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.