Here I have to confess to a certain snobbishness - before reading the article I always read the bio of the person writing it first. It tells me what to expect. When I see "Professor of Administrative Studies at Manchester University and now Research Associate in the Department of Philosophy at Sydney University" I expect a tightly reasoned piece. There is even a reasonable chance it contains some deep new insight for me to ponder.

But this time the bio let me down. It looked like ramble in an OLO comment. It was only after I got most of the way though it realised that is exactly what it was - an extension of a previous OLO thread. Not such a bad thing, but different to what I was expecting.

Still, it contained this: "John Stuart Mill: The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

Others in other threads argued they or Tankard Reist where just expressing an opinion - their personal likes and dislikes. If so what they have to say is only of mild interest. Its only when you want to impose your views on others that the discussion has real meaning.

So, I am wondering, do most here accept John Stuart Mill's statement? Or do you believe there are other good reasons for power to exercised over your fellow man?

He is going to jail and staying in jail if he does it in Manchester, or any other part of the UK, Bill Henson is not an artist, he's a child pornographer. That's why he goes to jail if he tries his sick kiddie fetish stuff there. He's a pervert, in my book, and it's illegal in London. If you can't sell it in London, it has to be Japanese child porn, the reasoning is quite simple, art can be sold in London, and Bill's kiddie stuff is child pornography and so it can't be sold.

University tutor asked to photograph semi-naked children convicted of pornography

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2511121/University-tutor-asked-to-photograph-semi-naked-children-convicted-of-pornography.html

Bill Henson is one of the reasons, we have child pornograpy laws such as we have. He does photos for rich pdophiles. The sooner Bill Henson is in prison the better.

Hi Rstuart

"harm to others" can be defined in many ways. This is ultimately why groups who feel they have something to lose or something to promote, will end up in some way involved in political struggle.

For example.. when Pastor Ake Green was convicted of the 'crime' of 'insulting homosexuals' in Sweden... we find the problem well illustrated.

The State regarded his remarks.. made in a sermon, in his own church, as a crime.Simply because a homosexual was displeased with his terminology.
The problem with this is that even if he had just 'read' the passage concerned (Romans 1) it uses the words 'unnatural' and peverse to describe such behavior.

Now.. the choice must be made as follows:

1/ Homosexual feelings are hurt.
2/ Pastor is criminalized.

Underneath all this, is probably a 'revenge' aspect.. the homosexual lobby most likely associates the criminalization such behavior as coming from TheChurch, thus, they now want to give the church a dose of it's own medicine.. by criminalizing it.

Make no mistake.. the criminalizing of a few verses of the Bible, is about as close as it gets to Christians being thrown to wild animals as has happened in the past.

So.. "Who's" harm... takes precedence in this kind of thing?

The emotional "harm" to a person stubbornly clinging to an un-natural behavior pattern.. or a natural Pastor simply preaching to his flock?

Dear oh dear. Another rubbish article from a wowserish retiree who appears to have discovered undergraduate philosophy in his dotage. Like his last piece on the subject, it adds little to the 'debate' except to keep the moral panic bubbling away.

I wouldn't have bothered to respond to Bowden's latest blather, except for the fact that he's decided to quote me - out of context of course. It's interesting to observe who's popped out from under their own rocks already - with the exception of rstuart of course, who makes a valiant attempt to divert the thread into something that might make for a reasonable discussion.

However, I don't think I'll take rstuart up on this thread - I have a feeling it's just going to be tedious extension of Bowden's last one.

Boaz, I have to say one thing for you, you never let the truth intrude upon your version of reality, do you?

We have had this discussion before:

>>For example.. when Pastor Ake Green was convicted of the 'crime' of 'insulting homosexuals' in Sweden... we find the problem well illustrated.<<

You completely ignore the reality:

"Sweden's Supreme Court has acquitted a Pentecostal pastor accused of inciting hatred against homosexuals."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4477502.stm

How can you possibly expect to engender any respect for your new persona Polycarp when you persist in repeating the ridiculous claims you made when you were Boaz?

Would you like to also reopen the discussion on that same thread where you defend the Bible's attitude towards the fairer sex?

"and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. These are they which were not defiled with women" Rev 14:3-4

UNCRC I just read the Telegraph story. The judge convicted the tutor, but in a way which said he essentially wasn't guilty - sentenced to 150 hours of community work. In sentencing he said that there was no improper motive in taking the photographs, and that they had been taken at the invitation of the children's parents.

I think that it is extraordinary that a civilised country would have such draconian legislation and that anyone could support it.

C. J Morgan,
I’ve always thought of you as being very intellectual, in a very base way.

It would probably be the situation that mostly people who like to see pictures of naked or semi-naked children will go to one of Henson’s exhibitions. Others wouldn't bother.

As a test, perhaps Henson could take photos of you and hang them in a gallery, and then note how many people come along to view them.

UNCRC,
I'd be surprise if what you are saying is right. Australia has the some of the strictest rules in the Western world concerning child nudity, and our censorship authority (OFLC) has given the OK to Bill Henson. Check their website:

http://www.classification.gov.au

I saw in a recent H & E Magazine (published in the UK) an advertisment for Nudist DVDs. All of these DVDs must be legal in the UK if they are advertised there, they are also legal in the USA & Canada but some of the titles advertised are in fact illegal in Australia.

As to Marcus Philips, I note that he pleaded guilty, which unfortunately sets a precendent. Maybe if he pleaded not guilty he may have been found not guilty.

David Hamilton is a British photographer who take similar photos to Bill Henson, and I believe his books are sold in the UK without any legal issues.

As far as peadophiles are concerned, if they find this material turns them on, good luck to them. While they're looking at that, they won't be molesting kids. While I don't consider child nudity to be pornography (and nor do I condone any type of pornography), it has been proven in Europe that pornography reduces sex crime.

If it wasn't for the perverted hearts and ego of a few artist we would not be having this discussion. Again it is the case of a few adults defending their right to be deviant even when young children are exploited. It is shameful that some try to intellectualize this whole topic. Nobody has ever been able to explain the artistic value of photographing or painting young boys and girls genitals. It is nothing short of a sick curiosity feeding sick hearts. Of course the only arguement coming from the defenders is that the opponents of this child abuse must have sick hearts themselves

I'm encouraged to see some wisom expressed in here. If we were living yesteryear about a half century or more ago, the entire population of Australia would be considered prostitutes or disgustingly immoral because of dress standards in this same way...All of us.

Unfortunately, we are experiencing cultural regression. This is because we have some of the heaviest censorship in Australia. What follows may be a harsh truth for many and hard to swallow, but the historical and recent evidence and logic are concrete on who is responsible.On the right we have predominantly religion (and this is the primary reason). On the left we have predominantly the feminists (who I understand had a brief positive effect, but which has now long since dissipated and replaced with a repressive agenda). It's not so clear cut as this, but the general imprint of their presence is unquestionable. Our politicians have served these agendas almost in secret since laws were liberalised. I almost forgot to mention it but the media has played a central role in this....indeed the German Pope said that the success of the World catholic youth day was dependent on the media (it would have otherwise failed). The same polticians who betrayed the Australian gay population by rewriting the constitution in 2004 to explicitly outlaw marriage and discriminate against them, are the types of servile, populist scum that are responsible.

Graham

I note that the tutor in the Daily Telegraph article pleaded guilty. The court then rather had its hands tied.

Despite what the article implies, the legislation itself only talks about "indecent" photographs, and does not attempt to codify what "indecent" means. As we've seen in Australia, there seems a trend, encouraged by the media, for people to feel that things are indecent now when some years ago they wouldn't have raised an eye brow.

If the tutor had instead stood up to the authorities, I suspect there's every chance the charges would have been dropped, or that he would have been acquitted.

Bowdens argument seems to be founded on “doing no harm” (per Kant) as espoused by Mills

To address Mills first

Who is exercising “power”, certainly it is those who seek to curtail Henson from taking photographs as he sees fit.

That “power” would see his work censored and banned form public view. That in turn denies the public the right of personal consideration of the photos, to acclaim them or to ignore them.

To the idea of Henson, in taking photos is harming the subject of the photos.

Difficult to ascertain.

If the subject is too young to express a view or opinion or appreciate or assess the possible “harm” for themself, the appropriate authority, generally empowered with the right to act on behalf or the subject are the subject’s parents or legal guardians.

Now if those parents decide there is no “harm” ensuing from the taking of photos, that should be an end to debate, unless those who dissent to the parents/guardians view believe “they know better” and first prove their “better credentials” to intervene in what would otherwise be a “domestic decision”.

When someone can actually separate "the harmful porn" from "the harmless art", there will be a basis for determining the merit of the contemporary photoes and images,

Until you can clearly denounce something as "Porn" it should remain as "Art" because "Art" is all things to all people.

Denouncing one representation, because it does not conform with some peoples view, is to denounce the process of individual expression.

Individual expression is one of those things which makes the journey of life worth walking.

Denying individual expression to anyone is to diminish the life quality to which we all aspire and which ‘philosophers’ seek to observe and fathom.

Among the purposes of art it is to challenge values and conventions.

If someone cannot rise to that challenge, they have the right to turn away.

But they do not have the right to censor the 'Art' because of its challenge, any more than Hitler had the right to denounce (say) Klimpt as degenerate.

Polycarp: "harm to others can be defined in many ways"

Yes it can. Nonetheless, provided the definition is based on something independent observers can verify I'd probably accept it.

Polycarp: "Simply because a homosexual was displeased with his terminology."

This, as you present it, doesn't meet that criterion. It could well be real - the homosexual probably is displeased. However we only have his word for it. There is no way to independently verify his displeasure. Unfortunately a minority can and do fake this displeasure for all sorts of nefarious reasons so we can't rely on an individuals expression of displeasure as proof. Even when a person is appears to be under extreme emotional stress we can't take their word for it. We see actors fake this sort of stress every day on television. Sometimes this rule is very harsh and the consequences extreme, but that is life.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/05/16/1210765091402.html

As for your suggestion that homosexual behaviour is unnatural - well that is really off base unless you have some perverted definition of unnatural. You are aware homosexuality is more common in sheep then it is in humans, aren't you?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1582336,00.html

HRS/Timkins: << C. J Morgan, I’ve always thought of you as being very intellectual, in a very base way. >>

Ooh look - Timmy's come out from under his rock to make a typically inane comment. At least nobody could mistake him for an intellectual of any kind.

Bowden's still in great intellectual company here I see - with learned and rational supporters like UNCRC, Boazycrap, runner and Timkins, he doesn't really need detractors on this thread.

C J Morgan,
I think if naked or semi-naked photos of you were hung in a gallery, there would only be one person who would look at them, and it wouldn’t be your mother.

With all the publicity surrounding Hensen, I also think that people who want their photos taken by Hensen would have to be somewhat narcissistic, or have a desire to be seen by others.

I’m not sure if narcissism is a form of art.

>Peter Bowden: An excellent, succinct piece which emphasizes well the child protection argument demanded by this subject. I'd like to attend the Sydney café debate, but am in Melbourne aka “Wowserville” (or is that Adelaide?)

>Col Rouge: you seem to use a rather creaky and mechanical thought process on JS Mill, with logical myopia re implications of prohibition in traditional liberalism.

Rouge postulates: “Who is exercising 'power', certainly it is those who seek to curtail Henson...” Well, no: those who successfully exert or practically exercise power in this case are those who sought to allow, even endorse, Henson's activity against the will of myself and many others (we're a large majority too according to some polling). That leads to Bowden's following explanation of JSM's justification for exerting such power i.e., “to prevent harm to others”.

Rouge, you seem to have missed Bowden's (and child protection advocates') important points about the implicit harm of such artistic soft kiddie porn. More absurd, your slow-motion argument fails in its attempt to apply a traditional liberalist defence for Henson. Your notions are libertarian, not liberalist in such traditional and authentic senses. I suspect that you (like most of us) have had much neoliberalist brainwashing to that point where we develop a reflex to consider as “bad/harmful” any effort to curtail any enterprise that involves consenting parties. Consider the absurdities: what if the art is HARD-core kiddie porn, or child prostitution, with formalities of consent from parents and/or exploited children? Many notorious cases involve parental and child consent in such brutal exploitation; that touches on the whole reason many like myself oppose vehemently the neoliberalist cult that has tried to commodify and debase us all. Libertarians/neolibs may as well complain (as some do!) when the state acts to prevent someone from following through on their free choice to become a degenerate, dehumanized ice junkie.

That is why Henson's artsistic kiddie porn too is truly degenerate. It is not Klimt, and emotive canards about Nazism, Hitler, etc., distract us from the clearly fascist implications of such brutally exploitative artistic kiddie porn.

">>For example.. when Pastor Ake Green was convicted of the 'crime' of 'insulting homosexuals' in Sweden... we find the problem well illustrated.<<"

Gay is far more than an moral/equal rights issue. If 20% of humanity becomes gay, then humanity will not last more than a few generations. This makes the gay issue an existential one for mankind, even more precarious than incest - and incest cannot be legally negated if equal gay rights is condoned.

Ironically, the best protection for gays is not equal rights, but gay rights - because equality does not factor in here, and equal rights will prove the most harmful factor to gays.

"I think if naked or semi-naked photos of you were hung in a gallery, there would only be one person who would look at them, and it wouldn’t be your mother."

Art must depict something new by articulating what is not well rcognised, and elevating this for the senses. Exposing an underlying child's nudity is hardly a depiction of the unrecognised, but only a titilating factor of what is correctly not a revelation. Making something a controversy is not an act of art - it does not enlighten: we know about children, and we know it as not sexual - thus uncovering a child does not say much.

We know a child has the same organs as an adult - we also know a child does not possess the same affinity, consciousness and disposition as an adult, and making them alligned is an abuse, hiding behind an otherwise noble premise. Simply uncovering a child, and exploiting sensuality, is not art: there was no contribution here. We know our parents engaged in sex - but is it art if we expose it?

IamJoseph you really do not sound like you know the slightest thing about art. It can be anything. It is, anything. No one certainly not non-artists, define art. Similarly it would be like non-religious defining what parts of the bible are religious and what are not.

No doubt the kiddie porn supporters also saw great value in the big turd that recently flew away. Why is it that these sick peoples minds are so admired by artist?

hmm. is it worth defending myself? no, but what the hell?

1) i 'm anonymous: so what?

2) i wasn't defending artistic freedom: i was attacking a really obtuse argument.

3) bowden's response to my examples (use of children in movies) is just as obtuse. the fact that children are being used to entertain children doesn't change the fact that these children are being used by adults. (or, simply substitute my use of children's movies with a hundred movies for adults).

this issue is not about children and art, it's not about the use of children. bowden should be honest about what bugs him: nakedness. then at least there could be an honest and reasonable discussion.

How very revealing! And yet again, on reflection, how very creepy...

More circumlocutions, offered repeatedly and with tenaciously obstinate refusal to attempt balance or recognize the most basic facts within the writer's argument. The stark contrast with Bowden's discipline invites for me a conclusion that Bowden and OLO have once more provoked response from those more pathologically motivated among the Hensonites.

Notice how Bowden keeps his discussion rigorously in the subject's core or central arena of concerns for morality and legality (unlike my own digressive venturing into ideology, class and aesthetics, for example). Or to acknowledge Bowden's even more specifically defined focus: he confines his considerations to that esesential, problematic matter of “adults making and/or using photos of naked children for entertainment purposes”; he even encapsulates this in the title, making it screamingly obvious! My use of the term “entertainment” should not be misinterpreted and thereby deemed any intrinsically controversial insinuation here: art libertarian and academic Donald Brook himself introduced the term in this context in a related debate elsewhere (see: http://newmatilda.com/2008/07/07/getting-away-muder).

Therefore, it seems quite outlandish, and outrageously contrived, to claim that Bowden has some more general problem with nudity, as though opposition to pedophilia is just another manifestation of old-fashioned prudishness. To reiterate: Bowden has a problem with the permission and even endorsement given to a certain activity i.e., “adults making and/or using photos of naked children for entertainment purposes”.

So the extraordinary anti-Bowden hostility of certain Hensonites clearly reduces to a correspondingly fundamental opposition case i.e., “enmity towards those opposed to adults making and/or using photos of naked children for entertainment purposes”. Such Hensonite reactions offer very enthusiastic, derogatory assertions and personal attacks, but they make little or no effort to explain their insinuations and judgements, let alone explain the supposed merits of their enthusiasm for that oeuvre of art made from photos of naked children.

Now why would that be?

"Now why would that be?
Posted by mil-observer, Sunday, 17 August 2008 2:06:02 PM"

Because the "pro-Hensonites" have already covered this ground over and over again on a plethora of other discussion threads permitted by OLO

leaving...

only the EXTREMISTS on BOTH sides of the debate.

mil-observer “Henson's activity against the will of myself and many others”

You and your band of whoever, have the power to turn away.

You do not need the power to curtail the artistic discretion of others.

That IS the point regarding my observation and comparison to Klimpt by the Nazis.

If you think that Henson is ‘harming’ you by daring to challenge your sensibilities on any creative or artistic matter, whilst you have the right to ignore Henson’s product, then I will refer you to the famous poem by Pastor Martin Niemoeller.

Regarding “I suspect that you (like most of us) have had much neoliberalist brainwashing to that point where we develop a reflex to consider as “bad/harmful” any effort to curtail any enterprise that involves consenting parties.”

I do not recall ever being “brainwashed”

Concerning

“Libertarians/neolibs may as well complain (as some do!) when the state acts to prevent someone from following through on their free choice to become a degenerate, dehumanized ice junkie.”

I would like to know (so I can read it myself and better understand who I am),

what critical academic reference(s) and professional credentials you relied upon to formulate your assessment of me and “Libertarians/neolibs” like me.

I await your response.

Nah, Rougey. Henson couldn't harm me at all in any direct, open manner - he seems an especially soft-headed, fragile-bodied and pampered petal typical of those pretentious mediocrities too often spawned of his class. I'm sure Henson and his worshippers could and would cause me grief by less direct means, especially if they happened to be my landlord, or could compel cops to do their bidding. Also, Henson could indirectly cause serious harm to my children (I'm unsure whether he could cause them direct harm - I can't presume to know his actual proclivities or whether he is just a pandering opportunist seizing his chance at fame with pedo art). More generally, I think it appears clear that he and his ilk have already caused this country and society direct harm.

"The power to turn away"? No thanks. We need the power to have our demands met when we expect a responsible and brave enough government, uncorrupted by pedophiles and other such decay. If that power is not granted, then we will probably end up eventually in a situation of such chaos that vigilantism becomes necessary. That ugly possibility will only loom larger during this current global crash, its onrushing depression, and general inaction by that same, generally corrupt and cowardly leadership elite. By contrast, many among that elite appear only too willing and ready to help infiltrate fascism into our political and legal systems.

Oh, did Klimt take snaps of naked kids too? I had no idea such old symbolist/art nouveau painting and collage was so relevant to this case. And did Adolf, Benito and El Caudillo all come to power on some drive to protect kids from rock spiders?

[If you haven't checked your report card, Rougey: it's a big "FAIL". A tick for your spelling of Niemoeller though]

Fract:
Good choice of words. Yes, the Hensonites have indeed "covered the ground" here, but to be specific, they've covered it repeatedly with smoke, camouflage, and other magic tricks of misrepresentation (as defined by the term "sophistry"). Rouge followed your brief name-calling spurt with another demonstration of such antics.

Mil-observer

Interesting post that last one.

I did ask about the origins or basis for your analysis of me, the “libertarian / neocon “

I see you failed to follow up, probably a lifetime trait.

Well since you cannot enlighten me further, I will at least review some of the sentences in your posts

Starting with

“myself and many others (we're a large majority”

Pack mentality, feels strong when running with other small minds but definitely a follower, not a ‘leader’.

“the implicit harm of such artistic soft kiddie porn.”

The ‘implicit’ alludes to an absolute, underlying truth.
Hard to argue when anyones and everyones sense of “Art” in inherently subjective.

-except for despots.

“Libertarians/neolibs may as well complain (as some do!) when the state acts to prevent someone from following through on their free choice to become a degenerate, dehumanized ice junkie.”

This is the bit which interests me - “dehumanized ice junkie”

A strange analysis of this “Libertarians/neolib” I keep wondering where it comes from?

“Rougey.” I have a logon name,

please try to rise to manners and use it.

Your abuse of it implies a familiarity whole unjustified and something which, even with all the pleadings you could ever muster, will never be fulfilled (you have been rejected).

“checked your report card, Rougey: it's a big "FAIL".”

I guess the self appointed ‘despot’ will always “Fail” the libertarian.

It stands to reason.

Back to the “pack mentality”, of course, that is the bully coming out.

For all your pomposity, you are only hiding the insecurities of the weak, the physically and/or intellectually inadequate, the under-achievers who hide in the pack and behind bullying behaviour.

Have a nice day

"art. It can be anything. "

I don't think so, else you would'nt have 'bad' art. Basically, art is a skill, a talent or trait, when it is expressed in a manner which enriches or elevates the senses. Displaying the obvious does not become art only because one has the means to exploit it. Is there anything to gain in showing us how a child also has the same skeletal structure as an adult?

Many also exploit sex to front as art, but IMHO, 9 out of 10 points should be deducted for such exploitation, and it is better to seperate the art from the titilating.

> "Displaying the obvious does not become art only because one has the means to exploit it."

You are approximately a century out-dated in your understanding of art. Art is far more than a simple craft. No wonder your mentality/argument is so primitive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp) <- add the extra bracket.

-=-=-=
"In December 2004, Duchamp's Fountain was voted the most influential artwork of the 20th century by 500 selected British artworld professionals.[12] The Independent noted in a February 2008 article that with this single work, Duchamp invented conceptual art and "severed forever the traditional link between... art... and... merit".[13]"
-=-=-=

"Art is far more than a simple craft."

Here you are focusing on the wrong and lesser factor, conveniently. The issue is not whether art is a craft or skill, or inherent human will to express what is not pos with words. The issue is that art is not any and everything, thus the link what art is becomes irrelevent.

Art is definitely not a photograph displaying only a child's natural shrouded form - there is no input here from the camera. Its like calling the sun hot as an artform. Going further, mere titilation of the taboo is not art, and certainly not an elevation of that faculty. The other factor missed is the lessening of humanity by exploiting a child's rights and the terrible impact it can have in how adults view a child. Consider the term ARTLESS.

My wings well and truly “Klimpt” (sic). Rougey repeats sharp jabs from a feather duster, following with a lightning right cross from a bean bag. Hold the intrepid steely close by too when you need to hit out with your heavier weapons e.g., whiteboard erasers, flotation tubes or bubble-wrapped balloons.
Nowadays those who pretend most to exclusive knowledge of art/culture/philosophy so often betray in the clumsiest and most obvious of ways their superficial appreciation of those very fields. This situation would be consistent with generally accelerating conditions of civilizational decadence, socio-economic injustice, and widespread approval for and encouragement of moral degeneracy.
Bowden's article and its pristine clarity stand undented (and mostly uncomprehended) by those uttering unexamined libertarian cliches and slurs here. C'mon guys, let's hear your case supporting that enterprise you regard so necessary (if not valuable) i.e., “adults making and/or using photos of naked children for entertainment purposes”.

IamJoseph>"Consider the term ARTLESS."

Read the end of my comment again, with it's quotation.

-=-=-=
"In December 2004, Duchamp's Fountain was voted the most influential artwork of the 20th century by 500 selected British artworld professionals.[12] The Independent noted in a February 2008 article that with this single work, Duchamp invented conceptual art and "severed forever the traditional link between... art... and... merit".[13]"
-=-=-=

IamJoseph “I don't think so, else you would'nt have 'bad' art. Basically, art is a skill, a talent or trait, when it is expressed in a manner which enriches or elevates the senses.”

“Art” per dictionary.com

Different definitions from the simple

“the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning”

To the more complex:

“the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.”

Imho, it is the last four words which are to the point

“more than ordinary significance”

in addition to what is “beautiful” or “appealing”.

There is no such thing as “bad art”.
Although there is “art” which is in bad taste.

“Displaying the obvious does not become art only because one has the means to exploit it. Is there anything to gain in showing us how a child also has the same skeletal structure as an adult?”

Possibly,

Who are you or I (for that matter) to decide that there is nothing to be gained?

I regularly enjoy wandering through galleries. I pretty soon decide what I like and what I choose to ignore.
Last week I was in the NGV enjoying the deco exhibition, which I can thoroughly recommend to anyone with an open mind and appreciation of the 1930s.

Some things were, to me, exquisite, others I found totally pointless but possibly other folk would not.

If art can teach us one thing it is tolerance.

When governments and supposed “moral majorities” start to define what will be tolerated it is called “intolerance”

adjectives like “bad” or maybe “degenerate” are used to justify “intolerance”.

And when that argument is won the intolerance moves to books and learning and thought…

degenerate books to be burnt,
degenerate teaching outlawed,
degenerate thoughts to be rectified in psychiatric hospitals.
To maintain only accepted and tolerated principles.

We live in a changing world.

A world where only some things are ‘acceptable’ is static, unchanging and rapidly becomes stagnant.

Better we accept the risk of ‘bad taste’ than the certainty of ‘no taste at all’.

See any works by "Klimpt" (sic) in your regular gallery wanderings, Rougey? A self-avowed "delicate and refined aesthete" indeed!

So there's their actual case, finally: "tolerance" for “adults making and/or using photos of naked children for entertainment purposes”. Less explicitly, but an obvious result of such non-intervention, is "tolerance for rock spiders". And such "tolerance" is supposedly an "acceptable risk", because any interventionist or moralist stance will supposedly cascade into all sorts of witch hunts and wider bans, then - yet more vaguely - "stagnation"? Huh?

Such a woolly, vague and weak-minded case for "tolerance" is not to be tolerated, for the sake of my children - and for my country, or those countries in our near region where longer periods of poverty have compelled many into such wretchedness that western child sex tourists (and local varieties) interpret the situation as "tolerance" for their depravity.

A classic middle class cliche posed as some kind of virtue, fitting for this era of heavily subsidised real estate feudalism, property worship, hedge fund/bank bailouts, and various other endorsed socio-economic parasitism and predation. Clearly intolerable, decadent and degenerate.

The most offensive aspect of such advocacy (and its tacit endorsement by the judiciary) is that it insinuates some superficial and ahistorical parallel with anti-fascism. As I spelt out unchallenged elsewhere, pedo art is very compatible with fascism (see: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7463&page=0). The fundamental commonality between pedo art, pedophilia and fascism is clear and profound: "the perverse morality which would uphold as “good” fascists' delight in their wilful dominance, subjugation and debasement of our fellow humans".

No pasaran - They shall not pass - Zero tolerance.

"Different definitions from the simple"

and:

“the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning”

There is a stark contradiction of terms in those two statements, namely with 'different' and 'principles'; while the former stands unqualified - the latter demands conditions. One can say, the setting sun is a natural occurence requiring no input of mankind [it is different from art], and thus its allocation as art becomes non-credible.

One can likewise say the depiction of a naked child is a natural occurence, and its displaying has no artistic input or significance. Principles [conditions] apply. Of course, one can argue that an artist can render a 'different' perspective from the simple of a setting sun or a naked child - but when called upon to nominate any differentiating principles of those perspectives - we have art reduced to the pre-existing public domain retreat only, like boasting one can show a lion's yawn in a new perspective.

There's nothing else applying here but a corruption of what art is or can be: an abstract is made more abstract because there is nothing there - we do this with the term 'belief', as if it can transcend facts and reality and thereby also negate truth. One can either have different with no principles - or different with principles - one cannot have both.

I have never read such pathetic attempts to justify filming nude kids. The long winded excuses people give just so they can justify their own little bits of pleasure is nothing short of atrocious. No doubt some would see artistic value in filming aborted children and then the same people object when these images highlight the barbarity of murder. This nonsense talk of 'bad art' or 'bad taste' is like politicians talking crap instead of addressing the issues. It is simply defending the indefensible by morally bankrupt people.

IamJoseph, I can't really respond as I would be repeatedly revealing your deficient understanding of the definition of art and the idea that you can define it on your own terms, which is a nothing short of astonishing in the arrogance you require to assert this.

milobserver, you are making statements that indicate you have an extremely socialist background. You also appear to have some paranoid fantasy where people who support Henson will try and cause you "indirect harm" if it were possible, but unsure of direct harm. Then you go on to state that you can foresee a need for "vigilantism" if your "demands" are not met. I think Col Rouge is correct. You are the very definition of a fascist. It's interesting that there is little difference between (extreme) socialism and fascism.

The irony is, you've utterly failed to describe how Henson and the model's parents are pedophiles or pornographers and have yet to do so. Same with Olympia. And the reason for this is that such a description of them is so sickening that it defies reason...the absence of which, including the lack of honesty, was why this debate started and was leapt on by authoritarians everywhere, after 25 years of being free to practice his art. A further indication of the weakness and flimsiness of the campaign was the complete ignorance and non-concern among the advocates, for the two 11 year old boys photographed by a female artist who made an exhibition in support of Henson between the Henson and Olympia witch hunts. This is in part, because of feminists, but also because of the "young girls" are seen as more precious and innocent than young boys in our society, who have befallen the effects of rampant, discriminatory feminism.

"the idea that you can define it on your own terms"

This is precisely what I refrained from: I used your own definition and shown it as without credibility. If art is 'ANYTHING' then one does not need a definition, nor can one critique ot applaud it - how convenient. This allows for any wring doings with impunity.

I responded to the runaway notion art is anything and everything - a premise which can be used to violate any paradigms against it. This gives one the freedom of doing anything they like, and calling it art, while it negates anyone else finding any faults in their doings - regardless if they do good or bad. Science, history, geograpgy, plumbing and farming pineapples cannot use that criteria and get away with it. If art is anything, then why object to it also being not art?

IamJoseph “There is a stark contradiction of terms in those two statements, namely with 'different' and 'principles'; while the former stands unqualified - the latter demands conditions.”

Contradiction yes the simple, being absolute and principles requiring understanding of conditions and caveats.

I am however quoting from dictionary.com,

enter “Art” and you will see the same.

I fear you are implying only the “simple” and real life is the more complex.

“Philosophy” is not a series of simple observations but heavily influenced by “principles”

If I look up “Philosophy” in dictionary.com among some other definitions it includes

“the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge,”

“One can either have different with no principles - or different with principles - one cannot have both”

If you want to have a debate about the 'simple' definition of “Art” I fear it will be inconsistent with Bowden's expectation a philosophic definition.

Bowden is expressing opinion from the “Philosophical” perspective, based upon the more complex “principles” and not “simplistic”.

I figure, however, we are seeing the ‘simple’ clinging to the simplistic definitions which they can grasp, with more complex philosophical principles remaining beyond their intellectual reach.

“corruption of what art is or can be”

When art can be all things to all men,

Where can “corruption” find a place

Well I guess, in the interpretation of everything by everybody.

To be all things to all men usually results in many things being corrupt to some.

For instance, a Muslim would observe “corruption” from art depicting a representation of a person, be it by Henson or Botticelli, because of the non-universal values he holds.

Your sense of ‘corruption’ is no different to the Muslims

It is a parochial concept, not a universal value.

And since it is not a universal value, it cannot hold or pretend to be some universal or philosophical truth .

Actually, if art were to be confined to those values enshrined within some universally accepted "truth", you would end up with blank canvases and unhewn rocks.

[try PARAGRAPHS Rougey: more efficient, less self-important]

IamJoseph: I infer justifiably from his text that Steely's foray into aesthetics and definitions would really mean to include as legitimate “art” HARD-core kiddie porn and even child prostitution and child sex abuse; it just seems that he daren't make such particularly relevant conclusions so plain and explicit.

But congratulations anyway, Steely! You finally steeled yourself to make yet another shaky, emotional and vitriolic stand, perhaps revealing again some peculiar pathology driving your support for that cause. For those who missed or forgot it, I spell out his cause again: “adults making and/or using photos of naked children for entertainment purposes”. Such passionate advocacy and unflagging loyalty for a cause so, well, peculiar. For steely's sake, I reiterate the basic legally traditional premise, now largely defunct in Australia: “adults making and/or using photos of naked children for entertainment purposes” are liable to be prosecuted for child pornography, as Gregory Carlin has reminded us clearly with reference to some good UK law. Therefore, any parent, artist, pimp, or other who uses children for soft- or hard-core porn, child prostitution or other sex abuse, should face prosecution for serious sex crime. Of course, potential punishment and mitigation must be assessed on sensible scales of harm, intent, example, etc., as with other criminal cases.

But again Steely claims some dangerous and amorphous ideological nexus with those who would uphold traditional prohibitions against kiddie porn; Steely has labels for such (ideologically varied) among those of us who urge traditional morality on this subject: “communists/socialists”, “feminists”, and just now “fascists”.

Steely's angle on feminists here is very odd too, and actually quite disturbing; it seems to be some deep problem with women generally, as apparent when he exploded on OLO debater “Bronwyn” elsewhere (see: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7463&page=0). It is already very clear steely's deep antipathy towards people like Hetty Johnston, Franca Arena, and probably also Gillian Sneddon (the woman who blew the whistle on Milton Orkopoulos. See: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/27/2174078.htm, for example).

mil-observer, you can't possibly maintain that my defence of this artist, the model and her parents is vitriolic and emotional, when you are the one advocating "vigilantism" in an earlier post if people did not meet your "demands" of "traditional morality" and when, activists like you and Hetty have labelled Henson and the parents child pornographers as if a mere decree immediately qualifies them as such (the vitriol of which is patent and claim is arguably libelous)?

There is no peculiarity in defending principles of free speech and expression except in that it's so rare. Thieves and liars such as yourself have explicitly promoted the idea of vigilantism in this thread if your demands are not met (presumably against the artist and her parents, or the model herself as she is a strong supporter of the photographs and the artist).

Why shouldn't I be antipathic toward socialists or fascists who seek to oppress and control others who they disagree with? Feminists have been a key part of the censorship agenda as have the religious. I am not apologetic to identify their agendas and call them out. They have been given free passes in our society for too long. I love women and have no problem with them at all.

AAAAH.. COL.. I now see the 'titanic struggle' between you and MIL SPEC :)

Col said: "when governments decide what is .... we get intolerance"

degenerate books to be burnt,
degenerate teaching outlawed,
degenerate thoughts to be rectified in psychiatric hospitals.

Agreed....but I think so much of life does automatically involve intolerance already..its neither unusual nor bad neccessarily.

Have you not seen many examples on this forum of people describing 'religion' as a disease which should be medically treated ? I've seen every one of em.. if that mob ever get up.. all your 'd' points above will come true.... for us.

You used the Muslim example re 'non universal' values..but there is no such thing as 'universal' values.. there is a UN convention which suggests there is..but it's just ink on paper..

One mans 'human rights' are anothers 'licence to insult' and many are killed over the difference.

"STEELY" also finds criticism of old men who marry little girls quite 'ok'... so the pattern is beginning emerge.. hmmm *looks at Steel intently*

MIL-SPEC.. I have to applaud your language.. a good read. Once I fully train you.. you will be most useful in my 'cause' :) doncha luv it haha.

Now I get a pungent taste of what Franca Arena had to deal with! This situation probably speaks volumes for the widespread elite influence and reputational investment such Australian pedo art has attracted.

OK steely. So you do then, on your “principles of free speech and expression”, offer implicitly some potential support for more explicit/hard-core varieties of such art photography, as I have suspected? And say performance and /or installation art of the same such activity? According to your own principles and conception of “art” you and your ilk must do - hence my earlier mooting of “the ugly possibility” that vigilantism may well become necessary for child defenders in particular, and anti-fascists in general, in future response to the social degeneracy and danger to children that these Oz art cases portend. In recent years, some vigilante-style mobilization has taken place throughout Southeast Asia in response to the vile infection of child sex tourism – is that an example of “oppression” for you too steely? I trust that Rougey would call it (correctly) “intolerance”.

If your principle does not support cases where art works use hard-core kiddie porn, then your principle is unsustainable and useless; you would have proved yourself to have just wasted everyone's time, including your own.

However, if you are consistent in trying to sustain your principle, then you must advocate in-principle support to such activity as valid - doubtless on your previously expressed concern for preconditions of consent. Therefore, such a condition would merely be that there is some measure of consent from parents, or at least from the children themselves, around the activity of sexual abuse of such children.

By such principle you avoid considering the wider moral, social and legal concerns around the entire case of artistic kiddie porn, whatever its level of transgressive and offensive severity. I maintain also that you confuse and mislead on these cases' wider ideological concerns, though I realize that aspect of debate would be a futile pursuit in our discussion, incompatible as it is with your indulgence in uncritical and abusive name-calling.

Steel I have privately concluded mil observer to be a cardigan struggling troll and completely ignorable.

Polycarp “titanic struggle” – hardly, I would liken it more to arm wrestling with a prawn.

To tolerance and otherwise

An intolerance of practices and beliefs which conflict with a known truth is wisdom.

However, the ignorance based “Subjective Intolerance” of mil observer and his ilk, is invariably the bad sort and the sort which small minded and officious governments believe they are (fraudulently) entitled to dispense, with on our behalf, for our own wellbeing.

As for ‘kiddie porn’, which some here seem fixated upon (possibly a manifestation of their own prurient guilt), depictions of children, naked or otherwise, has been common though out time, including the work of Australia’s own May Gibbs. That the media happens, in Hensons case, to be photographic is irrelevant.

Far more ‘depraved’ scenes are generated as the artistic products of fertile minds than ever with a camera.

Hieronymus Bosch and William Hogarth, both favourites of mine, spring to mind.

and, er, "Klimpt" - don't forget "Klimpt"!

I wonder if the guy charged today with having downloaded nude kids had some of Henson's art among his collection. Maybe he could claim all this porno is art. He might get a sympathetic judge like many of our posters who can't see the stupidity of their arguments.

Art, like free speech, is not above the law, and carnal knowledge is forbidden by the law. Displaying a naked female child is not art - it has already stained the art faculty, while exposing naked those who appear confused instead.

Iamjoseph “Art, like free speech, is not above the law, and carnal knowledge is forbidden by the law. Displaying a naked female child is not art - it has already stained the art faculty, while exposing naked those who appear confused instead”

Humbug (see below)

I thought you had more substance than that,

‘carnal knowledge’, between consenting adults, is not illegal and is the principle action which produces children in the first place (copulation 101).

The second point is displaying images of a naked child, female or otherwise is not “Carnal Knowledge”, I would have thought even someone as seemingly naïve as you would understand that.

Now is the time to admit you have no argument to contribute to a philosophical debate

But you could join mil-observer, in his cesspool of ignorance, as he endlessly amuses himself with my spelling errors (simple things do satisfy that singularly simple mind).

Of free speech

I am off to the State Library Sunday, to listen to some of this “Free Speech” stuff which you claim pretends to be “above the law”.

I wonder if there will be any unlawful heckling?

I can guarantee there will be, especially if you are there on your soap box, pontificating your bilious crap.

As for images of naked females “staining the art faculty”

Well fella, that “:faculty” has been staining itself a luteous hue for some thousands of years, from the Greeks and Romans all the way through to the baroque, renaissance, surrealist and cubists schools and that’s before we even get photography..

And for sure that “faculty” is a happier place than the sad, sanctimonious hogs wallow, which you seem to have emanated from.

I bet everyone of those joyous, bawdy bastards (the art faculty) are peeing with laughter as they read the pretentious twaddle which you suppose substitutes for “philosophy”.

This fits
“Children are a wonderful gift. They have an extraordinary capacity to see into the heart of things and to expose sham and humbug for what they are.”
Desmond Tutu

they clearly see Iamjoseph coming

‘carnal knowledge’, between consenting adults, is not illegal and is the principle action which produces children in the first place (copulation 101).'

Carnal knowledge involves actual sex with a minor - but the principle of this crime is not disassociated with naked female children, then justified with 'but art is anything the offending person decides'.

The missing clause in that sentence: these regimes fell away, after comitting every depravity, and not a single of their laws were accepted or are enshrined in today's laws. The Romans also boasted it was a right to dispense with an ugly baby - how artistic! Have we now dispensed with inalienable human rights - for artistic reasons?

IamJoseph “Carnal knowledge involves actual sex with a minor “

according to reference.com

“Carnal knowledge is an archaic or legal euphemism for sexual intercourse.”

It makes no mention to the age of the participants, which you seem to be presuming a certain specificity to.

If it happened a couple of octogenarians decided to ‘get it off’, they would still experience ‘carnal knowledge‘ of one another (and walking frames put to a whole new purpose).

“but the principle of this crime is not disassociated with naked female children, then justified with 'but art is anything the offending person decides'.”

Interesting thought… maybe you can join the dots between ‘bonking’ and ‘looking at pictures’. I often look at pictures of people, does that mean I have ‘carnal knowledge’ of them all? It might explain my breathlessness.

Your last sentence seems to lack direction (like the mad woman suffering dysentery and doing cartwheels). I am not sure how to address it

(or undress it or maybe have carnal knowledge with it)….

As for Roman rights and ugly babies – well has been known for people of today to reject the fetus when it suffered dwarfism, I guess the similarities are too close for comfort and they do negate your assertion that

“these regimes fell away, after comitting every depravity, and not a single of their laws were accepted or are enshrined in today's laws. “

. . . . don’t ya think?

Now back to art, what I find really boring is when some learned pratt stands up and orates on the subliminal meaning behind Picassos cubist representations or Salvador Dali’s obsessions with everything, especially his nanny.

I was looking up Paul Klee (not a personal favourite but an art academic luminary), today, trying to track his dissertation on the five states every piece of art transits but found no ‘google’ sources.

However he was, like Klimt, vilified as a degenerate and his art described as “the work of a sick mind”.

The irony of that statement is profound when we consider those behind such judgments were responsible for the Holocaust.

Col: Stop kidding yourself with ahistorical, emotive, polarizing and sensationalist grabs for attention as if necessary liberties and rights are threatened by good, traditional law that prohibits "adults making and/or using photos of naked children for entertainment purposes".

Expressionist, Cubist, Symbolist and other such plastic arts have nought to do with photos of naked kids taken for adults' entertainment. Nazi and other Fascist art was often very "degenerate" by practical definition: it is disturbing that you seem so relaxed about your uncritical acceptance of comments by Hitler - as if good faith or rational and responsible consideration drove any of his utterances about politics, society and culture! With such simplistic and caricatured pose at "debate" as yours, we may as well try making mystical claims that Hitler's vegetarianism to have been some influential factor behind the Holocaust.

Australian artist Ivan Durrant, known for his own direct experience at the hands of censors in the 1970s, recently expressed his own opposition to such pedo-artistic photography. As many may remember, he slaughtered a cow before the NGV. But some comparison with Durrant is very useful in this case nonetheless.

Now the statement of Durrant's slaughter-as-performance art was to remind people to be aware of the consequences of their actions. His work then was not some fanatical vegetarian or animal rights protest, but a simple reminder that if you eat meat, there will be a process of brutal slaughter and bloodshed.

The contrast with Henson, Papapetrou, and their supporters could hardly be starker: they instead persist in conjuring and contriving vague and irrelevant statements, deflecting attention from the very consequences that their own art makes obvious to concerned and responsible onlookers i.e., encouragement and normalization for some adults afflicted with that pathological sexual taste for children, otherwise known as pedophilia.

mil-observer, you keep pointing to a kitten or puppy and saying it's a bear. It's not. Stop pretending it is.

mil-observer>"Stop kidding yourself with ahistorical, emotive, polarizing and sensationalist grabs for attention"

You should read Hetty's accusations and your own posts carefully and observe the manner this was conducted in the media.

Sensationalist? Double Check.
Polarizing? Double Check.
Grabs for attention? Double Check.
Emotive? Double Check.
Ahistorical? Double Check.

Read the model's support for Henson. Read the parent's support for her daughter and Henson. These people are victimised by your disgusting, morally repulsive assertions (and agenda) about the exercising of their liberty and happiness and pride the pictures.

Nudity is not a sin. It is not a crime. It is perfectly natural. It's normal. For you to characterise the people involved is simply sick and disgusting. Babies are born naked. With your mentality, they must all be seen in a sexual manner. You are imposing your values and corruption onto the images.

mil-observer:"The contrast with Henson, Papapetrou, and their supporters could hardly be starker: they instead persist in conjuring and contriving vague and irrelevant statements, deflecting attention from the very consequences that their own art makes obvious"

No. You are the contrived one. You are the one deflecting attention from your comments about vigilantism and the damage people like you have done to the models who thought they lived in a free, democratic nation. You are the criminals here, who have dragged this into the media and forced them to be told they are revolting by their own PM. That is what is disgusting here. And that is what you represent. The religious puritan sects that pepper our country like termites and are chewing away at it piece by piece. That is where this anti-nudity ideology comes from. It's from the same poisoned tree as Islam

Dear Mr Peter Bowden
I do wish people would not misquote and misrepresent philosophers. You really should know better. Can I suggest that you actually read the originals.

1. Kant did not say ‘if you are unwilling to allow everybody to adopt an activity whenever they wanted to, then that activity is not morally acceptable’ or anything like this. I presume this is a reference to the first version of the categorical imperative. – ‘Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law’. Your interpretation would make medical procedures immoral. After all, we would surely be unwilling to allow “everyone” to take up surgery whenever they “wanted” to, so, according to you, surgery must be immoral. This is nonsense and certainly not Kant. If the imperative applies at all in this case, it would apply as a maxim regarding persons with particular qualification or skills or social standing or occupation in relation to actions of a particular sort under particular conditions.

2. Kant’s second imperative does not say “we should not use anybody for our own purposes”. Again, this is a gross misinterpretation of Kant and utterly implausible. It is impossible to avoid using other people for our own purposes. Your interpretation would have it that asking someone to pass the salt would be an immoral act! What Kant actually said was ‘Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end’. There is no evidence that Bill Henson failed to respect his models as ends in themselves. There is even less evidence that the parents of the model failed to respect the child’s humanity as an end.

I don't have a fixed view on the Hensen issue but I am greatly depressed at the falling standards of philosophy in Australia.

"...encouragement and normalization for some adults afflicted with that pathological sexual taste for children, otherwise known as pedophilia."

Actually, I think the opposite is true. In a culture engaged in a confusing mishmash of infantalising young adults and sexualising young children, Henson presents adolescent boys and girls as they really are. I find his portraits honest, revealing, rich, disturbing. I think naked people are beautiful, and certainly appropriate subjects for art from the day they are born to the day they die. Henson has made a particular study of adolescence. I discovered it as an adolescent girl myself.

Henson isn't a pedeophile. It's possible pedophiles look at his work, but pedophiles look at Myer catalogues and we haven't stopped publishing them.

Who defines art? We do. If a pedeophile defends possession of child porn on the grounds that it is art, a court would have to be persuaded that reasonable people agree with him. I believe we can trust the community to distinguish between art and porn. Not everyone can make that distinction — including some people on this thread — but, as a group, the citizenry can.

Steely's right back into his OTT hysteria mode calling me a criminal again, but he knows that I qualified with exlicit unease my prediction that vigilantism will happen if the state continues to refuse meeting its obligations to protect society's most vulnerable. To reiterate, I hope it does not come to that, but judicial precedent and socio-economic breakdown could easily worsen existing vulnerabilities. Consider the following from yesterday's news in a middle-class Melbourne suburb:

[20 August 2008]
“A Templestowe man thwarted a child-stealing attempt in Templestowe. Two men in a white van flashed a wad of cash in an attempt to lure two 12-year-old boys into their van in daylight on August 6. ...Police also investigated whether the child-stealing attempt was linked to the disappearance of nine-year-old Yadav Munohur, who went missing the day after the Templestowe incident.” [as readers are probably aware, Yadav's corpse has just been found today]

Now what if the kids took the cash and it was for a soft kiddie porn shoot? Would that meet the Hensonites' pedo-jungle standards of law?

Steely probably regards such news items as sensationalist, populist, etc., and better off to be censored, but parents should know how the phenomenon of child-stealing has usually functioned in Southeast Asia and Latin America. Hired thugs perform the kidnap for pedophiles or their pimp-providers. I suppose steely regards myself, police and criminologists sick for considering these issues too.

Remember too the repeated notorious cases of pedophile clients of child prostitution where the predators casually and self-righteously emphasize the parental and/or child consent. Properly considered, the consent issue in kiddie porn would be relevant only as a matter for potential mitigation (as in that UK case at the thread's start, which would vindicate their system's enforcement of such law).

So steely seems to be – at the very least - in quite ugly criminal company. If there is more to such unsavory association, steely, then remember that the community knows well how both police and most prisoners would reserve special treatment for you too.

Veronika writes

'Henson isn't a pedeophile. ' Pimps are not prostitutes either. They just make money out of using others. Using kids is as low as you can go.

"Now back to art, what I find really boring is when some learned pratt stands up and orates on the subliminal meaning behind Picassos cubist representations or Salvador Dali’s obsessions with everything, especially his nanny. "

That the contraversial becomes elevated to cult status, like in a religion, is also the reason today that follows the controversial. The back-door there is that it is art.

I am certain those painters had something more to their work than just the controversial, and they remain unequalled, but that has nothing to do with nudity and naked bodies - they could paint any subject and still be great. If our naked girlie cameraman can perform great shots with fully clothed girls and palm trees - then call him an artist. The trees won't be offended.

I think Allison Croggon bequeathed us the ultimate statement of hypocrisy from the Hensonite pseudo-art brahmins, pedo nurturers and their more furtive "Uranian" sidekicks. It's a right racket going on now, and the pretensions to aesthetic sensibility and "insight beyond the masses" seem to have never before been so outlandish (probably a result of more “user pays” education and the greater disparities between workers on the one hand and inheritors and parasite-speculators on the other).

Relying wholly on an unexplored and untested principle of “free expression” cliche, Croggon blatantly and repeatedly censored blog comments from anti-kiddie porn activist Gregory Carlin!

See: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7202906&postID=8771780408060951035&isPopup=true
and http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7202906&postID=6162701458212353063&isPopup=true

IamJoseph “That the contraversial becomes elevated to cult status, like in a religion, is also the reason today that follows the controversial. The back-door there is that it is art.”

Keep reading these sentences and I keep coming up with the same question

Is it poor grammar or is it simply gibberish?

gibberish seems to prevail.

“I am certain those painters had something more to their work than just the controversial”

It depends on who you are, what your values, beliefs and expectations are.

I found this interesting comment on a website http://www.salvadordaliexperts.com/salvadordalicontroversy.html

“For centuries, those with talent, have had to put up with those that have no talent,”

What IamJoseph is doing is confirming himself as someone who, if ever it mattered, is obviously one of those with “no talent”

“If our naked girlie cameraman can perform great shots with fully clothed girls and palm trees, then call him an artist.”

I can relate that to some others, who took it to themselves to prescribe what the artistic values were which every artist (not only of the visual but literary and music too) had to conform with.

“Socialist Realism was proclaimed the approved method for Soviet artists in all media.”

“The aim of the new creative method was 'to depict reality in its revolutionary development';”

Ask Solzhenitsyn , Pasternak, Shostakovich and thousands of other individuals, to say nothing of the Russian Orthodox Church, whose religious icons and buildings were desecrated in the name of “socialist realism” about IamJoseph’s expectation to define artistic constraints and the idea that

some authoritarian bureaucracy must hold the power to decide the style and content of works of art, including levels of nudity, for which artists must conform, under penalty of prison and worse.

Oscar Wilde said “the cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing”

I suspect IamJoseph is not a cynic and wonder what ‘philosophical’ values he does hold, if any?.

For whilst he clearly knows the value of nothing,

nor does he know its price.

And the price is one of the most expensive

It is 'personal liberty'.

mil-observer you've basically been reduced to a repetition of 'pedo' terminology, which you're now applying to anything and everything that you disagrees with. you are rambling and it's hard to follow some of your comments (what the hell is a "Uranian", is "insight beyond the masses" and how is free expression "unexplored and untested"...)?

"Isuspect IamJoseph is not a cynic and wonder what ‘philosophical’ values he does hold, if any?"

There is a right and wrong, and that this does not alter with art or eye of the beholder - runaway paths of retreat. Art is not anything, nor is everything art, nor is anything above all laws, nor do we need to be shown children's underparts to show there is something more than meets the eye.

Nude girly children may bring gasps and bravo's from some - even when it is clearly not artistic, and this has no allignment with Stalinist Russia nor medevial Europe's ways - these also did the same to all, thus its nothing o do with art or free speech, etc. A nude child's photograph as art just falls below the level of all art requirements and confuses it with something else: are you sure its the art that you see? I assure u I'm no prude either.

Now we're supposed to believe sleazy suggestions that Solzhenitsyn, Pasternak, Shostakovich and Wilde – not just Klimt - would offer in-principle support for production, public exhibition and marketing of soft-core kiddie porn!

IamJoseph: forget the subjective riddle of trying to categorize artistic kiddie porn as either “art” or “porn” - as I explained previously, Koontz and Cicciolina demolished such notional, binary distinction with their highly stylized xxx-level photo art. Denying Hensonites their “art” tag allows them their only semblance of defence i.e., relativist image of the persecuted.

Steely knows exactly what I mean with the “Uranians”, but his evasion speaks volumes. Previously I referred to the Uranians thus: '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.'

In that previous thread (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7463&page=0) steely was all but exposed, and the context of my mention of the Uranians was Operation Centurion – an international bust of kiddie porn creeps. That law-enforcement context infuriated him, evoking much more hostility and abuse.

Read together, steely's circuitous evasions, explosions and brazen disingenuousness suggest that type, whether kiddie porn addict or practising pedophile, which seeks normalization and acceptance for a reviled, sexually pathological criminality.

Their main dishonest tactics:
1. Seek sympathy - claim victimhood of oppressed and powerless;
2. Imply exclusivity - claim higher, elite understanding simply beyond opponents' comprehension, thereby removing all responsibility to explain support for adults' creation and use of soft kiddie porn.
3. Evasion - avoid testing questions of principle e.g., “freedom of expression” with hard-core kiddie porn, etc.
4. Disengage - further to 3., confound by claiming opponents are incomprehensible. Buncle too did that early in his pro-pedo-art OLO thread, instead trying to lure opponents onto his site. His strange and coy response left an impression of trying to snare IP addresses.

IamJoseph “even when it is clearly not artistic,”

Who are you to mandate what is “Artistic” and what is not?

I see and hear a lot of things which I think, artistically, are absolute crap.

I have the personal right to decide

What “art” I like
What “art” I will recommend
What “art” I will reject
What “art” is in poor taste
What “art” is stupid
What “art” I will hang on my wall or listen to.

However, I do not have the right to declare what is not “art”

Nor do I have the right to decide what topics or images may be allowed to be depicted or relayed to others in the name of “art”.

Many years ago when I studied art, more intently than I do today, I recall Paul Klee in der Blaue Rieter (a publication circulated between WWI and WWII) expressing something like the following

(I cannot find any web based details and no longer have the reference books to the source, so the words are mine and might lose something in translation but the essence is, hopefully, the same)

Klee described a piece of “art” as existing in five states

1 the idea perceived in the mind of the artist
2 the interpretation of that idea by the artist
3 the actual piece of work as it exists, independently as a piece of “art”
4 the impression and feelings it engenders in the viewer
5 the response of the viewer to that piece of art and those feelings.

Five steps, each successive one potentially varying from the previous.

And you think you have the right to decide, what someone else, who does not give a rats for your “response to the piece of art” (step 5) is allowed to perceive (step 1) or interpret (step2) and produce (step3)?

Strange version of a philosophy of life you have, you must be personally impressed with your own rights and authority and absolutely indifferent to those of everyone else.

mil-observer, I am not evading anything and it's true that I had no idea what you'sve been referring to...that should be telling you something, perhaps how deluded you are. You have basically gone from normal responses, to talk of vigilantism, to constantly referring to child pornography at every available opportunity. Much as women were burned alive because people got themselves into hysterical fits about witchcraft some centuries in the past, you (and Hetty) similarly think that pointing your finger is enough proof. It's not.

I guess you think that if you repeat it enough, then it will be true. Careful where you tread mil-observer... You've gone further than Gibo's attacks on Steel_Mann, which seemed to have gotten Gibo suspended. I have definitely noted your attempts over the last three or so posts to associate me with child pornography. Make no mistake that this shows how deceitful you are and that you have a rotten character (as does Hetty and others who have done this to the models, parents and artists).

"I have the personal right to decide"

The 'I' is subserviant here, to the community at large and the laws and traditions within a nation state and its space-time.

Is anything NOT art? - consider one claiming deeply significant artist merit in murder and rape, for example.

Unsurprisingly steely claims I'm transgressing – after he repeatedly labelled me a criminal. It is all the more offensive given his sleazy, dishonest pose of “debate”, misrepresenting as “advocacy” and “promotion” my mooting of the “ugly possibility” of vigilantism (if there are too many more cases like that of poor Yadav then such possibility may arise even sooner than I feared).

IF, then, OLO suspended someone else on such grounds of abuse, why would OLO allow such a double standard in steely's case?

Btw, Buncle does seem a “nice old man”, no? Check his photo - an associate of steely perhaps?

Steely not evasive? What of “free expression” principle and hard core artistic kiddie porn? And Croggon's “free expression” hypocrisy?

Addenda: the following tactics are consistent with circuitous, dishonest, and manipulative aggression by pedophile networks seeking to intimidate and quash scrutiny by opponents.

Hensonite tactics:
1. Sympathy-seeking - claim victimhood of oppressed, persecuted.
2. Implied exclusivity - claim higher, elite understanding beyond opponents' comprehension, thereby removing all responsibility to explain support for adults' creation/use of artistic soft kiddie porn.
3. Evasion - avoid testing of principle e.g., “freedom of expression” with hard-core kiddie porn, etc.
4. Disengage - beyond 3., confound by claiming opponents are incomprehensible (Buncle too did that early in his pro-pedo-art OLO thread, instead trying to lure opponents onto his site. His strange and coy response left an impression of trying to snare IP addresses).
5. Inverted pathology: this infantile tactic depicts artistic kiddie porn's opponents themselves as “sick, fixated, obsessed, criminal”.
6. Universal hyperbolic abuse: beyond 5., but similarly infantile, spread smears to cover all possible extremes of potential stigma. Therefore, opponents of artistic kiddie porn must be both pornographic-minded AND sexually repressed puritans. Obsessed with nudity/sexuality, but also terrified of it. If in polarizing war talk, opponents are crusading Christian fundamentalists AND “Taliban” Muslims (“poison”), etc., socialists/communists AND nazis/fascists. Regardless, opposition – not pedo art - is “extreme”.

Another tactic is steely's more open abuse, apparently designed to provoke indignant labels of “rock spider” in order to get his opponents kicked from the forum.

IamJoseph

“I have the personal right to decide

The 'I' is subserviant here, to the community at large and the laws and traditions within a nation state and its space-time.”

you conveniently failed to finish quoting me

which was

“I have the personal right to decide . . . .

. . .What “art” I like, recommend, reject, consider poor taste, is stupid and what I will hang on my wall or listen to.”

In this context, “I” is not subservient to anyone or anything, certainly not the constraints and censorship which the “You’s” of this country would fraudulently take unto yourselves to decree.

We live in a nation of equal individuals, with a respect for the rights of others but with no one subservient to another.

“Is anything NOT art? - consider one claiming deeply significant artist merit in murder and rape, for example.”

Shakespeare’s Macbeth deals with murder. Is IamJoseph condemning Shakespeare ?

I recall Jodie Foster in a Movie, the Accused (1988), in which she depicted a girl who was raped in a bar / pool hall.

Imho it was an outstanding characterization and an exemplary piece of dramatic art.

The more I read of your posts, the more I see how you are a person constrained by dogma and indoctrinated with someone elses preordained values, possibly beaten into you when a child.

I am pleased I never had that happen to me.

I am proud I never did that to my children.

I can also see how a nation, populated by fearful souls, such as yourself, would heap derision on the Klimt and Klee etc in the Exhibition of the Degenerates and how your conformity to dogma would rather see a Hitler or Stalin dictating how we should be allowed to think, than risk the radical thoughts of free spirits to challenge the status quo of your stagnation.

Steel, quiet advise, mil-swill is a knuckle dragging drongo, full of “little-man” hubris, insecurities and faux-wit.
I decided to ignore him for the simple reason, his hat size is larger than his IQ.

"UNCRC I just read the Telegraph story. The judge convicted the tutor, but in a way which said he essentially wasn't guilty - sentenced to 150 hours of community work. In sentencing he said that there was no improper motive in taking the photographs, and that they had been taken at the invitation of the children's parents.

I think that it is extraordinary that a civilised country would have such draconian legislation and that anyone could support it."

The only draconian points you need to get your head around is that if Bill Henson does it in London, he is going to jail, and he is staying in jail because he is a child pornographer, and that if you can't sell it in London, it isn't art.

That's a real world analysis. Some of the galleries in Croggon's letter have banned Henson's child porn material. Henson is a sick puppy, the sooner he is arrested the better, and he will be arrested somewhere, he can't hide in Oz forever.

"I'd be surprise if what you are saying is right. Australia has the some of the strictest rules in the Western world concerning child nudity, and our censorship authority (OFLC) has given the OK to Bill Henson. Check their website:"

I live in the UK, Bill Henson's mterial is child pornography and banned here. It is illegal to sell his kiddie fetish material.

Australia has ( by our standard) remarkably lax laws on child pornography as does Japan. Both countries have problems.

Bill Henson has been a major police prob for years, he is smart enough to hang out in cpountries which allow child pornography.

He'll be clocked like Gary Glitter eventually. It is only a matter of time before Bill Henson is put in jail. Henson is promoting child pornography, he is a pedophile icon.

"We live in a nation of equal individuals, with a respect for the rights of others but with no one subservient"

This appears to be your fundamental error. The community DOES retain transcendent rights and priority over the individual.

UNCRC really tells it like it is: embarrassing, because Oz truly does have a problem on this. It's a result of the old “cultural cringe”, trying desperately to say “yes, we do get ART”, as well as the status anxiety of many who have got rich from nothing but a speculative casino economy; such people feel a desperate need to say “we have CLASS too! Look at our art stuff” (like that useless ponce Malcolm Turnbull announcing proudly in parliament that he has Henson photos in his collection).

I don't normally re-send previous comment – too much like spam. But there was a clear precedent for such repetition earlier on this thread. This following challenge too was unmet, just like my questions on “pedo art principle” and hard core kiddie smut:

“...imagine the response and comparison if I had made “art” from Hensonized photography of say Halle Berry or Erika Heynatz. Would anyone have been upset when people stated the obvious by saying that my work fell within acceptable limits of mature and legalized “soft core porn”? And on aesthetic grounds, would anyone dare bleat to oppose the label “soft porn” for my kitsch art, or defend self-righteously by conjuring notions of what it could hardly be i.e., a supposedly “empathetic, non-sexualized, non-exploitative, non-pornographic” oeuvre of “true, high ART”?

So IamJoseph: I mean by the above point that, rather than trying to debate Hensonites on principle and theory (futile with libertarian relativists and their sophist methods), it can be far more effective to actually demonstrate the absurdity of their claims. Of course, whether those claims are from cynical, covert pedophiles or from pretentious, status-anxious parasites is a separate matter for consideration.

IamJoseph “This appears to be your fundamental error. The community DOES retain transcendent rights and priority over the individual”

Really?

I do not see you as the arbiter of the “communities transcendent rights or priorities”

I see nothing in your posts which are held as a “foundation of community value” or even an embellishment on community value, just the reposts of the impotent.

Otherwise people like me would have been burnt as heretics or butchered by the moralists inquisition.

Seems to me, like I said before, the values of -

“a person constrained by dogma and indoctrinated with someone elses preordained values, possibly beaten into you when a child.”

An anachronistic perception of the relationship between community and its participants.

Contemporary values have empowered the ordinary individual.
The dogmatic authority of religious and social institutions has dwindled, largely due to their internal corruption to the point, the one time figure an indomitable parish priest, is reduced to a creature of deep public suspicion.

I guess that is your error, the ‘authority’ to which you cling died some decades ago.

Of course, the philosophical debate has moved on too. Like you, Bowden is step locked into supporting an historic anachronism.

Gay rights is good; equal gay rights is bad - it hurts gays more than helps them. Gay is not a moral/ethical issue, nor a free choice one - the existential factor over-rides. Consider that if 20% of humanity became gay, it would not survive more than a few generations.

Protection of gays can only come from implementing and mandating Gay rights - but equal Gay rights do the reverse - knowing this difference shows the way to go. Both Hetros and gays become subserviant here to the laws impacting humanity as a whole. Too bad that many hetros and gays see otherwise, and concluding their doctrines on that basis.

Considered and defined properly, the anachronism appears actually from Henson, Papapetrou and their ilk, as well as from their pedophilic and otherwise decadent supporters, or merely naïve and gullible dupes.

Legal and bureaucratic protections against child abuse are relatively new innovations in the concepts we describe as “civilization” and “human rights”. In European history, such activism only appeared to effect powerful changes from the time of the Industrial Revolution; various exploitation and other abuse of children was apparently even more rife in that era, unchecked by legislative activism and the development of foundational and state social security obligations.

Developing countries have had to confront more of this revolting phenomenon as part of the wretchedness brought by unfair application of “free trade” and strategic designs of major powers concerned about their own dominance, or at least unchallenged advantages. It is well known that socio-economic, and legal and other institutional, weaknesses in such developing countries have attracted those afflicted by the pathology of pedophilia – whether as a market demand spawning child prostitiution or its de facto advertising medium of child pornography.

Further back, the Roman republican and imperial ages left us much evidence of yet more widespread abuses of children, sometimes even appearing as a normalized activity practised by slave owners and others among Rome's powerful; Suetonius in particular conveys just how casual and normalized pedophilia seems when reading ancient Roman texts.

Therefore, efforts to legalize or validate child pornography – however such porn may be stylized and marketed - merely aim to normalize such abuse of children as practised in societies less concerned for their cruelty or depravity.

IamJoseph

I fail to see the relevance of the gay community to this particular debate.

However, rather than leave unsaid that which might clarify a philosophical position

I personally consider gay practices to be “abnormal”.
However, I am tolerant of the “abnormal”.

Or to put it another way, I find the range of human behaviours much like a bell curve of population, with abnormals which exist, naturally and predictably, beyond 2 and even 3 SD from the mean of “normal” human behaviour (at each end of the population spectrum, one of which maybe where you ‘reside’, with gays at the other end).

In short, we live in a diverse world (and not one of singular, monolithic values).

As for “Gay is not a moral/ethical issue, nor a free choice one”

That is a strong and absolute presumption

I would observe, the range of individuals identifying themselves as “Gay” is very broad and will include the bisexual as well as homosexual. Likewise, the incidence of bisexuality might be a once off or a regular pursuit, which would suggest opportunity to exercise “free choice” and the decision will, in many cases be conditioned by an individuals ethical and moral values, making it “choice” predicated on ethical/moral values and thus a “moral/ethical issue”.

Similarly the style and types of relationships which exist among heterosexuals is diverse.

The monogamous and polyamorous,
A relationship founded on a mutuality of respect versus dominant / doormat one
The vanilla versus the S&M
a thousand others and each classification existing with varying hues / degrees of intensity, polarity.

And you think they all follow your view on laws?

Wrong

You would be lucky to find a small minority who supported the exact specifics of what you slavishly believe we must all do.

So, we get back to your take on things and a support in the law which you presume exists.

Regarding Henson, I see a lack of prosecution or legal activity, which would support a notion that it is your presumption which is erroneous.

So, “...a lack of prosecution or legal activity” on Henson, Papapetrou et al is now meant to prove some validity – true legitimacy - for such soft-core artistic kiddie porn? This thread looks to have gone the way of the other one on this subject (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7463&page=0). Cornered by the various absurdities of their position, the Hensonites hide behind “The Law” in Oz.

Thus does that self-advertised “challenging, taboo-breaking, anti-authoritarian, progressive avant garde” expose its true cowardly, regressive and bourgeois-smug nature. In such fashion do Hensonite proclaimers of “free expression”, “individualist free-thinking” and supposedly liberalist vigour eventually, but inevitably, find themselves skulking in the swampy intellectual, moral and ideological cul de sac that their shallow, unexplored claims and arguments promised. In that vacuous position can they resort to little more than a meek, obsequious pledge to “cheerfully obey their (decadent baby boomer) parents, teachers and the laws”.

Of course, UK law offers the obvious relativist pursuit after such an undignified retreat; Australian law is, after all, a direct offspring of the English model and its precedent, while the judiciary in this monarchist country has in many ways preserved aspects of such old law now deemed anachronistic in the UK.

But when we address that fact – emphasizing how Henson, Papapetrou et al would be doing serious time if in the UK - that's the point at which the Hensonites take one final step back and chant “oi oi oi” while saluting the Oz flag.

Then, if “the law”, its minders and rich oligarch-sponsors proclaimed a special taste for say muscular, fascist and homoerotic sculpture, or even household furniture and ornaments made from human body parts, we should only expect Hensonites to respond warmly to any such genre of “daring” and “challenging” work too.

Hensonites should ask themselves: are they scoundrels – or degenerates?

You people are seriously obsessed with this stuff.

And I'm not talking about Col Rouge, for a change :)

Indeed, I completely endorse his essential arguments in this case, if not necessarily his way of putting them, as is his wont when he gets a bee in his bonnet.

The obsession seems a lot more with the defenders of these artist who exploit kids.

So this is where the hysterics, prudes, wowsers and other assorted philistines are taking us:

<< 'Prudish' council bans nude artwork entries >>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/27/2347993.htm

No doubt the religious nutters and other sexually repressed types will celebrate this return to the 1950s.

Oh really CJ. Is it going to kill you that you are unable to perve at least in one arena at nudes? I mean the public is so deprived. They can get every perversion they want on the internet, tune to SBS for some sodomy or simply buy a magazine from Coles or Woolies. Would you like it mandatory for every school child to receive a weekly nude? Give us a break.

What did I say about religious nutters?

CJ Morgan, I note that this council that banned nude artworks is in South Australia, the same state where a woman was questioned over the use of a breast pump. I wonder if Runner comes from South Australia.

"Moral Panic" anyone? You guys are so funny!

A council forbids nudes from entry to a council-/rate-funded exhibition, so "steely-clone" exaggerates the situation as "council that banned nude artworks is in South Australia".

Then again, it appears that such a local backlash is to be expected after citizens - at the national level - had soft-core kiddie porn shoved at them repeatedly by the oligarch-rich / culture-vulture pseudos and more furtive "Uranian" peds. As UNCRC said: "It's that context thing".

CJ Morgan

"So this is where the hysterics, prudes, wowsers and other assorted philistines are taking us:

<< 'Prudish' council bans nude artwork entries >>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/27/2347993.htm

No doubt the religious nutters and other sexually repressed types will celebrate this return to the 1950s."

A ban on adult nudes in art is a different issue to the debate in question here which is about artists using photographs of child nudes.

Bronwyn “A ban on adult nudes in art is a different issue to the debate in question here which is about artists using photographs of child nudes.”

Apart from the age, assuming appropriate consent is obtained for release, what is the difference?

Both children and adults have been depicted in art since people put muddied hand to cave wall.

We have a few folk who seem to be obsessed in banning the creative spirit because the subjects are ‘children’.

When creativity is banned in any form, it makes for a poorer world.

Whilst you may support making the world a poorer place, I do not

Whilst I look at a lot of ‘creative art’ and think it is crap, I do not seek to ban it, the same way I do not seek to ban the writings of say David Irving, the holocaust denier.

Life is better when people are respected sufficiently to decide, for themselves, what ‘creative art’ they choose to view, read or listen to, rather than being censored from forming their own conclusion.

As for the pedophile thing, fast cars attract hoons and dangerous street racers, should we ban picture of fast cars because some innocent driver might get killed in collision with a hoon?

Bronwyn, I agree that "a ban on adult nudes in art [should be] a different issue to the debate in question here which is about artists using photographs of child nudes". However, what I was pointing out is how both issues are part of a wowserish 'moral panic' under which anything to do with sexuality in art is apparently regarded as potentially damaging to children.

Indeed, your more obsessive cohorts like mil-observer and runner take this further and suggest that anybody who disagrees with their prudish perspectives must have paedophile tendencies - which is as offensive a position as it is plain dumb.

The controversy about Bill Henson and the subsequent 'Art Monthly' cover feeds directly into this expression of wowserism by the Tea Tree Gully Mayor:

"Ms Smith said she was also wary of recent national controversy after the magazine Art Monthly published a photograph of a naked six-year-old girl on its July cover.

This was after NSW police launched an investigation into acclaimed photographer Bill Henson, who was exhibiting portraits of young nudes."

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24250359-662,00.html

Here's a bit of argumentative help for Rougey (though he'd use the word "assistance" - it sounds more sophist-icated and middle class, like "sufficiently" for that tewwibly coarse word "enough")

So the following edit would have resulted had Col considered just one of the logical implications of his sweeping pretences at aesthete-idealism: "Apart from the age, assuming appropriate consent is obtained for release, what is the difference? Both children and adults have been depicted in hard core porn since people first made hard core porn. We have a few folk who seem to be obsessed in banning the creative spirit of some hard core porn because the subjects are ‘children’. When creativity is banned in any form, it makes for a poorer world. Whilst you may support making the world a poorer place, I do not"

Also, drivers of fast cars do not target children. And most people in our civilized community do not revile those who like or are good at driving fast cars. Even red herrings have more relevancy than that extra forgettable point.

I see ‘knuckles’, our resident Neanderthal, has taken to editing and rearranging what I say, instead of quoting me and making his own original statements.

Well at least he is starting from a point a reason, sure as hell, he would not have that if he relied on his own ‘creativity’.

But knuckles does not want creativity, he loathes it, someone might draw a “naughty bit” and outrage knuckles’ pet hamster….

“Also, drivers of fast cars do not target children.” no they are murderously indiscriminate, as far as that goes.

Concerning “And most people in our civilized community do not revile those who like or are good at driving fast cars.”

Obviously, the subtlety of the sentence went right over knuckles strangely prominent forehead…

maybe if her were not so obsessed with pornography, he would not see it in everything....and there would be some room, at least, for aesthetics

Col Rouge

"We have a few folk who seem to be obsessed in banning the creative spirit because the subjects are ‘children’."

I'm not advocating the banning of any creative endeavour. My point is, and has always been, that I have reservations about artists using photographs of naked children in a day and age when the same sort of photographs are being circulated in large numbers on the internet and harming many children as a result.

Besides which, I don't consider photographs to have the same creative merit as most other forms of artistic expression. Afterall, no matter what sort of reputation the artist has, deserved or otherwise, the end result is still a copy, not an original work.

I just think Henson should have shown more sensitivity and not ventured where he has, that's all. I'm not calling for bans. So jump down from your libertarian high horse.

CJ

"The controversy about Bill Henson and the subsequent 'Art Monthly' cover feeds directly into this expression of wowserism by the Tea Tree Gully Mayor.."

I see your point, but don't agree. I still think the distinction holds.

Strange, you're now making much the same type of case as I have in stating nude photos of children in art feed into the issue of nude photos circulated by paedophiles. You've argued they are two different issues, but I remain unconvinced. Now the tables are turned; you're arguing the case of a linkage, whereas I don't see it that way. I guess to some extent we all take what we want from the evidence around us and mould it to fit our own preconceptions!

"Indeed, your more obsessive cohorts ... take this further and suggest that anybody who disagrees with their prudish perspectives must have paedophile tendencies - which is as offensive a position as it is plain dumb."

While I've been impressed by a lot of what mil-observer has had to say on other threads and again here, if this is the case (and I haven't followed this particular thread all the way through) I would have to agree with you.

Nah, Hensonites miss me again by miles.

Rougy's response mostly perpetuates a pseudo-intellectual indulgence in an effort to protect unexplored argumentative positions; after all this prompting, rougey (and his mates) simply cannot go into the testing issues of art and hard core, art and human body parts, snuff art, etc.

Indeed some of my extra prompts have compared several Hensonites' responses with those irrational and fantasy-inspired claims of pedophiles. Obviously not all Hensonites make for such instructive and worrying comparison. As far as I recall, Croggon is a case in point there: clearly she falls more into the "status-anxiety" camp. My comments on rougy's pompous English suggests that as a potential "out" for him too. A related, though less committed, comment along those lines came from Barry Kosky, who expressed his own concerns based on a mystical concept of "artistic/cultural status" around Henson. Academic Donald Brook also made similar, though more articulate claims.

I do think rougy opened up by making explicit his support for "consent" around artistic kiddie porn; I prodded him and others on that matter also a while back. That consent issue was my reason for highlighting comparisons with precedent of child prostitution and its more direct and less artistic advertising media which even Hensonites may call unambiguously "child pornography". Nonetheless, such notions of "consent" too appear repeatedly in pedophiles' statements under interrogation - it's about clear impressions of argumentative or manipulative tendencies (not the alleged, more sweeping and premature claim that "anybody who disagrees...must have pedophile tendencies").

More generally however, I believe the Hensonites inadvertently invite serious scrutiny by their simplistic, cliched and unexplored recourse to "free expression" idealism and their awkward silence on my testing questions. I have read and heard several statements by convicted pedophiles offering an identical, self-righteous libertarian rationale of "free choice" when applied to sexual activity, especially in cases around that predatory criminality known as "child sex tourism".

So there you have some further substantiation and clarification for my statements here. I expect no corresponding effort from the Hensonites, who merely indulge in unqualified personal abuse with implications of class/race/breeding superiority.

Bronwyn: << ...you're arguing the case of a linkage, whereas I don't see it that way >>

I certainly don't see it that way. However, the Mayor of Tea Tree Gully evidently does, as do the wowser contingent like runner who celebrate this extension of prudishness under the cover of "what about the children".

Apparently the major area of concern is that children may have seen the artworks. They are able to be viewed with the ABC report, and any reasonable person would have to agree that they are pretty tame depictions of nude humans of a kind that is to be found in virtually any art gallery you can name.

It is precisely this kind of prudish censorship that was what originally concerned me about the hysterical and ongoing moral panic about Henson's images. Unfortunately, it seems that the wowsers have conscripted more reasonable people in their apparently successful campaign to sexualise all art portraying nude humans.

The weird thing is that none of these apparently controversial artworks (including Henson's) are pornographic - yet anybody at all with an Internet connection can download as much pornography as they like, much of which is indeed offensive and exploitative.

I predict the return of the figleaf to art galleries, while the hard core porn industry continues to thrive online.

Sigh.

Bronwyn “artists using photographs of naked children in a day and age when the same sort of photographs are being circulated in large numbers on the internet and harming many children as a result.”

The issues are mutually exclusive.

This is the point, you are attempting to connect artistic appreciation with some salacious and perverted appreciation.

I know the difference, we all know the difference.

And you will not curtail the salacious by censoring the artistic, especially when no one can define “Artistic”.

“Besides which, I don't consider photographs to have the same creative merit as most other forms of artistic expression.”

I referred to Klee previously. His dissertation in “Der Blaue Reiter”, to the separate states which art transcends are

1The idea in the artists mind
2The artists execution of that idea
3The piece of ‘art’ itself
4The impression of the art piece on the viewer
5 the viewers response to that impression

(that’s from memory, cannot find any google or my the original source)

The use of photography in that series of events is 2) and you did not get involved until 4) yet have the audacity to judge the intention of the artist 1)!

I consider photographs as no different to oil or water paint. The people who have acquired Man Ray images think so too.

The point with “art” is that it is subjective, not objective.

“Consider” what you want, it does not make it fact.

“Photography” is the medium, not the “art”.

“I just think Henson should have shown more sensitivity and not ventured where he has, that's all. I'm not calling for bans. So jump down from your libertarian high horse.”

Nietzsche suggested "Who wishes to be creative must first blast and destroy accepted values."

Which challenges Peter Bowden’s “still life: knitting socks sat in armchair” approach to “philosophy”.

How ‘sensitive’ anyone is remains within their personal gift.

As to dismounting,

That will always be my choice and something you will never command.

“Hi O Silver….”

knuckles seems to have found a dictionary (some tell him, sentences consisting just of adjectives sound silly).

Next come the polar bears...

As a further exercise in reasoning, consider just what position pedophiles would adopt over this issue: “Naked children, moral philosophy and photographs”. I make the specific reminder here that the essential topic of our debate is “adults making and/or using photos of naked children for entertainment purposes”. So where would pedophiles' opinion, taste, and “margin for error” or “risk assessment”, fall in this discussion?

Now such consideration would not be irrational or unsuitable; it would not pose the same risk of simplistic polarization, discursive degradation, or unwarranted stigmatization as, say: “Milton Orkopoulos was a member of the ALP, therefore members of the ALP have more or less the same tendencies”, etc. Photos of naked children are germane to this very discussion – as distinct from such irrelevant and distracting ephemera as party membership, state of birth (SA, for example!), religion, diet, ethnicity, citizenship, age, or even gender.

That is why I identify here the parallels and similarities between avowed art-libertarian opinions with pedophiles' much-recorded views on individual liberty in that same context of photographed naked children (and beyond).

As I stated earlier, such patterns of belief and thought process invite “a conclusion that Bowden and OLO have once more provoked response from those more pathologically motivated among the Hensonites.” So to shift Col's analogy into a proper place, that above conclusion would be just as apt as somebody, say, concluding that “in-principle” supporters of fast car pics likely contain a higher proportion of those who have caused grievous injury or death from speeding, or were so disposed towards such recklessness on our roads.

If some OLO respondents are offended by such identification and comparison of their own statements, well, I would only mean them to be so offended if: 1) it brought to wider attention the seriousness of issues at stake; 2) it elicited a more substantial case from opponents of Bowden/supporters of Henson, Papapetrou et al, or 3) they happen to be pedophiles.

So far, most of what we have from Hensonites is a rehash of liberalist and libertarian conceits.

I missed rougy's repeat indulgence in name-dropping. Nietzsche! To be specific, was that quote pertaining to “The Genealogy of Neurosyphillis” or “The Revaluation of All House Valuations”?

Nietzsche was a brilliant scholar who went stark staring mad after catching a nasty dose of clap. Unfortunately for us, his more passionate, headstrong and inconsistent musings and rants intensified and proliferated after that illness had already begun to take effect - and then publishers became very interested. After the publishers, Nietzsche became a wellspring of inspiration for many others, from those interested in dignifying neo-Darwinian brutality and those stranger notions of “race” supremacy in nationalism, to that bizarre crowd of misanthrope quacks known as “eugenicists”. If we check any nutter-ideologue from that time we almost invariably find some reference to Nietzsche: handy catch-phrases and aphorisms all easy for recital by any simplifier who wants to make a pose of profundity.

Rougy's further posing returns us, full circle, to the ideological problem in Hensonites' passion for artistic kiddie porn. Mystical and mythological notions of the “artist” and “creativity” all promise those same threats of ideological, social and cultural degeneracy which I highlighted earlier by identifying the fascistic quality of both the art and its supporters' arguments. Any notion of radical artistic brahmanism, conferring on artists some special, hallowed domain, higher status and immunity from traditional moral constraint, leads logically and philosophically into that Berlin cavern where it was last discussed between Speer and his own more infamous artist-mentor boss in April 1945.

Very silly also to misrepresent Bronwyn's straightforward comment as “audacity to judge the intention of the artist” - it is obvious she did no such thing. By that measure, rougy seems to betray a profound alienation, and a pretentiousness that goes far into conceit territory; he really emphasized that haughty repulsiveness when twisting Bronwyn's original equestrian metaphor.

Stick to that Nietzsche pocket book - o great, solitary man with bold heart and free mind, hardy soul raised in harsh mountain clime, will become the ultimate, towering self, unswayed by the small man, unchangeable by all except true Nature, etc.