The Moral Equivalent of Adolf Hitler?

One article alleging that Larry Rivers' film was "child pornography" wasn't enough.

Then came the follow-up -- not comments on the New York Times website where a diversity of views would certainly be expressed -- but one Op-Ed piece and one letter chosen by the New York Times to represent a particular viewpoint.

In the Op-Ed piece, Dani Shapiro took the position that there is no issue of any importance here, just a victim victimized by dirty pictures taken by her father. In the letter dated July 21st, the writer claimed outright that the film is "child pornography." Yet neither of these chosen writers have ever even seen a single frame of the film. This is how the Times vilifies by proxy. The Times fears that it will take a lot of flack from the art community and intellectuals if it expresses these ideas itself, so it has guest opinions do it. Bravo.

Actually, the July 21st letter took matters even further. Not only was Rivers' film called "child pornography," but Rivers was compared to Hitler and Stalin.

QUOTE: "The movies of Larry Rivers amount to child pornography using his own daughters and should influence the view of such work as “art.” (New York University has wisely declined to accept the films from the Larry Rivers Foundation.) When an artist puts his or her gifts at the service of immoral ends, shouldn’t we reconsider our opinion of that artist’s thinking, the value of his or her contribution to civilization? What about artists and writers who were devoted supporters of mass murderers like Hitler and Stalin? Should they retain their artistic standing?" UNQUOTE

This is idiotic. It's easy for hyper-moralists to sit around in 2010 and decide that Rivers should have listened to his daughter's complaint(s) or seen her discomfort, but no one knows the context in which any of that occurred, where Rivers' wife stood on the matter at the time, or anything about the family dynamics. We do know that in the mid- to late-70s things were quite different. It was a sexually more open time. Some artists did extreme things. Do you think that Pretty Baby could be made today? Or Garry Gross's photos of Brooke Shields? Does anyone remember Jackie Livingston making art out of photos of her son masturbating? There was a flap even then, but she didn't go to jail.

Playing the Hitler card is something only people with NO sense of perspective -- or history -- do.

Moreover, despite what Dani Shapiro says, she DOES advocate a slippery slope. Are we now to start destroying artwork whenever someone objects to being portrayed in it? What about Lewis Carroll, who used his art to get close to little girls? Shall we ignore his photography and writings? (The constant backpedaling by academia claiming that Carroll wasn't a "pedophile" is funny, if not pathetic.) Shall we stop listening to the music of Phil Spector because he's a murderer? (Or Gary Glitter for that matter.) Is Road Warrior suddenly a terrible film because Mel Gibson hates Jews? (Or is it a terrible film for artistic reasons?)

Ironically, there is NOW one very good reason for the Larry Rivers Foundation to preserve the film for posterity, suppressing it only for the disgruntled daughter's life: to vindicate Rivers of charges of being a "child pornographer," the moral equivalent of ADOLF HITLER.