Good lord, it should be illegal to be made to work at 8am on a Sunday. If one is going to stay out drinking at so frenchy so chic bars with handsome lesbians until 2am, it's simply a sin to force them out of bed so early the next day.
I'm cross posting today's article below, because it's quite topical and I'm genuinely interested to know where you all stand on this issue, particularly in regards to Miley Cyrus. One day soon, I'm going to write a very long treatise on the hypocrisy of Disney and their habit of metaphorically sacrificing virgins to the gods of conservatism and industry.
-----------
ON Thursday, an art exhibition was due to open at the Rosyln Oxley9 Gallery deep within the cultural belly of SydneyBut in a dramatic turn of events, the opportunity for art appreciators and the cultural elite to hobnob over hors d'oeuvres and employ nonsensical jargon about things they don't understand was dashed when police shut the thing down. "Illegal" they cried. "Censorship!" the art community squawked in retaliation.
The exhibition in question was the work of controversial photographer Bill Henson. The reason it's caused such a fuss (and has resulted in Henson being questioned by police) is because it included photographs of naked 12 and 13-year-olds.
Henson defends the photos as artistic, an example of trying to explore nature in a suburban setting and capture that mysterious essence between childhood and adulthood.
Art market analyst Michael Reid has said the images "do not sexualise the children involved". But Hetty Johnston from anti-child abuse group Braveheart thinks police should lay charges as "it's child pornography any way you look at it".
The question of what constitutes art has always been mired in confusion and controversy. Consider the giant canvas in the Art Gallery of SA. Painted red, it features one long black line down its left-hand side. I haven't the foggiest idea what it's supposed to mean. I suspect its true artistic merit is based in the fact the artist was probably paid a truckload of money so foppish self-declared art critics could swan about discussing its devastating commentary on the abyss of existence.
Ignorance of art aside, I'm not a fan of censorship, especially when it's being done to mollycoddle the precious sensibilities of family groups who'd prefer to pretend sex doesn't exist and certainly nothing shady ever goes on in the dark.
When Annie Leibowitz's captivating photo of 15-year-old Miley Cyrus (shrouded in a sheet) appeared in Vanity Fair, I was appalled at the suggestion Disney's princess had somehow betrayed her fans and must now apologise.
Disney's made a rather large fortune from highlighting the untouchable sexuality of its most prized virgins. Yet the instant one of them assumes control of it in public, they heap shame and the threat of cancelled contracts down upon her. It's society's confused fear of honest sexuality that leads to censorship.
But I must admit to some heavy eye-rolling when faced with people like Eugenia Raskopoulos, who was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald as declaring the gallery intervention as "censorship of the worst kind. I can't believe they cancelled this opening, which features pictures that are honest and beautiful and in no way pornographic".
AFTER seeing some of Henson's images, my non-professional opinion tells me the emperor's gone out and bought himself some new clothes. These children may not have sexualised themselves through any particularly pouting or coquettery, but Henson's direction certainly has. Shrouded in shadow, they peek over their shoulders, exuding vulnerability and powerlessness.
In one shot, the upper body of a girl is featured while she kneels on all fours, her head downcast. I certainly did not feel they were "honest" or "beautiful".
Artistic might be capturing images of children running around laughing on a beach, caught between the devil-may-care nakedness inherent to children and the fig-leaf necessity of adulthood.
Placing them in a darkened room and fashioning them into poses not natural to a child does nothing but strip them of their power and turn them into subjects – and to me, that is the great difference between nudes and pornography.
Censorship be damned. The police were right to shut down Henson's "exhibition". That none of his fawning audience could see why is proof the art world in general needs to get a new tailor.
-----------
For an alternative view point, here's Catherine Lumby's take. I think she makes some interesting points, but it reminds me all too uncomfortably of the recent Johnny Vegas scandal whereby he sexually assaulted a member of his audience on stage and passed it off as part of the act. Vegas supporters declared it an 'hilarious' slap in the face to the prudish wowsers sitting in his audience. Yeah. Real funny.
How have we come to the point where some people justify assault and child pornography simply because it's being showcased as art?
However, this is ridiculous:
"NAPPY television commercials featuring semi-naked babies have been criticised after claims they encourage pedophiles."Seriously?
Peace out (work c'est fini - I'm off to the hills to run about through red leaves with my best friend and look in quaint bookstores)
>I also encourage you to head over to the SM blog today. I've written about porn in rather colourful language. I'll probably cross post it tomorrow, but if you can be bothered today do drop by and leave a message.
Posts
25 apples:
This paragraph from an Age article (or SMH, i cant remember) summed up my feelings.
“It was a powerful image. I would call it very beautiful in its vulnerability rather than ‘revolting’ as the Prime Minister has done,” [artist Martin] Sharp said. The photograph suggested the girl “gave her trust to Henson … and this trust has been violated by the police and Kevin Rudd’s comments.”
I also think Clive Hamilton brought up some good points over at Crikey.
His images unsettle me. Hell, even his images of roads unsettle me. They're supposed to. It's hard to comment on these latest photos because i havent seen them all (only one nude) and, worse, havent seen them in person. I don't think a person can really judge from a 300x400 pixel image. Or whatever.
I just think this is all really sad. I find his work to be important. No one else is doing what he's doing in the way he does it. And it takes guts (on his behalf and on the behalf of the models) to push the boundaries the way he does. It makes me think a lot about my own adolescent experience, about shame i felt about my body, about uncertainty, about lines crossed and not crossed, about the darkness of childhood which for some reason people are trying to la di da pretend doesnt even exist. I think people are in denial about a lot of things. Either that or they've completely forgotten what it is to be a teenager.
i don't think we should be freaking out right now and changing silly things in our society to protect children from paedophiles. so long as children are being kidnapped and held in bunkers in Belarus or god knows where and forced to participate in child pornography the paedophiles of the world are going to have a steady supply of it. besides, don't paedophiles find sexual what normal people find 'nice' anyway? eg. little girls in cute innocent outfits. like what catharine lumby was saying about the foot fetishists trawling for cute feet in The Sound of Music. I really think she made a great point in that piece.
Thanks for those points jessica. It's given me a lot to think about. I have to dash now for my bff date in the hills, but will respond in greater detail later.
I do think we need to open up the dialogue about girls' bodies, sexuality, adolescent power and our ambiguous values within the different mediums. Photography is often uncomfortable because it seems so honest and 'real' (like newspapers). Personally I find Bill Henson's photography less disturbing than, say, a children's clothes catalogue, because it IS art, it's framed at art, it's looked on as art, it's designed to be received critically and thoughtfully, whereas in a catalogue, it's creating a sense of permissive sexuality in children as an acceptable mode of consumerism - though I can't begin to understand the psychology behind the imagery. Who does it work for, and why?
Anyway, I write about teenage sexuality. In my books (which I write mostly because I love writing and think I have something to say and for some mysterious reason am compelled to do so. Yes I make money out of it, but I'd make more money working at Macdonalds) teenage girls wrestle with their own sexual impulses, they come into their power in a world that seeks to disempower them. I write quite frankly about sex and desire. I don't ever intend to sexualise children, but perhaps some people might argue that I do. I guess the main difference is I write FOR teenagers rather than just about them. Still my work shares more similarities with Bill Henson's photography than it does with a traditional children's author.
I'd have been happier if the police hadn't confiscated the images, and there wasn't impending threat of legal action, but if instead the photographs had stimulated healthy and interesting debate about the sexualisation of children. Now it's just about censorship - how tedious.
Could I just add, being a jellyfish spine, that I was particularly persuaded by this comment in particular on Crikey, and may be wavering in some of my views:
"We've all had our wacky teenage moments down in carparks and the rest. Where things could have gotten out of control, where we're on the edge of sexual awakening, experience, danger. Question is, would we have wanted an older guy taking photos and putting them on walls... would we have really been able to make the decision if asked... Perhaps pics like this are best left to the kids to take. Then the power issue is, if not made impotent, at least less potent. (Rachel Valentine)"
http://www.crikey.com.au/Media-Arts-and-Sports/20080523-Henson-fracas-Art-the-victim-of-child-sexualisation-.html
So I am curious now as to what kind of relationship Bill Henson has with the kids he's photographing. I still don't think teenage sexuality is out of bounds, I just think that there are more complex issues of consent regarding the way teenage sexuality is portrayed in a photograph (or anywhere where the subject can be identified). I am uneasy though, about censorship, or about altering the photographs.
Perhaps I am mostly just sad that kids have sex in carparks and let some old dude photograph them for his own artistic/material gain.
Do you want to know who Caz and The Hack are from The Spin Starts Here?
Want to see them get a taste of their own medicine?
Then visit this blog:
www.jamieduncan.wordpress.com
I think Bill has a very strong relationship with his models, and their parents, knowing one of them, and having read the words of many of his models speaking about an amazing experience of being involved in such beautiful and expressive artworks.
What I fail to understand is why people automatically think that naked = sex, and that the first and only thing an image of a partially naked 13 year old can be is a simulation of a sexual act.
I do not find Henson's images sexual, but I do find them disturbing because he captures these feelings and emotions of emptiness, uncertainty and foreboding so well. In context with his landscapes and suburban images they speak about transience, and value in the contemporary world.
I also fail to understand the arguments of well pedophiles could masturbate to these images and, even more ridiculous as has been suggested in an opinion piece in the SMH, that images like Henson's groom and allow pedophiles to feel what they do is acceptable and even may cause someone to become a pedophile!!
If just the existence of an image allows it to be construed in this way, devoid of it's context, then surely family images of children playing in the water or the bath fall into this category, and parents who display them to people in their home, or share them on Flickr should also be charged as giving potential fuel to the pedophile fire.
Sometimes Clem, I think you really have no idea what you are talking about. Remember that when you write articles in a national newspaper - your opinion may have certain power - you should be responsible for that.
I completely agree with Jessica.
I think that the images are disturbing, and they are meant to be. I think people who see them as fodder for paedophiles are placing a meaning on the photos that just isn't there. I'm sure that most paedophiles aren't that interested in going to an art exhibit, when they can access what they want on the internet etc.
Besides the fact is that only a small amount of people would have even known about the show, except for the fact that people love to be outraged, and the media (and the police!), got involved. And of course i would feel differently if circumstances were different, but from what i've read, all of the children AND all of their parents gave their permission.
I'm curious as to the connection you made between the Miley Cyrus Vanity Fair shoot, and how that was her taking control of her sexuality,(and i agree that the fallout was ridiculous) but that is okay by you, and these photos are not. Can you explain a bit more about what you mean? I'm honestly curious. Personally, i think Mileys photos are much more sexualised than the photos in question. (from what i've seen)
Of course naked photos of children are always going to be controversial, but i really think people are getting a bit hysterical needlessly. It's art, naked figures have been used in art for centuries. Permission was given. We are pretty much pandering to paedophiles - seen by the crazy nappy advertisement claim. We are allowing this paranoia to invade every facet of our lives.
And Marla, you might like to keep in mind that Clementine is employed as an opinion writer. If you aren't sure, that means that she writes her opinion. She doesn't have any obligation to write what you or anyone else thinks is the right answer.
I am aware she is an opinion writer. But in large media areas I think people should be responsible for their opinions. I fail to see how that is an issue? Clementine holds other people to court for expressing their opinions.
In a national newspaper and opinion piece stops just being some stuff you say to your mates, it has weight and context and obviously is supposed to impart ideas to other people.
Also, I never said she had to write what is 'right" - just that she should be aware how her words are constructed in the media as more than a mere "opinion".
If you read some of Clementines articles you will notice they are not written just to have some opinion "out there".. they are carefully constructed to provide an argument on a certain stance or point. One which she invites comment and discussion to - and one, which has an aim to sway others to agree with or align their views with.
It is in this same vein that I think Bill Henson should be more aware of the context in which his work appears (culturally as well as artistically), and should be able to verbalise and defend his work, solidly and accurately, in a contemporary framework.
Your post probably comes closer to expressing my own feelings thann anything else I've read Iin fact, I've included a link on my own post on the issue) - that "art" should not be allowed to take precedence over all other values.
"Ignorance of art aside" eh? That's quite the aside. If you're comfortable commenting on stuff you are ignorant about, well, that's nice for you I guess.
Sorry Marla, but how is she not being responsible 'for her opinion'? She wrote her opinion (her job), posted it for others to read, is reading other peoples comments, responding to them, and taking them into consideration.
That seems responsible to me, when writing her opinions.
I don't think there is much point to the rest of this conversation. Answers to your questions can be found in the comments (not just by me) above.
and sorry - this is my more accurate blogging profile.
I actually agree with most of what you said regarding the issue, Marla. What i don't understand is your problem with someone expressing their opinion about a subject - just because they are doing it in a wider forum than you or i, doesn't change the fact that it's merely an opinion. And not everyone is an expert on every topic they express an opinion on, and i don't think this discussion is about someones knowledge of art. It's wider than that.
Anyway, lets get back to the real discussion.
"And not everyone is an expert on every topic they express an opinion on, and i don't think this discussion is about someones knowledge of art. It's wider than that."
No - but let's say the post gave Audrey's opinion about tax law, and the post made it clear that not only was she lacking any formal training in accountancy, she had never given it much thought before, and in fact she had done so little research and thinking preparatory to making her statement that she hadn't even managed to spell the key words properly ("Hensen"), then I think you'd be pretty hard put to say her views were worth printing in the newspaper.
"in fact she had done so little research and thinking preparatory to making her statement that she hadn't even managed to spell the key words properly ("Hensen")"
Gosh, that is embarrassing. No way I can really squirrel out of that one. To be fair, it is only in the title of the blog post and not actually the article itself. Perhaps not entirely unprintable after all.
From an email I wrote to Lucy Tartan about an hour ago:
"When I wrote 'ignorance of art aside' I was referring specifically to the idea that one has to have studied art to truly understand it; or rather, that those who disagree with the photographs must be completely ignorant when it comes to that elusive notion of 'art'. The irony is that there IS an assumption in the art community that people have to have some special kind of insight to be able to appreciate it (or rather, that appreciating certain works (especially controversial ones - excuse double brackets) makes one insightful). I haven't studied art, but I don't think that precludes me from having an opinion on it, nor should it preclude anyone - I've read your work before and I can't imagine you'd disagree with this."
I'm also quite sure I didn't state that I've never given any of these issues much thought before. I don't live in a bubble. I have seen art before you know. I've even discussed it on occasion. Granted, not with any solid background in art theory or a degree or anything like that to give my opinon legitimacy.
Comparing it to tax law? Seriously? Tax law is based in fact. It's mathematical and tangible. Isn't art supposed to be subjective?
If you have to be qualified to talk about art, then I don't really see what the point of art is.
Penni - Totally.
Art can express that tiny divide between you and another person, between you and a mountain range, that sometimes barely imperceptible, and at other time enormous space "in between" the gap we are so desperate to contain through love, through god, through spirituality, through art - a feeling of the connection in disconnection.
Can I also add that my comment above (in which I quoted the Crikey commenter) was relating to an earlier series of photos where the subjects were actually engaged in sexual activity. I thought perhaps marla thought I was referring to photos of a single naked girl as being inherently sexual, which I wasn't. However, I do think that sex is part of the photos. That's what makes them such powerfully haunting, difficult, disturbing and poetic images. If we simply say there is no sexual element to them, we're denying the photos their power, as well as their more troubling elements. In my opinion.
Tax law is not based on fact any more than laws about pornography are. If it was a reflection of an absolute truth it would never change.
Nobody has said you need to be educated about art to have an opinion on it, but will your opinion on it be worth taking seriously? If I spoke in a language you did not know and you told other people what you thought of my remarks, on what grounds would you be giving your opinion?
***I'm reposting this comment from Jacob with an amendment to the opening lines due to comments policy violation.***
FROM JACOB, SUNDAY MAY 25.
Today I kind of agreed and disagreed with you. While I think it was total overkill to actually get the police in and raid the joint, like it was 1931 again and they were showing primitive gay porn or something, the photos themselves don't look all that honest and innocent. The girls all seemed to be fairly attractive young ladies - would the 'artist' have gone for slightly chubby girls with busted teeth or something? That kind of raises alarm bells.
I suppose it all depends on the spirit in which the art was created, not necessarily the potential for the art to be construed as pornographic. If we were to ban anything that might have the potential to get somebody hard/moist, then knowing the vast array of fucked up fetishes that people have, you'd have to ban almost everything.
Oh, and your comment about Johnny Vegas reminded me of the Little Britain stage show which I saw last year. In it, David Walliams pulls a male audience member, hits on him and then just about rapes him on stage. It's all in fun, and most people were pissing themselves (including the gentleman at the show I saw), but is there much difference between that and Johnny Vegas...?
Anyway, enjoy the hills.
Oh - I don't even remember what I wrote that violated the comments policy. Anyhow, my bad.
Anyone can have an opinion about art. That's what it's for.
But what's not art? Were human-skin lampshades art?
No: peeled from corpses at Belsen.
But they were attractive?
Yes -to some.
How can I enjoy art -or a joke, if it needs explaining? Most people shown a single line down a canvas wouldn't have a clue what it means. I'm one of them.
Those who waffle on about 'no limits' to artistic expression are often not much good at it themselves, but they sure know what a good perv is. Poseurs for years have been going to DISTURBING films like Blue Lagoon, which gives a fine excuse to get titillated then rush home for a root.
I agree with penni: "If you have to be qualified to talk about art, then I don't really see what the point of art is."
The problem is with quacks who take it on themselves to tell everyone else what art is. Reading them gives us a headache. Without metaphor they'd be shipwrecked.
It's just common sense, you like someone's effort or you don't, you're in tune with them or your not, and what you hang on the walls of your place is your own business. It just happens that I wouldn't hang photos of naked children, okay?
Art, it ain't.
Post a Comment