Australia’s refugee problem has attracted global attention. This from the New York Times.
Blogwatch: David Marr and the latest Bill Henson debate
|
Bill Henson, visual shock and the democratisation of art. The disjunction between “the arts community” and publics who aren’t necessarily normally aware of its norms and practices is at the centre of all this. I didn’t know, for instance, that all manner of cultural and media industries folk seek permission regularly to utilise schools for casting, which has been the defence of Henson’s actions offered. — Larvatus Prodeo Henson: out of touch artist or evildoer? If adolescence is the subject of your work and you are an artist who does not immediately assume evil lurks behind every door, you might think a school was a good place to look for models. Henson was probably aware that his work was controversial -but perhaps he was not as in tune with public sentiment on photographing children as he should have been, blinded by his spotlight in the art world? — Eleri Harris, Team Crikey Notes on the Bill Henson case. I can’t help feeling that Marr is blind to the depth of feeling surrounding this case in the general public. Our bodies and our sexuality is precious, and we human beings are vulnerable. It is a truism to say that the adolescent is especially vulnerable. We perhaps have freedoms to choose what we see, but we also ought to exercise our right to restraint. And we ought to exercise that right from time to time as a community: it just won’t do to keep repeating individualist mantras here. Sometimes we ought to feel free as a community to say that our commonly-held standards have been transgressed – there is no need to feel anti-intellectual or philistine about that. Members of the community have no greater right to transgress our commonly agreed norms just because they claim to do so as high-brow and sophisticated artists than do pornographers. — The Blogging Parson ABC News sinks to
|
|
|
|













2 Comments
Maher’s snooty “please listen” to Fran Kelly on RN’s breakfast on Monday morning when she was giving the book a free publicity run (no doubt to a large number of the potential readership was enough to make the gathered tribe at the breakfast table reach for the dictionary to look up “supercilious”.
Indeed Maher’s dismissal of the views of others wins him no friends round these parts - I happen to agree with much of what he says, but gee, I don’t like the way he says it.
Great plug on the ABC for the book though.
How could you tell whether he was being supercilious if he was on the radio?