The film Cuties has raised some ethical problems about popular art. One particular problem is, where do you draw the line between exposure of an issue and exploitation of an issue? It may have been the intent of the filmmaker to criticize the sexualization of children. On the other hand, she did it by showing us sexualization of children. Are there some activities that you can’t address in that way without also participating in them? And isn’t there an ethical dilemma in attempting to criticize something by also perpetuating and even exploiting it?
After all, how much of the draw and attention this movie gets (and just look at the marketing) will ultimately be due to the “hmm, sexy preteens, that’s pretty provocative, I’m interested” reaction? It’s not just criticizing demand for such material, it’s actually benefiting from and (arguably, by advertising itself in a mainstream venue as entertainment) propagating it.
Can you warn people about the dangers of pornography by showing them pornography? I mean, sure, but haven’t you just produced the problems you’re proposing to criticize? And haven’t you compromised both yourself, the actors you got to do it, and your audience by having them watch it to some degree, in fact in exactly the ways you’re supposed to be concerned about?
Can you warn people against the dangers of animal cruelty by torturing an animal in front of them? I’m sure you could, but should you? Doesn’t that raise all sorts of ethical problems? Especially if you get paid for it? If you seek praise and career advancement and notoriety for it? That seems incredibly problematic, to me at least. It’s not clear to what degree your supposed critical intention overrides the actual nature of the acts you’ve participated in and the fact that you sought to profit from them in the same manner as the exploiters you’re criticizing.
Couldn’t you defend almost any terrible act of exploitation and abuse merely by arguing that it was really just art, and you were just trying to draw attention to it (you definitely weren’t just exploiting it for attention or profit)? Might not R Kelly argue that his actions were merely a piece of performance art designed to draw attention to and reveal the problems with the sexual exploitation of children?
That is, of course, a silly example. But the principle isn’t so different from the legal arguments that got pornography legalized. Which basically were, that the “artistic” representation of an act (having sex for money, as a performer) was not the same thing as the actual performance of that act (having sex for money, which is prostitution and is illegal). The practical upshot is, you can pay someone to have sex, but as long as it’s a performance, it’s not prostitution, it’s art (and therefore legal). So the main difference isn’t whether someone is getting @#$&ed, or whether someone is profiting off it, the difference is whether you can point a camera at it and call it artistic expression.
And there seems to be a not entirely different argument at work about Cuties. Yes, it’s a bunch of preteen girls twerking. Yes, people are going to enjoy it for that reason, yes having it be actual preteen girls means it gets lots of attention and notoriety, yes, the people who made it got paid to produce it, yes they’re hoping the attention their film gets will advance their careers and profit them, yes a lot of that profit and attention is dependent on the fact that they used real girls and showed it all pretty explicitly and deliberately advertised that they had done so. But, they pointed a camera at it and had an artistic intention (in fact, a critical one). So they can have their cake and eat it too. They can peddle and profit from pedophilia while also getting to enjoy the moral high ground of a critic.
I believe there are good reasons to think that the avowed intentions of the filmmaker were good. But the actual product produced and its effects are another matter. So although I think we should withhold judgment of the filmmaker as a person, it is in fact legitimate to criticize the film for what it is and what it does. And unfortunately, the results aren’t good
Making Nobody Happy 