Dear Steel,

Nudity and children is a controversial
issue, as we all know from
the recent Henson controversy, which
has been debated both on this
Forum, and in the media.

We get very emotional people on both
sides of the fence. And like the issue
of religion, drugs, or capital punishment,
there will be people who will never see
eye to eye on the topic.

To condemn or label anyone because they don't agree
with us however, is not very constructive.
Our society is a democracy and everyone is entitled
to their opinion.

However, having said that,
I do agree with you when others opinions are
being rammed down your throat it becomes
a problem. The tightening of the National
Classification Scheme (if it happens) is a
concern.

The Executive Director of the
National Association for the Visual Arts, Tamara
Winikoff, expressed concern that changes were
not being sought in a climate of good judgement.

She felt that the laws already in place were quite
sufficient in protecting children.

Let's hope that opinions such as hers are listened to,
and that nothing is changed without much deliberation
and consultancy.

Steel

"That quote by the way is specious and emotional rubbish. How does the presence of 'darkness' abuse a child?"

Neither I, nor the author of the quote, used the term 'abuse'. That was you adding your own spin.

Our concerns relate to how these images feed into the premature sexualisation and exploitative marketing of children and the general stripping away of the carefree innocence of childhood. We're also justifiably concerned at the imposition of destructive and narrowly defined mores on what constitutes feminine beauty.

"All children who model wear makeup."

I guess they do. And somewhere along the line we have now reached the point where very young girls are routinely targeted as consumers of makeup. You mightn't have a problem with this but many do.

"The child in question hadn't even had the time to develop pimples because puberty hasn't run it's course."

Irrespective of the fact that pimples and blemishes do not wait until puberty has 'run its course', the author's point is a valid one. Why are these photos taken in dark lighting and artificially touched up, if not to impose adult standards of perfection or what is considered desirable or alluring onto images of chidren?

"You've been played."

I don't think so, Steel. I do think though that the patronizing arrogance in this little comment says more about you than it does me.

A political minister passing judgement on art?. You're right, smells like Nazi Germany, or Sharia to me too. What's next, we've all gotta hang a picture of the PM to show our 'patriotism'?.

This from the the original link:

"Last week the classification board approved the July edition of Art Monthly magazine, which featured a naked image Olympia Nelson, then aged six, on the cover, taken by her mother Pollixeni Papapetrou, just as it had also approved images of naked adolescents by Bill Henson a month earlier."

That statement is LOADED with venom aimed at the classification board.

Do we need naked images of 6 year olds?....well no, but also depends on the context. Do we need a political minister passing judgement on what constitutes art and if those images are IN context?...definitely not. A political minister will base his/her judgements on what will avoid controversy and as previously stated by others, various agenda driven entities will be in the ear of the 'minister for social appropriateness'.

Picasso does nothing for me, but I won't stop you from seeing it....

It wasn't all that long ago, in the 1970's, I can remember a clothing adverstisment (I can't remember the brand) which has a slogan: "Wear (whatever brand it was) or nothing". The poster featured a man and a woman wearing that brand of clothes, and a young boy and a young girl in the nude, full frontal. No one protested about this. This advertisment appeared in various magazines and posters were displayed in shops.

I've never known such puritan standards in my life time, and it would appear that we haven't been this bad since the Victorian era.

What next? Ban all child actors because they might turn on peadophiles?

I think our current censorship standards are fine. It allows child nudity in context and in art work (ie: nudist magazines, photos of native tribes). It adequately protects children from sexual exploitation by banning real child pornography (ie children being sexual abused. Being nude is not sexual abuse).

Just think of the problems if it was illegal to require a child to undress. I would have loved that as a 7 year old. My mother couldn't have forced me to have a bath.

Art is extremely subjective.
And to grasp it fully it usually
should be viewed in its historical context.

I don't have a problem with nudity, I've
studied art for more than five years at
the tertiary level. However photos of
naked 6 to 12 year old children being presented
as art objects, in today's world - does disturb me.

Changing National Classification Schemes however,
is something that needs
to be done with good judgement
and careful consideration,
if it needs to be done at all. The current laws
as I understand it -
are more than adequate.

Steel or "Steel Mann" (not sure whether you're one person or two different people here), read your own posts. You sound like an obsessed ideologue. You sound as "ideologically driven and non-thinking" as the very people you are trying to complain about. You're using the silly "politically correct" terminology of the right wing, along with ridiculously inbred stereotyping of people with whom you do not share the same ideological outlook.

If you "really" want to be taken seriously (instead of just venting), then cut out all the stupid "ideological dogma" and GERT REAL!

The sexualisation of children in the media and art , by adults (usually "male" adults), is NOT a political or ART issue.

It's a "SEXUALISATION OF CHILDREN" issue. Get it? Obviously not!