FREEDOM of expression, specifically freedom of artistic expression, has been the major topic of debate in the last two weeks.

The depiction of President Jacob Zuma, with what has been described as "the spear", "hanging loose", has evoked much emotional and physical anger and anguish.

Some found the work to be obscene. The definition of obscene that is relevant here, is that the "average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (exciting lustful thoughts), (that) the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable law, (and that) the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".

Inevitably, the matter went beyond whether the painting concerned was acceptable or not, and race came into the debate. Once that happens, the debate loses focus. Add to that the publication by the media of the painting, and we have a recipe for passionate, even racist sniping.

US Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan II spoke of the difficulty of determining artistic merit when he said that "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric".

A reader called me and asked whether I would have published the painting.

My short response was that I would not have. This is a subjective decision that does not remove the right of the artist to express his view, and of the gallery that displayed the painting, to do so. I used the definition above to come to my conclusion, and nothing has changed my view.

There are people who find any depiction of nudity offensive. Others see artistic expression in the human form, even if these are sexual images. Many believe that our tolerance of sexual depictions is responsible for our high sex-related crime rate, particularly exposure of our children.

I found calls for the stoning of the artist by a religious leader unacceptable. Art is meant to be evocative, but responses should never include violence, either against the artist or the work itself. It reminded me of the attacks on Salman Rushdie and his Satanic Verses, which Muslims find offensive. I did not find the book offensive, I simply did not like it on its literary merits, but millions did. Visual artistic merit is just as subjective.

A colleague told me that I needed to see the work in context - that it was part of a portfolio that made a political point. That may be so, but I still do not like it.

Public officials have always been targets of commentary through satire and caustic depiction. Satirists will push the envelope to hurt their subjects, but they also injure the feelings of those who hold such subjects in high esteem.

US president George Washington was once depicted as a donkey. But some argue that depicting the sex organs of a person in high office is taking it too far. Black culture was also invoked in the case of the president, and the question arose as to whether the artist would have depicted a white president in a similar way.

Public officials expose themselves to satire, and artists watch their every move.

Therefore they have to ensure that they do not do things that lead to them being the subjects of cartoonists.

The demand that the gallery remove the painting is a completely different matter. Defacing it is just as unacceptable, and should not happen in a free, democratic country.

The rights of the artist and the gallery were violated. Visual art has played a critical role in the liberation struggle and protest art will continue.

I do not believe that the artist displayed reckless disregard for the rights of President Zuma. Free debate about public officials must be protected.