. It seems to me to have no aesthetic merit.

Given that Mr. John paid money for the photo, apparently he thinks differently. That's allowed...

[chris strange]

A not particularly good photo of some girls playing, what exactly is the fuss about?

[LivePaola]

A comment by journalist Jen Graves sums it up: "I come to my senses. She's at home, playing with a friend and laughing. She's fine. I'm the one who's afraid."

[Le Poulet Noir]

The legal, not moral, test is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the image could be used for titillation (or in the language of the obscenity laws, whether it is likely to "deprave" or "corrupt").

The moral test is whether the artist is responsible for other people being titillated by it. I would argue that she is, on the basis that, in the era of mobile phone cameras and the internet, this image could easily be presented in a pornographic context and would probably have currency among people who derive sexual pleasure from that sort of thing.

This does not equate to a call to ban the photo, merely that the artist should ensure that the work can only be seen in certain contexts (by insisting, say, on no cameras being allowed in the exhibition).

Those commenting here have argued that they personally do not find the image sexual, and that therefore it is alright to show it. Is this more valid than a response from someone saying they find something offensive, and therefore it should be banned?

[Katherine]

No, Le Poulet Noir, you've kind of missed my point. I do not personally find this image sexual, but that is not the basis of my argument. My argument is that the simple act of arguing brings up the spectre of it being sexual.

And your argument about whether something is "titillating" is not the same as whether something is likely to deprave or corrupt, I'm afraid. If something is to be disapproved of because someone, somewhere could find it titillating then all photographs of anything, enywhere would fall within that definition; there is a fetish for everything.