Yes it is awesome SJF. Haven't you read the articles and observed the actions of feminists and their ideology?? Most of their articles and motives are exceptionally sexist. Even our political system represents this
.

There is a big difference between the pretence and shallow appearance of intellectual debate and rationality used to conceal emotional hangups and discomfort, that you commend pelican for, and actual logic and reason based on facts.

pelican>"Under-age children in sexually explicit poses is not art despite the psuedo intellectual camp that would argue that art knows no bounds in its relentless pursuit of 'freedom'."

You lauded pelican at the same time he made this hideously flawed comment.

1. "Under-age" is an artificial construct and obscures the real issues. Was the girl harmed, should have been the first question here? If so, by whom? I can answer with some facts here and now: No, she wasn't. She is in fact proud and happy. Now she was harmed by the public castigation and villification for her self expression and the treatment of her as an object, rather than a person (by Rudd, Hetty and others in the media and here on OLO).

2. He calls others pseudo-intellectual, at the same time most of the core supporters represent the artistic, intellectual elite with extreme amounts of knowledge on these issues. Sorry, but pretending people who engage in these issues their whole lives at an intellectual level are pseudo-intellectual, rather than the ignorant idiots and commentators, is simply DELUSIONAL and laughable.

Secondly, people against Henson are using emotive answers and can't keep their positions straight. They are all over the place. Even Hetty Johnson was caught out changing positions and equivocating on television.

3. Regardless of whether a few people say that there are no boundaries in art, to pretend that that radicalised 'philistines' with absolutely no appreciation for the medium and having never been to art galleries (and who have clear political censorship/authoritarian agendas), would know where those boundaries are.

Steel

For your information, I have actually had a great deal to do with the art world over recent decades, enough to feel smugly pleased that it has finally revealed itself as the ultra-conservative, ultra-patriarchal institution it really is.

For several centuries, the male dominance of the art world has created the well and truly overused convention of using female nudity as a metaphor for bourgeois inhibition. For a long time this was fairly harmless. However, the art world’s unchecked addiction to pushing boundaries means that it finally pushed through one too many – as it now collides with issues such as pedophilia, feminism, neo-social conservatism and 21st century ethics, to name a few.

Yet, this whole sorry affair gives every indication that the art world has failed to learn from its mistakes.

Instead of listening to the objections raised from the community it is supposed to be mirroring, it closed ranks and shut out all debate or resorted to ‘in your face’ pronouncements about artistic freedom. Instead of discerning and addressing the many different sides and nuances to the debate, it fell back on silly, outdated clichés about sexual dysfunction and philistinism, which belong more to DH Lawrence’s 1927 court case than to the 21st century human condition.

"It didn't listen"? Oh I think it did, albeit briefly to hear the concern. I expect they found the arguments outrageous for the same reason I did: They lacked consistency; they were illogical and irrational (all these arguments are contained in the first threads I may repeat a couple here); and they gave no indication they cared about recent and old history, nor concern over other artists.

1. This work has been going on for 25 years.
2. Many parents across Australia have pictures of their naked children, at play or otherwise (and you call them pedophiles for it, which is disgusting).
3. If you see children as sexual by being naked, then you are a pedophile.
4. EVERYONE WHO *DID NOT* COMPLAIN WERE NOT COUNTED. This of course is one of the great flaws of our society and system. One single person was all it took to generate this, by utilising the police and media contacts she had. You will see a new article on OLO incidentally that looks like it takes a look at modern media.

SJF>"Instead of listening to the objections raised from the community it is supposed to be mirroring"

Appealing to the community's concerns is like appealing to the concerns of backwater rednecks who advocated lynching black and gay people. Art never has been, to my understanding about the "mirroring of community objections"...what the hell is that supposed to mean anyway? That they should have never done Impressionism, since the public expected Classical styles?

I don't see why you believe it is patriarchal and ultra-conservative, considering every major art movement in history has been progressive and anti-conservative?

SJF>"– as it now collides with issues such as pedophilia, feminism, neo-social conservatism and 21st century ethics, to name a few."

Feminism? If what you call Hetty Johnson and Melinda the writer of this article here is feminism then I am pleased in identifying it as extremely authoritarian, destructive and sexist.

What you call "21st century" ethics, I call extreme socialism and fascism meeting at their most egregious points: via social engineering and government control and force.

SJF: "the art world’s ... now collides with issues such as pedophilia, feminism, neo-social conservatism and 21st century ethics"

Depends on how you define "collide". If you mean it annoys some people who apparently insist on looking at these images despite their dislike for them, then yes, there has been a collision. But contrary to what you say, art always has collided with some peoples sensitivities. "Piss Christ" springs to mind as a famous example, and it came well after DH Lawrence.

However if you mean these images have a material and negative effect on people then no - they don't. This "fact" is an invention of the people who insist on looking despite their distaste. Its fairly clear porn does not cause an increase in paedophilia, not does it cause an increase in violence towards women. If anything the reverse is true.

SFJ: "Yet, this whole sorry affair gives every indication that the art world has failed to learn from its mistakes."

Most of the world would describe what you call "mistakes" as progress. We have replaced arbitrary rules about wrong and right with rules based on the harm actions cause, and that harm must be demonstrated by real evidence. We have replaced bigotry with tolerance. To its credit the art world done its bit in making this transition happen by, as you say, "its unchecked addiction to pushing boundaries". As the Henson case shows it continues to do so. Personally, I think this is a good thing.

rstuart

'Its fairly clear porn does not cause an increase in paedophilia, not does it cause an increase in violence towards women. If anything the reverse is true.'

What crap! Are you reading studies done by the EROS foundation. As the following article points out that gasoline lights fires. You continue to fool yourself.
http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2006/09/pornographys_li.html

More pornography means more rape and more child abuse. Just ask the unfortunate aboriginal communities who are among Canberra's pervert industries best customers.

Then again don't let the destruction of many young kids lives get in the way of your right for a little perversion.

Jay....Melinda didn't quote Andrew Bolt, she quoted Olympia's father from an article he wrote, which was uncovered by Andrew Bolt.