Steely, I think that by your latest hysterical over-reactions you've just made yourself very interesting, but for all the wrong reasons - and possibly to all the wrong people too. I trust that will not make you paranoid; your free diagnoses and advice on mental health suggest that you're already so psychologically and behaviourally sound. :-)

I recall the Pasolini / Salo banning (OK, sorry Henson friends. It's clear you won't find any appealing “aesthetic” in that work. Besides, it depicts abusers, their sickness and victims in very harsh, un-Henson tones). But from the “Salo” debate, I never saw anything like the arousal of passionate and vehement invective as I have seen repeatedly here. Yet the Pasolini work has layers of powerful political, cultural and historical context, along with extensive international fame and critical acclaim, and even the imprimatur of a Catholic institute's official kudos for the director. A tour de force by a recognized genius, and a patriot of such courage that he was assassinated after challenging corruption scandals linked to terrorist incidents.

By comparison, an Australian pro-Henson academic's review of the naked children oeuvre says: “These artists' [including Henson's] photographs offer an insight into a time of life that falls between categories, a chance to witness identity evolving, something to which we can all relate”. Imagine: “between categories” of nappy sizes “crawler” and “toddler”, or “identity evolving” in successive years' school portraits. The banality of such “art criticism” may seem breathtaking, but does it not confirm the banality of Henson's work?

However, we are supposed to believe that Henson's art is so important and justified that its defence could arouse personal attacks against dispassionate criticism. Notice how Bronwyn did not even make criticism of any other commentator, but tried only to inform and give context. Behold the reaction, including Lev's abuse.

What's going on in there guys?

[Quote source: The Australian 4 June 2008 - Kelly Fuery, 'Eye of Beholder']

Bronwyn: << This exhibition was always going to be a news story and Henson would have known that. >>

I disagree completely. Henson has been exhibiting similar works at numerous art galleries for decades, and has never attracted anything like the media attention that this current kerfuffle has. It was only after the publication of a sensationalist scare story by the odious Miranda Devine that St Hetty got on the bandwagon and complained to the police.

After that it was Keystone Cops and moral hysterics. The cops seem to be rapidly pulling their heads in, but some of the hysterics are still up on their soapboxes.

Steel

“Henson's not the only one. Are you going to charge all the others too with this? Are you going to charge filmmakers who use children and farmers who exploit them on their farms?”

As I’ve stated before, I’m not interested in seeing Henson or any other artist charged. I’m critical of his lack of judgement that’s all, and the way his art is giving oxygen to what I see as social trends damaging to children. What have farmers got to do with this debate? There is nothing I’ve said anywhere that would suggest I see a problem with children working to assist their parents, on a farm or anywhere else. As you do so often, you have attempted to create a ridiculously tenuous link that can’t in any way be supported by any statement I’ve actually made.

“I think Gibo was right about Communism being on the rise. Under the sinophile Rudd, too. Ironic, eh?”

The only irony here is that someone who has just used the term ‘propaganda’ four times to try and discredit someone else's views could come up with a line like this one.

“Ah yes, like a true socialist, you seek to destroy the individual for the ‘greater good’.”

Of course I’m not seeking to destroy this girl. That’s just another one of the giant leaps you love to make. My point was that I’m not engaging in this debate to specifically argue over her well being as many have, but in the interests more broadly of all children.

“Ubiquitous for the record, essentially means ‘omnipresent’.”

It can mean omnipresent but it’s more generally used as a synonym for terms such as prevalent, common, widespread, everywhere, universal. It mightn’t have been the best choice of word but contrary to your patronizing little dig there was nothing wrong in the way it was used.

You can rant and rave and name call all you like, Steel. It doesn’t bother me. As pointed out to you by many others now, it doesn’t do anything to help your case.

bushbasher and mil-observer

Thanks.

bushbasher

Your point did cross my mind but I couldn’t be bothered doing the maths to check it out properly! Here’s the link to that specific report.

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/70-arrested-in-NSW-web-child-porn-crackdown/0,130061744,339289601,00.htm

mil-observer

Interesting angle on the substance of Henson’s work. I had thought much the same but was pleased to see someone else making the point. I’ve felt the weight of the high art world come down on me enough just lately without inviting more trouble!

CJ

I hear what you’re saying (and love the way you say it as always!), but I still maintain Henson must have had some idea of the reaction this exhibition would provoke. Others within the art world have been uneasy with the direction in which his work has been heading for some time now. I know artists do lead a rarefied existence but surely his radar would sense this mood from within his own circle. Quite apart from that, is the issue of the public mood which unless you live in a world without media, and I’m sure he doesn’t, you would have to be stupid not to recognize clearly. He obviously didn’t anticipate a police raid, but he would have (or most certainly should have) known his work would create controversy and as a result media interest. I stand by my comment.

I’m interested that this minor point is the only one you’ve picked me up on. I’m assuming you’re either sick of debating the same old points! Or you find enough agreement in the rest of my argument to leave it alone. I’m hoping it’s the latter!

Q. If we said a sexual abuser of children “exploited” or “used” the victims, would steely and friends diminish the meaning, or relativize it by reference to children being “used” also by The Wiggles or a farm, etc?

But just a bit further to Bronwyn's point, I think we should consider an even “bigger picture” around this Henson topic and its timing, which Bronwyn kindly indicated with some details about Operation Centurion.

For background context, Rudd is ex-DFAT, and he would know well various creepy-crawly pedophile scandals – mostly not publicized - from his time with that organization. Rudd knows too that the presence of such people in government compromises the integrity, credibility and authority of the state itself.

Community disgust and anger over pedophilia help make it probably the most powerful tool for blackmail and manipulation of so-afflicted bureaucrats who have access to and influence on state business, including sensitive diplomatic and intelligence processes. It is well known that state intelligence services, including those in Australia's region of interest, coerce key personnel so identified (typically entrapped) for their predilection to such activity.

Op Centurion has only just been sprung shortly before Bronwyn's post, but after the usual long period of surveillance, and domestic and international coordination. This comes not long after the Orkopolos case, and the post-mortem release of detailed allegations against Bob Collins. Those two situations indicate the senior levels of concern and vulnerability within circles of state power in this country.

In this highly charged and high-level political context, we should not be surprised if all this Henson publicity and controversy has been allowed to get served up as a honey trap for more elusive elements of networks targeted for exposure. The scene so targeted would resemble the “Uranians” of Wilfred Owen's little-publicized infamy – a kind of brahmin elite of aesthete-pedophiles.

Please don't over-react to this hypothesis. I appreciate many if not most “pro-Henson” celebrities and correspondents are motivated by ideals of “free speech”.

Oh, but Lev: the “game” ain't over by a long chalk. And it's not a game.

bronwyn, thanks tons for the link.

lev, o.k. NOW the idiotic henson game is over.

mil-observer, i can't make heads or tails of your latest post. in regard to your previous post, i think you have the wrong end of the hysteria stick.

you raise "salo", but "salo" is genuinely offensive. it is a great, unforgettable movie, which should have never been banned. but there is no shock that it is offensive to so many. if henson's photographs offend someone in the same manner, it is only because they are looking to be offended.

this was never about how henson's art was so great, that how dare hetty and co condemn it. the wowsers (let's call a spade a spade) tried to paint it as elitist artists against the rightful community, but it was never about that.

what it was about was the hysterical reaction to henson's photographs: "absolutely revolting" (rudd); "violates the things for which we stand as Australians" (nelson); "offensive and disgusting” (Iemma). and on, and on, and bloody well on.

this was absurd. it was always absurd. and what was so disgraceful is that it was made out of whole cloth by miranda devine and hetty johnston. what was so disgraceful was the lapdog response of the police. what was so disgraceful was that they unleashed this campaign, knowing full well how hurtful and troubling it could have been to henson's models, MUCH more so than the original thoughful and empathetic photographing and exhibition.

what was so disgraceful was that a self-interested and dangerous demagogue like hetty johnston could wrap so many authorities and politicians and commentators around her nasty little finger.