Bare Stupidity
July 7th 2008 03:02
Fellow travellers! Welcome to the maiden voyage of The Snap, where you may find youself privy to some of the unhinged ramblings of a cantakerous young Australian. Be warned: stupidity, both liberal and conservative, will not be tolerated. I like to think of myself as the misanthropist of politics, an equal opportunities insulter.
But if there is one thing that really sets me off, it’s a lack of common sense. And that brings me to the issue that has got me going right now. Now, if you are an Australian you may realise that we are currently engaged itself in the UNBELIEVEABLE nationwide discourse of- get this- what constitutes child pornography.
...
For all our international friends out there, yes, I am serious.
It should be simple, right? Pornography, by definition, is the presentation of material of a sexual nature for the purpose of exciting the viewer. But images like that of a child, when presented in an artistic context, apparently absolves the creator of being classed as a pornographer. First we had Bill Henson, whose inappropriate images of children were removed from art galleries on the order of the New South Wales police force. But after the typical cries of “fascism” and “police state” from the artsty ultra-liberal socialist crowd, this month the state-funded publication Art Monthly fought back by putting the image of a naked six year old girl on the front cover. But, hey, it’s ART after all.
The art communities argument comes down to the idea that the images of nudity are not intended for titiliation and are instead a celebration of youth and the human body. As Channel 7 media “personality” Andrew O’Keefe put it on Weekend Sunrise, you wouldn’t understand if you were not from the art world. Which is fair: I mean, maybe we would all be having the obvious brain-fart of disseminating inappropriate images of children if we were ‘from the art world’.
The so-called art-world have been all over the airwaves saying they cannot see how anyone could find either Henson’s images of that on the front of Art Monthly to be sexually provocative. Well, neither can I. Neither can most right-minded people. But can any of us understand how the mind of a pedohpile works? No. Probably not. So while we might not find these images provocative, I am sure there are those that do. The fact that the vocal art community does not acknoledge this is frankly frightening.
Say what you like about the venerable Prime Minister Rudd. Some may call him the Ruddbot. Some a media whore. Some say he is a one man celebrity entourage. But at least he has this right: he has condemnned both sets of images and called them ‘disgusting’. Top marks to K-Rudd for that one.
On the other hand another Canberren identity, the head of photography at ANU Martin Jolley, told ABC Radio that Art Monthly had a duty to cover the Henson saga. True enough. But just because a publication has the right to cover a controversial topic doe not give it the leeway to perpetuate the cycle. Reproducing controversry for the sake of controversy is not quite the same as covering a topic.
In the end it comes down to a simple question: is child nudity for art’s sake any different to child nudity for exploitations sake? It is like asking whether a tacky porn movie directed by Martin Scorsese is art worthy of an Oscar. A porno with better cinematography is still a porn.
And child exploitation with better art direction is still child exploitation.
But if there is one thing that really sets me off, it’s a lack of common sense. And that brings me to the issue that has got me going right now. Now, if you are an Australian you may realise that we are currently engaged itself in the UNBELIEVEABLE nationwide discourse of- get this- what constitutes child pornography.
For all our international friends out there, yes, I am serious.
It should be simple, right? Pornography, by definition, is the presentation of material of a sexual nature for the purpose of exciting the viewer. But images like that of a child, when presented in an artistic context, apparently absolves the creator of being classed as a pornographer. First we had Bill Henson, whose inappropriate images of children were removed from art galleries on the order of the New South Wales police force. But after the typical cries of “fascism” and “police state” from the artsty ultra-liberal socialist crowd, this month the state-funded publication Art Monthly fought back by putting the image of a naked six year old girl on the front cover. But, hey, it’s ART after all.
The art communities argument comes down to the idea that the images of nudity are not intended for titiliation and are instead a celebration of youth and the human body. As Channel 7 media “personality” Andrew O’Keefe put it on Weekend Sunrise, you wouldn’t understand if you were not from the art world. Which is fair: I mean, maybe we would all be having the obvious brain-fart of disseminating inappropriate images of children if we were ‘from the art world’.
The so-called art-world have been all over the airwaves saying they cannot see how anyone could find either Henson’s images of that on the front of Art Monthly to be sexually provocative. Well, neither can I. Neither can most right-minded people. But can any of us understand how the mind of a pedohpile works? No. Probably not. So while we might not find these images provocative, I am sure there are those that do. The fact that the vocal art community does not acknoledge this is frankly frightening.
Say what you like about the venerable Prime Minister Rudd. Some may call him the Ruddbot. Some a media whore. Some say he is a one man celebrity entourage. But at least he has this right: he has condemnned both sets of images and called them ‘disgusting’. Top marks to K-Rudd for that one.
On the other hand another Canberren identity, the head of photography at ANU Martin Jolley, told ABC Radio that Art Monthly had a duty to cover the Henson saga. True enough. But just because a publication has the right to cover a controversial topic doe not give it the leeway to perpetuate the cycle. Reproducing controversry for the sake of controversy is not quite the same as covering a topic.
In the end it comes down to a simple question: is child nudity for art’s sake any different to child nudity for exploitations sake? It is like asking whether a tacky porn movie directed by Martin Scorsese is art worthy of an Oscar. A porno with better cinematography is still a porn.
And child exploitation with better art direction is still child exploitation.
| 35 |
| Vote |
