The ASA?s ruling that Phoenix Dance Theatre?s publicity, depicting naked dancers who were not subsequently presented in the same state of undress during the actual performance (p4), might well raise a wry smile amongst the Victor Meldrews of the world.
However, whether or not Mr Angry from Surrey really had expected to see nudity at the dance performance, some serious issues arise from the ruling.
Guardian theatre critic, Michael Billington, speaking recently on BBC Radio 4?s Front Row, appeared to laugh off the ruling by stating what he regarded as obvious: theatre-goers should be ?sophisticated enough to be able to decode theatre advertising? and therefore, presumably, to know what to expect. Well, to a point, maybe. But in this era of access for all, if we are really serious about engaging with all-comers ? both seasoned and novice ? then we must surely recognise that something blindingly obvious to one person can be absolutely impenetrable to another. If our print now requires a formal lexicon for translating itself into meaningful information for our audiences, then what hope for the art itself? Having said this, there has to be scope for print to evoke an emotion or create an image in the mind, without resorting to accurate depictions of what the ticket-buyer will ultimately see. Arts organisations often market their productions months in advance of their creation and the concepts of staging and costumes (or lack of them) may be locked up in the mind of the creator until long after the marketing messages have been broadcast. The ASA?s ruling will no doubt fuel ongoing debates between the creators of art and the marketers, who are tasked with presenting someone else?s ideas through visual images which can be decoded by all.