Art Monthly Australia
There has been a lot of media attention here recently around issues of child images, "corporate paedophilia" and art. Bill Henson's exhibition was shut down in May before it opened due to including images of a naked 13 year old girl.
Art Monthly Australia (July Issue) has just released it's July issue. The cover is shown. It's a current subject of controversy.
The girl's father has defended the whole thing by saying that we are inadvertently encouraging a "higher level of repression" by not embracing this as art. "We have art to liberate the mind.."
I agree repression is problematic and that art (can, though no guarantee's) liberate the mind.
The girl's father goes on to say that he has a fear: "That artists will desert the field of childhood...and I think that is going to be a really sad cultural development for this country".
The girl's father is a wanker. The only sad cultural development we have to fear is that this dickhead gets any more media attention. Please someone lock him in a cafe in Darlinghurst for the next 50 years.
This whole defense is really about how "interesting" and "artistic" the girl's father is when he gets in front of a camera, certainly not about the beauty of childhood. The girl herself gets little to no airspace. I hope this link shows you what I mean. Press Conference.
Worth a thousand words...
Link to interesting video about Bill Henson's photographic work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaEi9ESRB8o
And yes you are right, the girl's father is a wanker!
Posted by: Jade | July 07, 2008 at 07:25 PM
Hi Jade,
Nice vid, thanks for that.
Posted by: Alison | July 07, 2008 at 07:53 PM
Wanker sums him up succintly.
Posted by: Health Psych | July 08, 2008 at 02:13 PM
Yes HP, thank you.
Posted by: Alison | July 08, 2008 at 06:12 PM
I was too visually overwrought by his tie to process what he was saying!
But I did hear his conclusion after "extensive research" that there is "a weak link between child abuse and imagery." Sure could have fooled me with all the child porn imagery flying around the internet.
I do believe the images were "made in good faith," but that's not the point. They won't be viewed in good faith by far too many.
There was a recent similar flap here in the states. The cover of Vanity Fair of a female teen star, Miley Cyrus. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00666/vanityportrait404_666135c.jpg
Erica Jong, whom I admire, unfortunately defended it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erica-jong/natural-nudists-unite--an_b_99198.html
Posted by: phd in yogurtry | July 09, 2008 at 12:35 AM
Yes Phd, I too recoiled in horror whilst also banging my head at the ignorance of the "weak link" between imagery and child abuse comment.
And straight up, without searching, I have a quote by a psychiatrist from Newcastle uni, who works with paedophiles - that would lay that one flat on it's head.
I love the part too where neither father or child can actually remember what Kevin Rudd PM said in response to her photo.
The video itself says it all.
(Yeah the tie! With the shirt! Heaven help us!)
Posted by: Alison | July 09, 2008 at 09:45 AM
Thanks for those links too phd.
Posted by: Alison | July 09, 2008 at 09:47 AM
(Yeah the tie! With the shirt! Heaven help us!)
I sure hope the outfit wasn't chosen to help him look more credible before the cameras?
Posted by: phd in yogurtry | July 11, 2008 at 02:03 PM
Snicker, snicker. Though I'm sure a circus audience would appreciate the fashion statement.
Posted by: Alison | July 11, 2008 at 03:03 PM