In the continuing Bill Henson saga (you’ll remember the imfamous nude 13 year old pictures from that exhibition, at the Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery in the Sydney suburb of Padington …) the art community, specifically The Art Monthly Australia, has fired off its latest salvo in defiance of the somewhat media-driven public outrage.
This time, in a move that puts the 13 year old in the positively adult bracket, a six year old is seen to grace the cover of July’s edition of the magazine – naked of course.
Some of Bill Henson’s works are featured within.
Maurice O’Riordan, in the editorial of the magazine, writes that he chose the 2003 image of the child (the photographer’s own child apparently) in the, “hope of restoring some dignity to the debate” and to, “validate nudity and childhood as subjects for art”.
The artist, Ms Papapetrou, said she supports the publication of the work on the cover of the magazine.
She goes on to claim, “we need to be clever enough to distinguish art from other types of images otherwise we live in danger of eradicating any image of childhood in this culture for future generations to see”.
Premier Morris Iemma ( not that I put any stock in what that moron has to say, but for purposes of the article and in view of the fact hat he was elected - albiet by equally moronic voters) has immediately threatened to withdraw the funding Art Monthly Australia receives from the State Government. It also receives more than 50,000 from the Federal Government.
He claims, unsurprisingly, “Images of this kind are distasteful, exploitative of children – a cheap, sick, stunt at the expense of a young child”. (Mr Iemma can’t think for himself though so…make of that what you will).
A spokeswoman for the Australia Council who fund the magazine, defended their decision to do so
To play advocate to the “popinjays”, (and let’s face it, with a name like Maurice, how could he be anything but…) they claim that any given image of any given thing, be it man, woman, or child, can be viewed from a purely artistic perspective and in fact it’s not a naked picture of a child they see, but an expression of childhood.
The opponents claim that it’s simply another example of the sexualisation of children and that the risk that it could provide fodder to those with less noble or artistic motives is simply to big a risk to take. Because, in their defence, paedophiles can't be identified just by sight.
They cite examples of clothes manufactured for children as young as 3, which are clearly intended to duplicate a sexy look more typically used by older teens and adults.
Then of course, as in all things, the zealots on the fringe who outrage about paedophilia put in their tuppence worth – which frankly isn’t helpful, and whose only purpose is to give the media something they can exploit in order to whip the dumb public into a frenzy (thus sell more copy - I’m not sure this motivation isn’t worse.
It seems any way one looks at it, the children in question are fast becoming pawns in the game of oh so civilized chess).
I also find it indictable of the The Daily Rag, that in a clearly transparent attempt to discredit the publication's legitimacy, refers to it in the headline as merely a “mag” like it shares the domain with a cheap soft porn one. The clear intimation.
Meantime, Henson's, and other similar works, increase in value.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Thousand words...?
...Freedom of expression whose roots lie in freedom full stop against the innocence of youth.
And at first...thirteen was the magic number; now the boundary has been pushed back further - to a precipice, from which their is no return one could reasonably argue.
Is it worth it? To maintain a fundamental freedom - a basic tenet of life. That man is free to control his own destiny.
Thirteen.
Six.
Regardless of whether or not one agrees or disagrees, these numbers demand attention. The supporters quite obviously know this and wield perhaps the most effective weapons - freedom.
Freedom cannot be denied. That man should be free is a given; that he's not (for the most part) is a diabolical travesty.
This utube video is clearly, to a reasonably stable man, not pornography. It has indeed an artistic flavour and the intended dreamlike quality certainly exists.
Yet it does comprise images of naked young girls. Obviously of child years.
And to some disturbingly unstable, whereas it's still hardly pornography, it is more than enough to inspire arousal.
There therefore follows the risk that one such "disturbed" may be motivated to do some actual harm.
This is those in protest's greatest fear. And it's a valid one
Six.
However, in what could be a smart but risky move, mirroring the original but by comparison now a little outdated, Henson thirteen year old, the supporters may have placed this new image in the arena with the hope of somehow, ratifying the original "older" girl.
Post a Comment