Paralysed by Prudence

Today I noticed an article about a girl who, having just given blood, fainted outside a busy department store in Perth - and nobody offered to lend her assistance. A pastor has commented that we have become "paralysed by prudence". Ah what a beautifully alliterative descripter.

Have we though, become paralysed by prudence, or is the source of paralysis a consequence of our separation, our isolation from people we know - really know like people used to know each other in villages and stable communities?

Does this phenomena relate closely to our earlier discussions on reciprocity? It would be most unlikely that a good Samaritan in this situation would ever see the lass again, and unlikely that they would get anything out of helping. Is that the reason? But then that is not new - because, after all, the story of the good Samaritan highlights exactly this situation!

We come back to paralysed by prudence. Afraid to help because it might backfire on us? Afraid to assist as the person may resent it and abuse us? Afraid to help because if could be a ruse and we'll be robbed or beaten or both? How many people do you know who would react with violence, or abuse, or theft? I don't know any. So how common are they in the community? Have the newspapers and TV and Internet reports bought it so to the fore of our thinking that we can no longer think rationally, and no longer act compassionately?

Shades of Michael Moore's analysis of our need for fear to generate our daily dose of andrenalin discussed in Bowling for Columbine here perhaps.

What can we do as individuals to fight the paralysis of prudence?

I'll commit to offering help rather than moving on by.

Censorship of Fine Art

Today in the news was an article on the censorship of a painting of a female nude at an exhibition here in Sydney. The gallery decided that the female artist's rendition of a female nude in classical style might be seen as offensive by some, so they did not include it in the catalogue and have hidden the painting behind a curtain at the exhibition and put up a warning sign. The painting is still able to be seen, but is separated from the rest of the exhibition and "hidden". The artist seems both bemused and upset.

I feel the same, bemused and upset. The nude human form is beautiful. It is what it is, and we all have one. As a picture, a portrait, a portrayal of shape, form, light, dark, texture, colour and tone, it is a representation of and homage to that beauty. As long as it is not overtly and deliberately sexually provocative, it too is what it is, a nude human form. The emotion that arises, arises in the veiwer not the painting itself; and the emotions that arise have the potential to be as many and varied as the number of viewers.

So my question is, do the feelings of discomfort and confrontation that some feel mean that paintings of nudes should be hidden? Surely this titivates instead of honouring the human form? Can those people choose not to dwell on what they are seeing? Choose to move to the next painting on the wall. What if I find depictions of murder and death upsetting (which I do), is it reasonable of me to request that such pictures be withdrawn from public viewing (think of depictions of war, beheadings, even Jesus on the cross)? No its not! I choose to see what they are depicting, and to move on. So why must we pay homage to people who find nudity, that most natural and vulnerable of states, offensive?

Pornography is a separate domain; I'm not discussing it here, and I think there is a clear distinction between portrayals of overt, or provocative or explicit sexuality, and an artistic presentation of form, althouh there will always be pieces that are at the margins. Lets forget them for the sake of this discussion and consider works that are intended as fine art, that follow the traditions of fine art and are similar to pieces exhibited and celebrated the world around - should we be hiding them away?