• All Share : 49338.59
    UP 0.10%
    Top 40 : 3482.77
    UP 0.16%
    Financial 15 : 15384.03
    DOWN -0.71%
    Industrial 25 : 61749.43
    DOWN -0.05%

  • ZAR/USD : 11.5635
    UP 0.12%
    ZAR/GBP : 18.0912
    DOWN -0.01%
    ZAR/EUR : 14.2021
    UP 0.06%
    ZAR/JPY : 0.0969
    DOWN -0.18%
    ZAR/AUD : 9.4385
    UP 0.04%

  • Gold : 1196.0500
    DOWN -0.01%
    Platinum : 1197.5000
    DOWN -0.04%
    Silver : 15.9290
    UP 0.50%
    Palladium : 797.0000
    UP 1.01%
    Brent Crude Oil : 60.620
    UP 2.28%

  • All data is delayed by 15 min. Data supplied by I-Net Bridge
    Hover cursor over this ticker to pause.

Fri Dec 19 17:09:41 SAST 2014

'Spear' appeal lodged with censors

Sapa | 11 July, 2012 15:54
"The Spear" defaced. File photo.
Image by: Elizabeth Sejake

An appeal by the Goodman Gallery against the classification of "The Spear" painting has been received, the Film and Publications Board (FPB) said on Wednesday.

"The FPB confirms that the appeal was lodged in compliance with the set procedure and within the time period stipulated in section 20 of the Films & Publications Act 65 of 1996," spokesman Prince Mlimandlela Ndamase said in a statement.

The FPB forwarded copies of the pertinent documents and the final classification report to the Appeal Tribunal, and was now awaiting a response from the Tribunal as to the time, date and venue for the appeal.

Last month, the classification committee of the Film and Publications Board (FBP) gave artist Brett Murray's painting, which depicts President Jacob Zuma with exposed genitals, a 16N rating.

This means children under the age of 16 should not have access to the artwork, because it displays nudity.

The FPB also ruled that its classification committee had the necessary jurisdiction to classify the painting, even though it had been defaced.

On Tuesday, Goodman Gallery spokeswoman Lara Koseff said the committee had "erred in concluding that a 16N classification was appropriate".

It failed to adequately take into account that the image was published largely on the internet, and the guidelines on classification did not deal with the problems of classifying online.

It had also not given sufficient regard to the constitutionally protected freedom of expression of the artist.

SHARE YOUR OPINION

If you have an opinion you would like to share on this article, please send us an e-mail to the Times LIVE iLIVE team. In the mean time, click here to view the Times LIVE iLIVE section.