Col, SJF never used the term "misguided behaviour". She used the term "misguided belief". It was one belief, and she defined it within the sentence: "that there should be absolutely no boundaries at all – legal or otherwise – on the work of those who wield influence..."

It's a strawman belief — no one actually holds it. You'd be hard pressed to find someone to argue that artists should be exempt from normal legal boundaries.

Pelican poses the same question: "Does art hold a special place devoid of any responsibility in pursuit of this artistic freedom?"

The answer, clearly, is no — their rights and responsibilities are exactly the same as for rest of us. Those of us who support Henson and the artists that appear in Art Monthly argue that they have not reneged on those responsibilities.

Henson's work doesn't sexualise children, but it does provide portals through which we can view the sexuality they already possess. The children are beautiful, the landscape frightening. The usual comparison is to Caravaggio, but I can also see William Blake in there, and Ishiguro's book The Unconsoled. I'm sure some of you think this is the height of wankery. It seems revealing how you feel about the work honestly is seen as "pseudo-intellectual" in the OLO universe.

When I was a teenage girl I found his work startling and transforming and I loved it. In my view, as a teenager, Henson had not only honoured his responsibilities but added one — to tell the truth about adolescence.

I found MTR's art criticism absolutely laughable. It relies on her misinterpretation of the idea of dignity — she has taken it to mean that the subject of an artwork should look dignified.

pelican, I've apparently used some very poor phrasing.

When I said "I think you are both trying to provoke those attacks and create the impression that feminism was under attack to create conflict" I was refering to SJF trying to do two things not including you as a provoker. Woops, sorry, abject apologies etc. Poor wording on my part which I didn't notice till I saw your post. I mentioned what you said because it was a good point. My impression of you is also "when am on OLO my aim is not to provoke but to debate and learn something from other people."

As for feminism being under attack, it was clearly not under attack until SJF put forth her rallying cry. Have a look at the first 7 posts on the thread and then SJF's claim about an avalanch.

It bothers me because I think the unnecessary gender conflicts that some on both "sides" seem to love is a real hindrance to progress and understanding. If SJF had held off a bit some of the usuals (not refering to Usual Suspect) would probably have given her a basis for that claim but apparently that was taking too long this time.

Your comment seemed relevant because thats the behaviour that SJF seems to play off. Get people in defensive postures so they don't listen, don't open up and try to understand. I think SJF has some worthwhile stuff to say when she puts that down, yesterdays post about art and porn was thought provoking although at a guess I have a different interpretion to Col on one aspect of it.

Sorry if my phrasing caused you grief, that was unintentional.

R0bert

R0bert

‘As for feminism being under attack, it was clearly not under attack until SJF put forth her rallying cry. Have a look at the first 7 posts on the thread and then SJF's claim about an avalanch.’

This is another one of your typically false claims, based on typically subjective interpretations .

My comment was …

"The feminist and ethical arguments within this issue have been buried under the same old avalanche of tedious tanties about wowsers trying to spoil everyone's fun/hold us back/keep us holy. The same emotional blackmail spouts forth on cue whenever the ethics of pornography gets debated"

Where in this comment have I said that feminism was under attack? My argument was that the feminist viewpoint on pornography was not being adequately expressed. I was being critical of pro-pornographers, not anti-feminists. And if you look at posts # 1 and # 2, you may just see why.

My post was IN DIRECT RESPONSE to this comment from Jay Thompson at post # 4:

‘This has been largely a rehash of the creaky old 'art/porn/censorship' debate, and has been mostly devoid of significant feminist insights about the insidious nature of sexual exploitation. What feminist and pro-feminist writers (I fall into the latter group, as a male) need to constantly dois distinguish their criticisms from those of social conservatives who see ALL representations of nudity and sexual expression as bad, wrong and sinful.’

I endorsed Jay’s post because I agreed with his attempt to distinguish between feminist concerns about genuine sexual exploitation and the judgmental morality voiced by conservative women’s advocates like MTR.

And if my blunt writing style so upset your sensibilities, have a look at post # 11:

‘!@#$ing feminists again. Check this woman's submission history. Completely biased, sexist rubbish.’ (Steel)

So according to your logic, I set the scene at post # 7 for the gender conflict that followed because I endorsed Jay’s post about feminism at # 4 . And Steel bears NO responsibility for any gender conflict that took place after post # 11.

Veronika

A mish-mash of responses, I’m afraid, as I’ve some ground to make up (most recent first) …

‘It’s a strawman belief — no one actually holds it’

‘No one’ is a bit of a stretch. But, yes. Most people do not subscribe to complete censorship purity – as in ‘no boundaries’. It’s a straw belief in degree rather than essence.

‘… isn't [hours of fruitless exchanges] exactly what you ended up doing, in your squabble with Col Rouge?’

No. After my initial stance, I wrote a couple of brief retorts. Instead of hours, this only took about a minute. I cut my fruitless OLO time by about 99 per cent. However, the exchange with R0bert WAS fruitless and long but in my opinion necessary, as I was misrepresented.

‘… but I can't see that [the art world]’s "heavily restricted"

True. That was a slip of the pen. I tend to overstate the conservatism of the art world because it carries an aura of being progressive, which I believe is only partly justified.

‘— pornography and art are different things. Or do you argue they're one and the same?’

No. Not at all. However, explicit sexual imagery is part of the mainstream artworld now more than ever and is also making inroads into mainstream entertainment. I believe this to be a symptom of the social issues I talked about before.

Re ‘Jew on the Cross’, I’ve no idea what MTR would say about the pic. Maybe she’d take issue with the ‘Only women bleed’ part as being some commercial affront to menstruation (a million tampon ads notwithstanding).:)

‘But is your ultimate goal a matriarchy, SJF? Doncha know that's what we're all gunning for.’

Yeah … Like if we don’t have a patriarchy, then the only alternative must be a matriarchy. The concept that both halves of humanity can actually control a roughly 50-50 share of the world’s power, wealth, resources and cultural space is one that many people just can’t get their minds around. It’s so alien, we don’t even have a word for it. (Gynandry? Androgynacy? Gynandrarchy? … Justice?)

SJF,

'The concept that both halves of humanity can actually control a roughly 50-50 share of the world’s power, wealth, resources and cultural space is one that many people just can’t get their minds around.'

Fractelle,

'All my life I thought that feminism was acknowledgement of and a fair go for all humans, not just men.
'

Ah, so funny. I love it how feminists somehow believe that the rich powerful men in the world hold their power for all men, and all men then hold such power by proxy, to keep the women folk downtrodden, as per order of 'the patriachy'. And you're laughing at matriachy conspiracies...

I have been following with interest the argument about art and naked children. I am curious as to what makes naked children more 'artistic' than clothed ones. Or is it just that the artist needs nudity in order to be seen as 'artistic'.
There is no doubt that children are not legally able to give informed consent to their nude public display, however it is interpreted and used by the viewer. Their rights should be protected ahead of adults' rights to prurient consumption of sexualised nude child imagery.
Henson said he had parental consent for his depictions of naked children, and Olympia's parents gave consent - but of course grooming parents to provide access to their children is part of a skilled child sex offender's stock in trade, so that doesn't make it ok. Using your own children for sexual gratification and exploitation is another avenue for child sex offenders to gain satisfaction and enrichment, so that doesn't make it ok. But of course this is ART and it seems therefore that makes adult voyeurism of naked children cool, sophisticated and legal. Toss me some emporer's clothes.