Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think


Lewes Forum New message

Obscene Chair

 
1
On 28 Dec 2011 at 2:53pm Prude wrote:
Did you see it? Disgusting.
4
 
On 28 Dec 2011 at 2:57pm not from around here wrote:
I didn't - but I find the person making the complaint and censoring what I see 'disgusting' rather than the chair itself. Why can't people just live and let live - too many busy-bodies in Lewes.
 
 
On 28 Dec 2011 at 3:19pm Me-mo wrote:
I dont know what your talking about? What chair?
 
 
On 28 Dec 2011 at 3:20pm not from around here wrote:
This is the story - click the link.

Check it out here »
1
 
On 28 Dec 2011 at 3:41pm jrsussex wrote:
Quite beyond belief given what we are subjected to on TV, radio and the rest of the media evry day. I do wonder if the police appreciate the damage they do to their image when responding to such complaints given their much slower reaction to other more serious matters
2
 
On 28 Dec 2011 at 3:42pm Rookie wrote:
Some people are so sad.
1
 
On 28 Dec 2011 at 7:03pm I dont live in lewes... wrote:
Hope the complainants never visit the National Gallery.
PhilX
 
 
On 28 Dec 2011 at 7:45pm NCG wrote:
just what, exactly is obscene about it? if it were gracing a celebrated museum, having been created by some artist of renown, *everyone* who is not hindered by false modesty or puritanical ideals (maybe even jealousy?) would be showering it with kudos and accolades. i don't find that to be obscene at all. i think it is rather lovely.
1
 
On 29 Dec 2011 at 1:19am Fairmeadow wrote:
When Rodin's "The Kiss" sculpture was first shown in Lewes it too was deemed too indecent to be on public display, so was removed.
 
 
On 29 Dec 2011 at 8:13am DFL wrote:
Mmmm, I bet Tracey Emin would have got away with that in one museum or other....I wonder if we could get Laura Diez to sit on the chair in the nude as well....
1
 
On 29 Dec 2011 at 10:50am Castle Gate wrote:
And there, from DFL, is the salient point: "...in one museum or other", DFL says. The police were accusing the gallery owner of the wrong thing. For 143 years, the common definition of an "obscene publication" has been a matter available to the public which can be shown in court to have the "tendency to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences" (Regina v. Hicklin, L.R.3, Q.B.360 (1868) & Obscene Publications Act 1959). A court would be hard pressed to find that the complainant or anyone in Lewes was themselves corrupted or depraved by viewing the chair. Instead, a better legislation to try would have been the Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981 S.1(4)(b), which lowers the threshold for action to merely "indecent" (but does not define it) but specifically requires that such material be visible only within (not from outside) an art gallery. Very, very few prosecutions have succeeded under this legislation (see Hansard link below). The two chairs must be seen together to get the context of the art: and their display was certainly daring and undoubtedly could be offensive to some; but harmless in the end.

Check it out here »
 
 
On 29 Dec 2011 at 12:33pm DFL wrote:
Bring back the chairs !!


25 posts left

Your response


You must now log in (or register) to post
Click here to add a link »
Smile
Smile Wink Sad Confused Kiss Favourite Fishing Devil Cool

terms


 

Chapel Hill Lewes 20:132
Chapel Hill Lewes

90% of the adult population have had 1 vaccine already in the UK, with around 82% double dosed. It would come as no surprise that... more
QUOTE OF THE MOMENT
I like All the wide open spaces on the downs
Jojo