A NYT editorial has slammed Goldman Sachs for its role in the financial crisis, Ten must work out what to do with Australian Idol in 2010, how the media downturn will affect higher education, newsreaders get emo, and more.
Crikey Says
|
Art Monthly has an audited circulation of 5000 copies. The girl was photographed by her mother. The mother has no regrets, neither does her daughter. So far, so much storm in a teacup you’d think. But there is something disturbing in the vigour with which the Prime Minister attacks the issue of this so-called child exploitation. As The Australian reports this morning:
It seems that when it comes to, let’s see, saving the planet, we can prevaricate and quibble, but when it comes to cracking down on the apparent exploitation of a child by her mother in a magazine no-one reads, we can turn on a dime. A few points of our own: No child was harmed in the production of that image and nudity does not equate to s-xualisation. That said, the repression of art and expression by representatives of the “general community” risks crushing precious liberties to the twisted views of zealots. If only our prime minister wasn’t one of them. |
|
|
15 Comments
Play the issue not the commenter please Marilyn.
And freedom of expression is probably the most precious liberty there is.
there’s nothing i find less inspiring than ideological protest art that shirks meaningful debate through static ‘controversial’ gestures like this. no wonder most normal people think modern art is a load of bollocks, when lame, predictable stunts like this are wheeled out to “delineate the porus border between art and pornography” or some other first-year dreck. in doing so, artists, critics and gallery owners are just proving their growing irrelevance.
JamesK, you’ve directed some comments towards me that seem to have no relationship to what I wrote. I was not attacking Marilyn’s point, just suggesting that if this is as big a disaster as she insists it is, then surely she has some responsibility to do more about it than write something on this page. Her point about consent is one thing (and, actually, I think kids do have the capacity to consent to being in a photo but clearly they don’t have the capacity to consent to sexual activity or enter commercial agreements), but her hysterical statements about the appalling after-effects of being photographed less than fully dressed demanded action, not words, if they are true.
Just on a point of interest (apropos of nothing): Wrt the father of this girl in the latest controversial photograph art critic Robert Nelson wrote in The Age in April 2005, reviewing Bill Henson’s photographs of naked children:
“HENSON’S interest in juvenile erotica is not redeemed by the bombast of gloomy sites and leaden skies, nor is it compensated for by slicing up the photographic paper or dimming the lights in the installation (as in room eight) to the point that it is hard to read the labels.
Unfortunately, the good landscape work is discredited when used as a backdrop for rehearsing the lubricious display of nubile or pre-pubescent children.
With all its sublime operatic temper, Henson’s content nestles uncomfortably between the sinister and the trivial. He likes to photograph young people either in open erotic transport or as a passive target for the viewer’s lust. He does this with a long lens, where the focal length lets you ogle at the several smooch-kittens from 40 paces. It is an aesthetic of spying, granting you an illicit glimpse, as in all pornographic genres, a teasing sexual spectacle with ocular impunity.”
I would suggest that anyone who is certain ‘they are _right_’ on this issue is missing at least part of the issue. For many people, including myself, nudity does not always equal pornography. But I accept that for some people, nudity does equal pornography, and under all circumstances. There can be no solution that will satisfy everyone here.
Perhaps the question becomes: how best to balance freedom of speech and the right to privacy?
What about: we allow works of art/family photos/etc to be created freely, and we allow the publication of same once all identifiable subjects have reached legal maturity and then given informed consent.
I suspect this won’t at all satisfy people who object to the existence of what they see as pornography, and I know this will make it harder for some people to make a living as an artist, but for me, this balances freedom of expression with the right to make informed decisions as to when to relinquish privacy.
After all, great art takes time.
How mind numbingly stupid. The first debate was about the consent of a child to be put into the public arena stark naked for the world’s perverts to view so what does the art monthly do?
They stupidly say that if they are not allowed to do it to a 13 year old they will do it to a 6 year old. That is depraved and I heard Robert Nelson this morning defending this nonsense.
How the f……..k do Crikey know the child won’t be hurt at a later time? Young girls are very, very sensitive about how they are portrayed at that age and right up until they discover men and realise less is best.
Get a grip Crikey and defend someone worth defending.
Dave Liberts, the point is that a child cannot in truth (if not in law) give consent and neither can her parents for the child to be photographed nude with the intention that photo being published.
What is especially distasteful here is that the said child was then paraded in front of TV cameras(again the issue of consent) to ‘validate’ her father’s views in what was already a clear violation of consent.
That you actually “think kids do have the capacity to consent to being in a photo” which is of them nude and which is to be published and which the father of said child knowingly encourges a controversial public debate using his own child in front of the national media, disingenuously says much more about you than a mincing critique of Marilynand no “her hysterical statements about the appalling after-effects of being photographed less than fully dressed demanded action, not words, if they are true” is not relevant.
Abuse of the privelege of consent by the guardian of a child is, of itself, child abuse.
Crikey’s position is disgraceful.
Well done Kevin Rudd!
I do not often seek to defend Marilyn, Dave Liberts, but her point is that of consent.
Adults (especially and usually parents) are the child’s guardians.
That does not mean that their “consent’ is morally acceptable.
This is especially so if, as is the case of this Nelson moron, he uses or abuse his ‘consent’ for his own perceived ends.
Marilyn, you’ve got some very strong words there. Have you ever backed them up with action? How is it that this image, and numerous others showing a similar level of child nudity, are on display in art galleries without you referring this to the police? How can you walk past an Anne Geddes calendar display in a shopping mall and tolerate this (basically the same level of nudity involved)? It goes without saying that ‘the right to exploit children is not a civil liberty’, but why jump up and down about this case while ignoring much more serious child exploitation which goes on? What about kids pushed by their parents into hours of sports training, or child actors giving up their ‘normal’ childhood? Kids of certain Prime Ministers being contantly pushed into the spotlight - isn’t that exploitation? Without a bit of proportion, your comments are indeed hysterical nonsense.
On the child art porn issue there are two unrelated questions:
Is it art?
Was a crime committed in making it?
The standard answer to the first question is by definition. If the creator is an artist who says it is his art, then it is art. Public opinion is not relevant in this consideration.
That positive answer to the first question in no way excuses a crime. Public outrage does not infer guilt, merely that the possibility of a crime should be investigated by the usual authorities. The investigators need not take artistic appreciation or artist sensibilities into account in their investigation because they are irrelevant to the fact of a crime having been committed.
We could be dealing with an outstanding cultural treasure and the most wonderful artistic masterpiece ever produced in Australia, but if the artist abused a child in its creation by the normal definitions of such a crime then he/she should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
If we are not happy with this we should insert an exemption for artists in the child exploitation laws.
An art industry code is just a cop out for politicians.
JamesK, you’re just inventing stuff now. Where in law can a child not consent to be in a photo? Where does said law include a reference to nudity? Who made you in charge of ‘truth’, or alternatively which source are you referring to when you state a ‘child cannot in truth (if not in law) give consent and neither can her parents for the child to be photographed nude with the intention that photo being published’? Surely if this was the case, then the authorities would have no trouble at all prosecuting either the Henson photos or this case (because, according to your arguement, there was no consent and that would allow a prosecution for kiddie porn), when the TRUTH is that they actually can’t successfully prosecute (see, that’s a use of the word truth which reflects factual reality, not whatever you’re making up today)? Are you suggesting that the decision not to prosecute Henson was incompetence and not related to the fact that the law as it stands doesn’t support prosecution in this case? I’m really looking forward to you answering these questions, because once I’ve got all the FACTS (ie again, no making things up!) straight I will in fact change my views to match your own.
The right to exploit children is not a civil liberty you moron.
Nice work JamesK. You’ve brought the debate back to the realm of facts and reasoned discussion about them. In respect of the stuff about Robert Nelson’s views of Henson, I saw that in the Australian this morning and I must admit it made me rethink some of what he’s had to say about all of this. Another thought I had was that sees his wife’s work as being more Anne Geddes-esque than Hensonesque, but I’m just guessing. Getting on to your point about the Rights of the Child, these are well-established principles which are only enshrined in law, unfortunately, to a limited extent. I’d prefer to see more of it myself. To address your point, I think I’d consider the words of the 11-year-old at the centre of this. While I acknowledge that her Dad must have played his share of the role in yesterday’s media conference, the girl I saw was pretty on top of the situation. Some 11-year-olds are, some aren’t. As a step-parent of 4 all of whom were younger than 11 when I married their mother and are now all older, I’d suggest one of our kids would have had adequate maturity at that age to deal with that kind of situation, two might have depending on their confidence at that time and one wouldn’t definitely wouldn’t have been adequately mature. One of my step-daughters became a parent herself at an age only a handful of years past 11 and she’s handled that challenge fantastically - the grandkid is a well-adjusted healthy little dude who’s suffered no negatives as a consequence of being born to a young mum, because she’s got sufficient maturity to juggle her situation effectively. I’d agree that at 6, the girl in question would have had reduced capacity to consent to all of the details (eg I’d suggest that being a photogaphic model would have been relatively well understood, but the precise details of how the image would be exhibited would most likely have been beyond her - nevertheless, the image on the front of Art Monthly shows a similar amount of skin and the same lack of sexuality as an Anne Geddes image which are displayed bloody everywhere so it could well have been a reasonable expectation even of a 6 year old that her image might be similarly displayed in similar context, which as far as I know it has until the broader media jumped onto the Art Monthly cover). I saw a well-balanced little girl who was proud of her work and who thought that Kevin Rudd must be a bit of a clown if he can’t get that she’s not a porn star and that the image, when viewed without thinking that all nudity must be sexual, it’s quite beautiful and certainly not done to provoke (as porn generally is).
I really don’t care if this whole area becomes better regulated. In an ideal world, the principles you’ve quoted would exist in a slightly overcautious way, and kids would be allowed to just be kids. I’m calling this the Kevin Rudd Doctrine of Childhood. No commercial photography, nude or otherwise, at all. No overpromotion of young sports stars, and no accompanying hours of training instead of childhood. No politicians parading their families in front of the media to demonstrate their happy family guy image (and no need for Oppositions to bang on about Prime Minister’s children in Senate Estimates, either - if you’ve got genuine concerns and aren’t just point-scoring, you can raise these through other channels).
But no one’s going to legislate up the Kevin Rudd Doctrine of Childhood - the media wouldn’t stand for it, sports fans would be outraged, commercial television in this country would be rooted etc - so as long as kids are allowed to model under parental supervision I guess that’s going to happen. What I don’t particularly get is why non-sexual nudity has to be different from any other activity with a vaguely similar level of, ehem, exposure. Artists engaging models like this under parental supervision might occasionally deserve to be asked about their motives, but they’re behaviour is not at all consistent with paedophiles, who much prefer to undertake their activities more privately and without anyone’s knowledge. All of the effort that goes into bleating about situations which have been monitored and which have produced no allegations of any dodgy conduct (and indeed the models involved have defended their work and the artists involved) is effort which is not going into real child abuse. Real child abuse victims can’t afford for anti-child-abuse campaigners to waste time on imagined abuse. That’s a tragedy.
Well done Crikey! Between Rudd, the “Feminazi” movement and the tabloid press, all perspective has been lost. Pathetic.
I’m so relieved that there are still people in Australia (such as Maurice O’Riordan, the AMA Editor, and yourselves) that are prepared to fight for our civil liberties. And civil liberties (contrary to Marilyn’s hysterical nonsense) are absolutely worth defending.
Dave Liberts, I made myself perfectly clear. It is not a matter of the Law. If it were that simple, there would be no debate. You cannot legislate for common sense.
However Article Five of the Convention on the Rights of the Child says that:
” Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present
Convention.”
Article twelve also addresses evolving capacities, stating that:
“Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.”
UNICEF further clarifies Article 12: “Respecting the views of the child means that they should not be ignored; but it also means that child’s opinions should not be simply endorsed.”
You are of the view that this child (age11 years) could give consent for publication of her mother’s photographs of her age 6 and also, presumably, that she could consent to front TV media interview on an emotionally fraught topic.
I do not.