Delta4Embassy
Gold Member
Judge Orders Graham Ovenden's Art Destroyed—artnet News
"Artworks by an English artist convicted of pedophilia should pay the ultimate price, says a London judge who ruled that his paintings and photographs of naked or partially naked children are not fit for public or private eyes.
Painter Graham Ovenden's collection includes photographs and paintings by artists including 19th-century figures like French artist Pierre Louys and German-born artist Wilhelm von Pluschow. Those objects, as well as Ovenden's works, must be destroyed, said District Judge Elizabeth Roscoe at Hammersmith Magistrates Court on Tuesday."
Right decision? I'd say that if his own creations involved his victims, those certainly should be destroyed. But other artists' works should not. This came up a long time ago with Sears' catalogs (phonebook sized ones way back) which had pictures of children modelling underwear and such pedophiles used. Rulings then made the point that the creator of legitimate material like that isn't responsible for what people may then do with it. As here, that someone who was convicted of sex crimes against children had artworks by other artists involving children, that's no reason to destroy original pieces by other non-convicted people because some criminal owned them.
Sears thing here,
173 F.3d 28
"Artworks by an English artist convicted of pedophilia should pay the ultimate price, says a London judge who ruled that his paintings and photographs of naked or partially naked children are not fit for public or private eyes.
Painter Graham Ovenden's collection includes photographs and paintings by artists including 19th-century figures like French artist Pierre Louys and German-born artist Wilhelm von Pluschow. Those objects, as well as Ovenden's works, must be destroyed, said District Judge Elizabeth Roscoe at Hammersmith Magistrates Court on Tuesday."
Right decision? I'd say that if his own creations involved his victims, those certainly should be destroyed. But other artists' works should not. This came up a long time ago with Sears' catalogs (phonebook sized ones way back) which had pictures of children modelling underwear and such pedophiles used. Rulings then made the point that the creator of legitimate material like that isn't responsible for what people may then do with it. As here, that someone who was convicted of sex crimes against children had artworks by other artists involving children, that's no reason to destroy original pieces by other non-convicted people because some criminal owned them.
Sears thing here,
173 F.3d 28
