The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Naked child or teenager is NOT Sin

Naked child or teenager is NOT Sin

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. Page 16
  10. All
I've posted my view on the other thread, running in stereo, it would seem, to this one.

I will address any observations or responses to my view there.

basically, censorship is never good.

Art is often acceptable while some may find it in bad taste.

Deciding on someones moral worth, based on the bad or good taste of the art they enjoy, quantifies how 'small' some folk are if they feel justified in being judgmental of the subjective values of others
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 28 May 2008 5:58:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vanilla

"Why is he suddenly unacceptable? Is it just the times that have changed? If so, how do you alert artists that they need to change their work? How do you justify that?"

You're right, I guess there's no real mechanism for alerting artists that they might be pushing their art in a direction running counter to the broader social good. I'm as uncomfortable as you are with the idea of police raids and charging artists with criminal offences. But if an artist's inner ethical compass isn't working for whatever reason some action on the part of the state is in my view necessary.

I don't particularly like censorship. It's a blunt instrument and one which often delivers outcomes contrary to those intended. But I do believe society needs a way to rein in corporations, scientists, politicians, artists and anyone else whose work impacts on the public good when they err and cause public harm as has occurred in this case.

I guess all the people really have is the democratic process, however slow and clumsy. We have to exercise our vote and use the law and the media to protect our interests when needed. Whether it's the scientist who invented the atomic bomb, or the politician who wanted to drop it on innocent people, or the corporation marketing pole dancing kits to young girls or the photographer exhibiting images of naked prepubescent girls there are times in my opinion where an individual's freedom has to be curtailed for the good of society as a whole.

As a democracy we invest power in our government to create the sort of society we all want to live in, so ultimately I do see a role for government in this area. I know this response will create as many questions as it gives answers but I just can't agree with the total hands off approach that you and others advocate.
Posted by Bronwyn, Wednesday, 28 May 2008 11:41:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bronwnyn: "I know this response will create as many questions as it gives answers but I just can't agree with the total hands off approach that you and others advocate."

It's an excellent response. I always prefer questions to answers myself.

I really don't advocate a hands off approach. I agree with you that sometimes we need to curtail individual freedoms. I am happy, for example, for whatever committee that decides these things to ban pole dancing kits for tweens. I am — believe it or not — against the sexualisation of children. BUT I also believe those limits are true lines in the sand, and I am mistrustful of anyone who is insistent about knowing where the lines lie. I honestly don't get how some people are so sure of Bill Henson's impact without knowing his work. It is dark, arty. Even though the kids are naked, there's not vaginas to see — as others keep pointing out, it really is far less fodder for the freaks than the average Target catalogue. My experience of Bill Henson's art over the years puts him so way on the good side of the line in the sand that this blunt-instrument-attack on his work makes me think the attack is on art rather than pedeophilia. That's why — among other reason — I am so strident about my position.

I'm over being strident on this forum, but you have so thoughtfully set out your own position that I just wanted to clarify I'm not arguing for some licentious free-for-all.
Posted by Vanilla, Thursday, 29 May 2008 12:29:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vanilla, thanks for your kind words.

I am bemused by the notion that all this fuss is about "protecting children". Perhaps someone could explain to me how wall-to-wall publication of these images is "protecting" the child models in question? The Age for example has posted an image here http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/the-controversial-career-of-bill-henson/2008/05/24/1211183189567.html (don't follow this link if nudity offends). The ABC TV news showed the same image (with a pixelated face and black bar over the chest) this evening. It seems there's a prurient fascination, which the media is feeding on (and also gratifying).

I look forward with dread to the court case. I can only presume that we will get an obscenity trial, with the models and parents (as well as the artist and gallery owners) being given a thorough public humiliation, before it is thrown out. Hetty Johnson, who brought the complaint, is doing nothing of value for these children.

I'm just off now to get a paper bag for my head. Or better yet, I'll dress my 11-year-old in a burka. Or maybe I'll just turn the TV and computer off....
Posted by Johnj, Thursday, 29 May 2008 12:49:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vanilla

"BUT I also believe those limits are true lines in the sand, and I am mistrustful of anyone who is insistent about knowing where the lines lie."

At least I now know you agree with me about that line in the sand. I wasn't sure you did as you've always been such a fierce defender of freedom of expression.

Hopefully, you too can see that I'm not insistent and all-knowing about where that line is drawn, far from it.

It just goes to show the common ground that can be established when opponents on an issue engage in calm and rational dialogue, doesn't it?

"I'm over being strident on this forum."

Don't go soft on us though, will you! We need your passion and your strong ideas.
Posted by Bronwyn, Thursday, 29 May 2008 1:34:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Unfortunately PaulL., you read my posts literally and don't seem to understand parallel reasoning and it's value. ( i make a post here because of the stupid comment limit)

1. The content of a photograph doesn't change depending on who holds it (isn't that obvious?). The catalogue was merely a parallel argument of logic. Read my comment several times carefully if you can't think in this way.

2. Of course you are not going to retroactively do anything. This was a mere illustration of the stupidity. You would have me believe that a naked child painted on the Sistine Chapel would be different from painting the exact same child onto a church here, now. Why? Because "they had different values back then"? If you are confused, then that is good, because it's idiotic.

3. "It truly does take a village to raise a child." Spoken like a true socialist! Aren't your proud. You have no business raising anyone else's child and the state certainly doesn't either. Anyone lays a finger on my children or teach them lies and they will get a solid thumping. Still, since you believe this (like a true socialist) when can I begin raising your daughter?

4. This again was an illustation. I did state to the effect that society expected far more advanced thought from young people, but like always, you have terrible reading comprehension or you ignore the "difficult parts" of my posts.

5. I didn't say this. and you talk about strawmen? Hilarious. I did say that it is normal to view a naked child in a non-sexual manner. However since you see them sexually perhaps like I said before you are a pedophile? Seriously
Posted by Steel, Friday, 30 May 2008 6:12:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. Page 16
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy