dc.contributor.author |
Tapper, Oliver |
|
dc.date.accessioned |
2012-07-03T21:37:44Z |
|
dc.date.accessioned |
2022-11-01T22:09:39Z |
|
dc.date.available |
2012-07-03T21:37:44Z |
|
dc.date.available |
2022-11-01T22:09:39Z |
|
dc.date.copyright |
2011 |
|
dc.date.issued |
2011 |
|
dc.identifier.uri |
https://ir.wgtn.ac.nz/handle/123456789/28049 |
|
dc.description.abstract |
One man’s art is another man’s vulgarity: what to some might deprave will to others
inspire. This inevitable subjectivity makes art a strange bedfellow of the law, a relationship that is perhaps most controversial when the law seeks to negotiate and
suppress the “affective jolt” engendered in the spectator by certain artworks. This paper
examines the way in which New Zealand’s censorship regime has approached the
“affective jolt” experienced when art deals with content that is shocking, offensive, or “objectionable”. |
en_NZ |
dc.format |
pdf |
en_NZ |
dc.language |
en_NZ |
|
dc.language.iso |
en_NZ |
|
dc.publisher |
Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington |
en_NZ |
dc.subject |
Censorship |
en_NZ |
dc.subject |
Arts |
en_NZ |
dc.subject |
Freedom of expression |
en_NZ |
dc.title |
Dealing with "Objectionable" Art: New Zealand's Approach |
en_NZ |
dc.type |
Text |
en_NZ |
vuwschema.contributor.unit |
School of Law |
en_NZ |
vuwschema.subject.marsden |
390199 Law not elsewhere classified |
en_NZ |
vuwschema.type.vuw |
Bachelors Research Paper or Project |
en_NZ |
thesis.degree.discipline |
Law |
en_NZ |
thesis.degree.grantor |
Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington |
en_NZ |
thesis.degree.name |
Bachelor of Laws with Honours |
en_NZ |