Art 2
The debate still rages over Henson and his photographs. I apologise that I have not responded to comments made on the previous post but have been unable to access it, so I'll respond here.
Reg, I understand the police are only doing their jobs. It would be easy for a real pedophile to claim it was "art" and as such they have very right to investigate complaints. I just don't agree with way they have handled this case. Especially their tough talk of charges will be laid, while scrambling for legal advice if charges could actually be laid.
As for Rudd, yes he did jump on the wagon to beat his opponents. I know that. He's taken a leaf out of Howard's book on reading the populist position and going with it. But he doesn't have to come out and support the artist. When asked for a comment he can say something like "We have systems in place to deal with things like this, lets see what the police investigation determines" etc.
To the me the main focus of this controversy is on the sexualisation of children. At least, that's what all the family focus groups and "think of the children" groups are claiming.
So lets talk about the sexualisation of children in today's society. Are from being convinced that nudity is an automatic sexual act, there are, in my opinion, worst, much worst cases of sexualisation of children.
Where to begin? Okay, toys. In an episode of Sliders (back when it was good), Professor Arturo looks in a toy store to get a quick understanding of the society stating that "if you want to know a society's values and beliefs look at the toys they make for their children."
So lets look at the toys we make for our children. Bratz dolls are one of the biggest selling merchandise in the western world. They have outsold Barbie (who is only marginally better). Bratz dolls are teenage/young adults who wear tight mini skirts, vampish make up, high heels etc. They have a cartoon series (and I'm told a live action movie).
Then there's make up sold to children. Not only are there "little miss makeup kits" there are also dolls, or at least their heads, that children buy to practice putting make up on.
And then there are the magazines. Boys can walk into any store and see women dressed sexily, with makeup giving him a come hither look on the cover of magazines.
And I'm not talking about men's magazines like Ralph and FHM (though they're there as well) but the magazines for preteen and teenage girls. They have articles on how to attract boys, dieting tips and I have been informed by a parent of teenage girls, how to perform blow jobs.
Then there's tv and movies. How often do they get adults to play the parts of teenagers, aged as young as 14. Fully grown and developed adults playing children.
A a final note, can anyone remember the last time there was such national outcry, media coverage and venemous attacks against someone who was actually convicted of pedophilia?
Reg, I understand the police are only doing their jobs. It would be easy for a real pedophile to claim it was "art" and as such they have very right to investigate complaints. I just don't agree with way they have handled this case. Especially their tough talk of charges will be laid, while scrambling for legal advice if charges could actually be laid.
As for Rudd, yes he did jump on the wagon to beat his opponents. I know that. He's taken a leaf out of Howard's book on reading the populist position and going with it. But he doesn't have to come out and support the artist. When asked for a comment he can say something like "We have systems in place to deal with things like this, lets see what the police investigation determines" etc.
To the me the main focus of this controversy is on the sexualisation of children. At least, that's what all the family focus groups and "think of the children" groups are claiming.
So lets talk about the sexualisation of children in today's society. Are from being convinced that nudity is an automatic sexual act, there are, in my opinion, worst, much worst cases of sexualisation of children.
Where to begin? Okay, toys. In an episode of Sliders (back when it was good), Professor Arturo looks in a toy store to get a quick understanding of the society stating that "if you want to know a society's values and beliefs look at the toys they make for their children."
So lets look at the toys we make for our children. Bratz dolls are one of the biggest selling merchandise in the western world. They have outsold Barbie (who is only marginally better). Bratz dolls are teenage/young adults who wear tight mini skirts, vampish make up, high heels etc. They have a cartoon series (and I'm told a live action movie).
Then there's make up sold to children. Not only are there "little miss makeup kits" there are also dolls, or at least their heads, that children buy to practice putting make up on.
And then there are the magazines. Boys can walk into any store and see women dressed sexily, with makeup giving him a come hither look on the cover of magazines.
And I'm not talking about men's magazines like Ralph and FHM (though they're there as well) but the magazines for preteen and teenage girls. They have articles on how to attract boys, dieting tips and I have been informed by a parent of teenage girls, how to perform blow jobs.
Then there's tv and movies. How often do they get adults to play the parts of teenagers, aged as young as 14. Fully grown and developed adults playing children.
A a final note, can anyone remember the last time there was such national outcry, media coverage and venemous attacks against someone who was actually convicted of pedophilia?
posted by Renegade79 at 4:50 pm
3 Comments:
I must admit that I was stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one. I have been a long time supporter of the arts in all it's varied forms, and know what I like but still won't condemn the stuff I don't as to someone it is art and makes a statment. I even like good graffiti.
With all that said my first (and still can't shake it) reaction was that Hensons photos left me cold and a little creeped out, but didn't want to jump in with the ritual running around with flaming torches and a rope posse. I have been waiting for and still haven't heard a reason or artistic statement from Henson on why he had to photograph 12 or 13 yo kids. So if any could furnish me with his arty reasons I would love to hear it before making too bold a statement.
After some more thought I tried to reason that the children have agreed to the photos being taken and even before that thier parents would have agreed to this. Unless the kids were street urchins and that then brings a whole new angle of maybe child prostitution.
So if all this consent was given the parents must be either gulible or extreme supporters of the arts because there is no way in God's green earth that I would allow that to happen to any child of mine.
So all up I don't like it but can't condemn as non art till I hear from the artist his reasons.
I do agree that the sexualisation of kids is some thing that needs to be pulled into check because when shopping for my 7 yo daughter most of the clothes that are avaialable make her look like a tart, and don't get started on the vampishly dressed ... no dressed like sluts, Bratz dolls aaahhh...
With the makeup I am almost alright with that as the younger ones, when self appling, end up almost looking like clowns.
So there is my ramble and I hope it actually made sense as I get a bit consevative where kids are concerned thse days.
It makes perfect sense Rich.
When I have kids, I know I'll feel the same. I'd give the bum's rush to anyone asking me if they could photograph my kids naked, even when they're in their thirties.
I think the problem is that people equate art with beauty, not realising that art is suppose to challenge people's perceptions and to express the whole human experience.
I don't know much about paintings and photographs, but I think of my favourite art mediums - literature and film. My favourite pieces are not the beautiful romances or the "good conquerors all" but the dark twisted pieces that make me think about society and human existence. Remember the comic, Watchman.
Henson's intent may be to challenge society's perception on people in general, nudity in general or teenagers etc. The irony is that this controversy has achieved the debate that such an intent would warrant.
One thing that I thought of after I signed off last time was that I love seeing kids naked as it give me a sense of liberation or freedom that pure innocence of running around your backyard under the sprinkler or down at the beach brings.
The thought that all art has to show beauty is a load of bollocks, then the dark twisted population of the art world would be left in the cold. All art should be made to make the viewer feel something whether good or bad. It is one way for the otherwise socially inept to have a voice and say what needs to be said.
But I still stand by what I said before, that I will wait for Hanson's explaination before I let his work totally creep me out. If it true it is funny that they waited till it came to a "centre of enlightenment" before any ruckus was raised.
Till next time
Post a Comment
<< Home