(FXI/IFEX) – On 10 July 1998, the Publication and Film Board decided that paintings by Rhodes University lecturer and artist Mark Hipper were not pornographic, following a criminal charge being brought against him by the Grahamstown Child and Welfare Society. The criminal complaint was pursuant to the Film and Publication Act 65 of 1996, and […]
(FXI/IFEX) – On 10 July 1998, the Publication and Film Board decided that
paintings by Rhodes University lecturer and artist Mark Hipper were not
pornographic, following a criminal charge being brought against him by the
Grahamstown Child and Welfare Society. The criminal complaint was pursuant
to the Film and Publication Act 65 of 1996, and had been lodged in
connection with Hipper’s controversial exhibition on children and their
sexuality, entitled “Viscera.” The exhibition took place in Grahamstown, in
the southern part of the country. The Board said “the exhibition is open to
everybody but parental guidance is advised.” Age restriction and a warning
to visitors were placed as temporary measures by the Board following their
visit to the exhibition. The Board’s verdict indicated that censorship was
not the way to reduce the terrible incidence of sexual crime against
children.
Hipper was charged in connection with an exhibition of his work which
explored child sexuality. The Film and Publications Board Chief Executive
Officer, Nana Makaula, had accused Deputy Minister of Home Affairs Lindiwe
Sisulu of old-order politics after Sisulu’s threat to ban the exhibition,
which shows child nudes. Sisulu suggested that the exhibition be banned
during an interview with “SAfm” radio on 9 July. Makaula said that Sisulu
was telling the Board what to do, which had happened in the past. According
to reports, Sisulu told the “SAfm”: “I am saying to you now, and I will say
it tomorrow, we do not allow child pornography in whatever form.” Makaula
indicated that Sisulu has a right to advise but not to impose any
instructions on the Board. The Board was made a statutory body to ensure its
independence and freedom from political interference. Makaula said that it
was an embarrassment to both the Board and Sisulu that the latter had made
such a public statement. Makaula also said that the Board’s procedure is to
wait for complaints from the public, then to constitute a committee of
examiners to investigate the complaint. According to Makaula, her first
impressions was that the art was a “bona fide” piece. She said that the
Board has been examining Schedule 11 of the Act which defines sexual
conduct.
The Board had placed an age restriction on the art exhibition, following
official complaints from Child Welfare and Women Against Child Abuse. Rhodes
University vice-chancellor, Dr. Woods, confirmed that officials from the
Board had visited the exhibition and requested that children under 12 be
prohibited from viewing it. Dr. Woods said that a warning stating “This
exhibition contains nudity and may cause offence” had been placed at the
entrance to the display. The sexually explicit sketches of nude children by
Hipper have caused controversy over artistic freedom and child pornography.
However, Hipper denied that his exhibition was pornographic and he claimed
that it was “about children discovering their sexuality and coming to terms
with it.” He also denied allegations that children had posed for the
sketches.
Last week, police investigating officer Captain Leon Classens said that the
South Africa Narcotics Bureau was investigating charges that Hipper was in
possession of child pornography pursuant to the Film and Publication Act of
1996. He said that the findings would be submitted to Eastern Cape
attorney-general Les Roberts to decide whether to prosecute Hipper.
