Overall I agree - Rudd doesn't seem to understand human rights all that well, especially as it applies to the arts. But I think the author was brave to take him on given the importance of the messages in Rudd's work. Will be interesting to see if Rudd responds.

I also concur with the author's stance.

" This theme asks artists to “look beyond objectification of human rights issues to solutions and ideals that lead the way”.

Based on the above criteria Van Rudd's pieces do not depict solutions but merely make a statment about his political position.

The 'Boom' picture was particularly distasteful and added nothing to the human rights debate about protection from terrorism whether by governments or smaller self-proclaimed groups. 'People power' as he describes, suggests terrorism is self-empowering, it is anything but, not only is the bomber usually an unwilling or vulnerable player the act is destructive and usually targets the innocent.

You don't have to be a supporter of Israel's treatment of Palestinians to see this art as a negative contribution to the aims of this particular art show.

But no matter what anyone thinks of the pieces as art (highly subjective) the fact is these entries did not meet the criteria. It is that simple and seems to be a case of sour grapes or a publicity stunt.