Agreed Steel. I think there are some quite serious connotations to Rudd’s stance and comments. In fact, every bit as serious as the whole issues of art vs pornography and exploitation vs free will.

^^^^

I think that Olympia Nelson’s comments about herself appearing naked in her mother’s photos were excellent. She clearly and independently thinks very highly of them and has no regrets whatsoever. She is rightly very critical of Rudd for his condemnatory stance.

What about the Hooker girl? You know; “thankyou Mr Hooker bear” and later on; just “thankyou Mr Hooker” - the key promotional tool for L J Hooker Real Estate for 20 years. Every time I have seen one of those ads, going back the whole 20 years, I have thought to myself that it is a little inappropriate. What did that child really know about the business at the time? I’ve thought that there is some degree of exploitation and dodginess in there, even though it seems so innocent.

But the use of kids for advertising and promotion is widespread. There IS an element of exploitation, but we couldn’t eliminate it. We have to accept it….and I reckon in a pretty liberal manner.

If people later regret their actions or the decisions of their parents to have them involved, well too bad. That’s life.

The same with children in art, be they nude or provocatively dressed and posed or whatever. They may later regret it or they may be very pleased they did it. It might cause some of them ongoing problems. But it might also open doors and bring success that wouldn’t have otherwise happened.

So no Usual Suspect, I don’t think that there is anything wrong with an element of exploitation of kids in art or advertising.

But I’d like parameters for exploitation to be worked out along with the parameters for nudity and overall presentation of children in art, that Rudd has asked the Australia Council for the Arts to look into.

Corri:

"I'd add that I also tried to raise the issue of child exploitation generally - but it is not as sensational as artistic nudity."

Considering the hysteria that goes on whenever people under 18 and anything remotely to do with sex is concerned, I'd say this is not so much about artistic nudity as about our discomfort with the idea that kids are anything but asexual dolls.

Look back over the hundreds of comments on this and the Henson thing and you'll find art and artistic merit have very little to do with it. Art just doesn't figure in the nudity=sex mindset.

It's reminiscent of Victorian times when the obsession with denying sex produced a society obsessed with it.

JAMES H.. I've got a photo of my son in gumboots and nothing else.. his little pecker fully visible.. I think he was about 2 at the time.. he just looked so funny with a huge cheezy grin :)

This is the thing.. PARENTS don't, under normal circumstances find anything but humor in the antics of their children, clothed or unclothed.. and presumably of other peoples... but tragically, we have an element among us who do find some kind of prurient interest in such things.

I guess there is an invisible "line" where 'children' become something nearer to the point where they can be sexually interesting to the opposite sex (and sadly..to their own in some cases).. the point where that 'line' resides is something each person must answer to their own heart..but the law is there to clarify it for all of us.

It would not be hard to simply say "NO" nude portrayals of children in anything other than family photo albums.

If "Art" undermines morality. or seeks to establish it's own.. as far as I'm concerned "Art" and "Artists" can take the legal consequences.

Polycarp, pedophiles are attracted to children who are fully clothed. Is it then to be determined that any images of children clothed or otherwise? This stupidity is because the entire argument these people are using is spurious, irrational and emotional.

Steel, that's what I reckon.
In nearly all cases of child sexual assault, (or for that matter any sexual assault) the victim was clothed at the time. As far as child nudity turning on paedophiles, please provide some evidence, and even then, should everything be banned because some people may be harmed?
What about all the children killed on the roads? Should we ban cars & bikes?
In the nudist movement, I am only aware of one instance of a child being assaulted, and that occured outside inside the child's home. Children raised in nudist environments are unashamed of their bodies, and would have no problems reporting any attempted abuse. Other children when abused tend to keep the matter secret, which in turn creates more problems.
Acceptance of nudity actually reduces sex crime as we become conditioned to seeing the naked body.
By the way, you registered on this forum first, so you got to use my usual user name.

Steel Mann

AS someone demanding evidence from others how can you come up with something as ridiculous as 'Acceptance of nudity actually reduces sex crime as we become conditioned to seeing the naked body.'
You, the porn industry and only a few earth worshipers would agree. In case you have not noticed lust produces lust. Almost without exception child molesters and sex offenders feed on porn. The porn does not make them less susceptible to lust but more. You must live in the dreamworld of an artist if you think we can reduce abuse by accepting nudity.