Regarding the photographs of naked 12 and 13 year old kids who do you agree with PM Rudd or Cate Blanchette?

Question

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080528/tpl-uk-australia-politics-arts-ee891c9.html

Rudd said it was revolting

Cate said "The potential prosecution of one of our most respected artists is no way to build a Creative Australia and does untold damage to our cultural reputation," said the letter, which was addressed to Australia's environment minister and the premier of New South Wales state.

"We should remember that an important index of social freedom, in earlier times or in repressive regimes elsewhere in the world, is how artists and art are treated by the state."

Answer 1

Have you any idea that even as a child longs to grow up, their world is being manipulated to stunt them? None of the prints and none of the gallery reviews I read from the press indicate any non -artistic trace in their imaginations. Thought police: so exactly what is your desire by this clique-ish parade of your fear and judgmental views?

I believe if you were to see your child in an image or sculpture, with darkness and shadow, you would not see nakedness but a moment in their youth captured for the beauty it holds. Beauty is not offensive unless you are talking newspeak! Beauty excites the mind; the line of prurience is not crossed.

No more child actors in films or print media, not on the stage... when they most need creative direction to forge their futures? Fear of the one percent pervert factor did not (yet) stop people trusting the sports coach or the priest. Don't go to the pool or vacation near the beach, someone might ogle your child. Amazing how  just a few people project the lowest form of thought upon us all.

Answer 2

There is one name for it and it isnt art......................

Answer 3

I doubt Austrailias' cultural reputation could get any worse, they have the highest rates of child abuse and child rape than anywhere in the world, including underdeveloped countries and those high in s*x trafficking.

The only cultural reputation they have is one of ethnic cleansing, I don't think that counts as culture unless you're Stalin.

As for the art, pictures are like words and should remain free from will, I've seen the pictures in an article the other day and they're by no means sexualised. I feel like the stigma surrounding human biology in its flesh form is what keeps so many people developing tabboo sexual affiliations. Remember that it's adults who have sexualised those pictures, not the artist nor the children.

Answer 4

Since when has a Prime Minister/Politician ever been a critic of art?

Since when did a PM/Politician ever say anything tht was not meant to appeal to his electorate or promote his policies?

The comments are driven by politics not art.

Answer 5

yep i think its disgusting and i think cate shld get her head examined what if it was her own kids? would she not want the person responsible prosecuted? so what if he is a respected artist? its disgusting! those poor kids, its pornography for god sake.

Answer 6

The idea of pornography is to capture an image intended to sexually arouse people.

There is no room for minors in that equation.

However, art has many purposes, usually to capture imagination, an era, a mood, a society, awareness, enlightenment or whathaveyou.

Children make great artistic subjects; I'm thinking of the cherub, Norman Rockwell, or the many photographs for media to promote charities, innocence, health or beauty.

So my answer would be; children can be used for art; children cannot be used for pornography.

For the record; I haven't heard of this news story, I haven't seen any 'pictures', and I'm not clicking on the link JUST in case it contains any 'pictures' I DON'T WANT TO SEE.

Answer 7

Just take a look at the quote from the article "We wish to make absolutely clear that none of us endorses, in any way, the abuse of children," they said. "Henson's work has nothing to do with child pornography and, according to the judgment of some of the most respected curators and critics in the world, it is certainly art."

So if art galleries and art critics know that it's not pornography, it's art. Go google Bill Henson and look at his art and can you honestly say that it's not art? I bet that you can't. Jock Sturges is the same way with his art. Although, when he did come to the United States for his art he made sure that his subjects were clothed, but in other countries like Europe nudity isn't frowned upon. They know that just because someone is naked it doesn't mean s*x. Unfortunately here in the United States that's what we equate it too s*x it's sad.

Just look at the nudist camps. People just being naked no matter how young or old. There's nothing sexual about it. It's just people being free of clothing and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Art is the same way if a teenager decides that they want to participate in a Jock Sturgess or a Bill Henson photograph it's up to them and they know that they're not s*x objects. They are doing it too show off the beauty of the human body.

Answer 8

At the end of the day the photos are stepping over the line and no matter how the artist presents them they will be child pornography .

Regardless of the children giving their consent these photos are vile .The subjects are minors and as usual these types of artists rely on shock tatics rather than talent in a bid to become famous .

Social freedom is a good thing but artists should not be allowed to break the laws and cross the social boundries .Being an artist does not make you exempt from the law regardless of what celebrity support you have .

Art is something which can be aprechiated by all generations and should not be shocking ...

Art should be apprechiated for years to come ...

As for Cate .. would she be so supportive if it was one of her children ?

Answer 9

Pedophilia is pedophilia - trying to hide behind art merely denigrates art!!

The only test should be the law and the courts.  There is absolutely no need for art to be pornographic in even the slightest way when it comes to children.  If the courts decide it is pornography then the artist should be labeled a pedophile and locked up!!!

How can any artist justify images - even innocent ones - that might just push a pedophile into child abuse?!!!!!

Sadly modern artists keep destroying the integrity and skill in favor of titillation and sick perspectives.

No longer do artists represent the life and times - only their own sickness!!!!

Answer 10

I think that nude pictures of children that age are ALWAYS inappropriate, regardless of whether they are being called "art." A 13 year old is not old enough to make the decision to pose nude, or to understand the consequences that could occur later in life due to that choice. Obviously their parents made the decision for them and that is equally sick. I agree with Rudd, it is REVOLTING!

Answer 11

I would say they 12/13 year kids r in no position to know at this stage of their life whether they want to be photographed in the nude and fully understand the consequences of their action and the type of people there r in the world who do not look at the photographs as a piece of art, but them as merely sexual objects for their gratification.

Also when they r older and perhaps these photographs have been sold, they may want to change their mind, and they would not be able to.

I think any parents should protect their children from this intrusion.  I like art and I like to see people have free expression, however, not at the cost of children & their childhood. They come first.

Answer 12

I agree with Teddy, and Rudd. Child pornography, no matter how artistic the intent may have been, is still illegal -- even if others do appreciate it as art, someone will always use it in the wrong way. In order to avoid the exploitation of children, child pornography, no matter what the intent maybe, should be prohibited no matter what.

Answer 13

Nudity is not revolting and I agree that 'in a world that lauds the teen model, Henson's critics are hypocrites' as this interesting article on the subject suggests http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/la...

Answer 14

I can't see that having nude photo's of children in anyway is a good thing, whether considered artistic or not, Cate perhaps is misguided, i would not let my child pose naked, sorry but they should be protected not displayed for all to see.

sorry but parents should know better who  give consent, they look to us for guidance and to be there for them, and to stick them in front of a camera, or painter even i don't see that as right at all, they are children and deserve our protection.

Answer 15

Rudd obv

It's just sick what the "artist" has done, obv he's not in his right mind

Answer 16

It's a tough one. We mustn't forget that the child involved was given parental consent by her parents to pose for the photographs. They were not intended in anyway to be pornographic or take advantage of a young girl by the artist and all involved. The girl has said many times that she felt safe and comfortable, and in Europe and other similar countries, nude photos and photos similar to the photographs in question are appreciate greatly. I think that the real problem is that anyone could obtain these photos, and that they could easily fall into the wrong hands... not if this renown Australian photographer is a pedophile, because the photographs were not done deliberately to be pornographic.

Answer 17

Nameless Poster with the Madonna/Child avatar, I am Aussie, and you have been reported.  I don't know where you are from, but the claims you make about us are disgusting, pejorative, and without any basis other than hate.

Now, my answer.

Check out Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun 28 May.  He pretty much sums it up.  I am no prude, but Cate Blanchett's is a fairly typical answer from the art world:  fine as long as it is not my children.  I think PM Rudd is going overboard too.  The photos are not profane, but they are across the line.

Answer 18

My goodness what sort of parents do the children concerned have.  We have a responsibility to protect our children not exploit them.

Answer 19

I agree with Rudd. It is worse than disgusting, it is worse than pornography, It is pedophilia masquerading as art. What is artistic about the full frontal picture of the girl in the exhibit as shown on tv news here? Is it art because it was not printed in colour? If all the pedophiles declare themselves to be artists, can they keep personal b/w photos of naked children on their PCs? According to a school child who attended one if his exhibitions, he displayed photos of underage children engaged in sexual intercourse. Is that art or his form of gratification? Is that statutory rape of the girl?, At least he wasn't engaged in the act except to photograph it but he did nothing to prevent it. Do you want him or other "artists" to photograph YOUR children naked?

Answer 20

there is absolutely no need to photograph naked children for art sake