Likewise James. I hadn’t even heard of apparently long-time internationally renowned artist Bill Henson before the recent debacle. And I only heard of the Art Monthly Australia magazine and Polixeni Papapetrou for the first time today. I’m not an arty farty person, but I do have a deep level of concern about law and liberties.
.

Polycarp, your concerns would all be resolved by a comprehensive assessment of just what the parameters between acceptable artistic portrayal of children and pornographic or exploitative images are. Rudd has asked OzCo (Australia Council for the Arts) to do this. I endorse this resoundedly.

Concerns about this stuff being a door in pandora’s box or the thin edge of the wedge or tip of the iceberg should be quelled by the declaration of parameters, with thorough public consultation, which then become enshrined in law.

“Enough said”

And then…”cont’d”, followed by another load of porkchoppery!

Oh Foxy, that foxhole is looking like a good place to go hide one’s head right now!
.

O sheezuz, alright… I admit it…I’ve been drinkin too much… and probably offended one of the most highly respected posters on this forum. I do hang my head in shame.

Sorry Foxy. I I I just couldn’t resist! ( :>)

“I bet that this issue will outsell the previous ones.”

By a country mile! Yes….and good on the managerial team of Art Monthly for seeing the potential for promoting their product, and running with it!

Ho hum, here we go again.

Actually, I think that Art Monthly has fired a deliberate pre-emptive strike in the debate we supposedly had to have. The latterly controversial image that features on its latest cover has apparently been exhibited publicly for five years or so, and was undoubtedly selected quite deliberately to elicit some resolution to the 'debate' that was left hanging after the furore about Bill Henson's artworks.

The alternative would be for artists whose works involve children to be looking perpetually over their shoulders in case the child porn hysterics choose to subject them to the same kind of witch hunt that Henson endured. Indeed, the self-proclaimed art police have made it clear that this is their intention - so the arties got in first.

Coincidentally, I watched an interview on ABC's 'Artscape' yesterday in which brilliant film director Peter Greenaway lamented the "visual illiteracy" of mass film audiences. I think that the current orgy of self-righteous philistinism with respect to artistic images of children feeds directly upon such ignorance - it's a naked child's body, ergo it's paedophilia (or at least potentially so).

This is just going to be a re-run of the previous stoush/es we've had here on the same topic. What a pity I'm going to the coast for a few days...

...not! :)

Dear Ludwig,

"Prosit!"

"Skoal!"

May it do good!

I think I'll now go and have a glass (or two)
myself :)

Cheers!

One day my daughter appeared dressed only in gumboots and a hat. I thought it would make a great photo, however I did not take a photo of her, considering the possible consequences of such a photo.

This arguement over child nudity is an expansion of the arguement in regards to the alleged commercial exploitation of children by the advertising industry.

So I think the arguement is going to get very heated and emotionally charged. However it despite the heat, it will be very boring time for the media.

I am sick of hearing about already.

Did you see Olympia on the news last night? She is happy with the photos, and they were taken 5 years ago (Almost half a lifetime for her). She is offended at Kevin Rudd's comments. Good on you, Olympia. You have settled the arguement.