Should we pull the funding on the Magazine that publishes pictures of Naked Children as Art?
July 6th 2008 07:47
Should we pull the funding on the Magazine that publishes pictures of Naked Children as Art?
The art magazines exist at the bequest of the funders to the arts in the form of government grants. The government grants are rare and often difficult to obtain where artists can almost fights over a small pool of cash that often has plenty of strings attached. If the magazines were profitable then the government subsidy would not be necessary as they could survive in the commercial world. However it is this subsidy that means that niche magazines like Art Monthly Australia can be published.
The July issue of Art Monthly Australia has published its front cover with the image of a naked six year old girl in protest at censorship of nude children in art. The magazine also features provocative photographs of naked children wearing jewellery. One described by the Sunday Telegraph as lying back in a ‘highly sexualized manner’.
The magazine editor Art Monthly Australia Maurice O'Riordan has made this statement:
"Maybe this is bold, but I don't see the need to give in to that sort of hysteria or the prospect of complaint."..."I couldn't really understand the furore." He also indicated that it was done as a protest against the police investigation into Bill Henson’s art exhibit featuring naked children.
Maurice may not be able to understand the furore but the magazine’s protest issue feature naked children has certainly started one.
The NSW Premier Morris Iemma said "Images of this kind are distasteful, exploitative of children - a cheap, sick stunt at the expense of a young child.... We've now reached a sad point where some people think naked kids can boost their sales and get them a headline. We will have no role in funding them while they use images that exploit children."” The magazine has also been referred to the Australian Classification Board.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has also entered the debate by saying on the ABC television Insiders program saying, "How can anyone assume that a little child of six years old, eight, 10, 12, somehow is able to make that decision for themselves.... I mean I don't think I can - that's just my view and that's why frankly I can't stand this stuff.”
The child abuse campaigner Hetty Johnson from Bravehearts said that she was heartened by the Prime Ministers comments saying: "I have to say, in my 11 years of campaigning on this issue I've never been more prouder of this country than I am in listening to what the Prime Minister has to say. Nor have I felt more confident around the direction in which Australia is going around the protection of children."
The situation is set to create a controversy as big as if not bigger than the one over Bill Henson’s exhibition as news articles and editorials are produced in the coming days. Certainly losing government funding will hurt the magazine and possibly wipe it off the market. The attitude of the editor in making this kind of protest may actually contribute to its own demise despite his seeming confusion about the fuss.
Certainly this issue of Art Australia Magazine was produced as a protest and designed to provoke the community by cross taboos. It may sit well with some people to hide behind a libertarian defence that it is all in the name of artistic freedom. Yet there are several problems with that kind of defence when children are involved in any sexualized imagery. Tony Abbott: "If you had the images on your computer at work or home, then you could have a case to answer with the police''
5000 copies of the magazine has been produced with the assistance of a $50,000 a year grant through the Australia Council for the Arts.
Editorial Comment:
I have heard it said that a person who violates the innocence of children should have millstone placed around their neck and dropped to the bottom of a well. Metaphorically speaking it may be well deserved. However the quickest cure for this is to pull the government funding from the magazine.
Expect more news from other sources.
The art magazines exist at the bequest of the funders to the arts in the form of government grants. The government grants are rare and often difficult to obtain where artists can almost fights over a small pool of cash that often has plenty of strings attached. If the magazines were profitable then the government subsidy would not be necessary as they could survive in the commercial world. However it is this subsidy that means that niche magazines like Art Monthly Australia can be published.
The July issue of Art Monthly Australia has published its front cover with the image of a naked six year old girl in protest at censorship of nude children in art. The magazine also features provocative photographs of naked children wearing jewellery. One described by the Sunday Telegraph as lying back in a ‘highly sexualized manner’.
The magazine editor Art Monthly Australia Maurice O'Riordan has made this statement:
"Maybe this is bold, but I don't see the need to give in to that sort of hysteria or the prospect of complaint."..."I couldn't really understand the furore." He also indicated that it was done as a protest against the police investigation into Bill Henson’s art exhibit featuring naked children.
Maurice may not be able to understand the furore but the magazine’s protest issue feature naked children has certainly started one.
The NSW Premier Morris Iemma said "Images of this kind are distasteful, exploitative of children - a cheap, sick stunt at the expense of a young child.... We've now reached a sad point where some people think naked kids can boost their sales and get them a headline. We will have no role in funding them while they use images that exploit children."” The magazine has also been referred to the Australian Classification Board.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has also entered the debate by saying on the ABC television Insiders program saying, "How can anyone assume that a little child of six years old, eight, 10, 12, somehow is able to make that decision for themselves.... I mean I don't think I can - that's just my view and that's why frankly I can't stand this stuff.”
The child abuse campaigner Hetty Johnson from Bravehearts said that she was heartened by the Prime Ministers comments saying: "I have to say, in my 11 years of campaigning on this issue I've never been more prouder of this country than I am in listening to what the Prime Minister has to say. Nor have I felt more confident around the direction in which Australia is going around the protection of children."
The situation is set to create a controversy as big as if not bigger than the one over Bill Henson’s exhibition as news articles and editorials are produced in the coming days. Certainly losing government funding will hurt the magazine and possibly wipe it off the market. The attitude of the editor in making this kind of protest may actually contribute to its own demise despite his seeming confusion about the fuss.
Certainly this issue of Art Australia Magazine was produced as a protest and designed to provoke the community by cross taboos. It may sit well with some people to hide behind a libertarian defence that it is all in the name of artistic freedom. Yet there are several problems with that kind of defence when children are involved in any sexualized imagery. Tony Abbott: "If you had the images on your computer at work or home, then you could have a case to answer with the police''
5000 copies of the magazine has been produced with the assistance of a $50,000 a year grant through the Australia Council for the Arts.
Editorial Comment:
I have heard it said that a person who violates the innocence of children should have millstone placed around their neck and dropped to the bottom of a well. Metaphorically speaking it may be well deserved. However the quickest cure for this is to pull the government funding from the magazine.
Expect more news from other sources.
| 213 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
Health Focus
MS Paint Art
Pull the funding, change the law and enforce it, otherwise it makes a mockery of any attempts to stop pedophilia, a child of this age is not able to consent.
Governments and organizations and the courts are just not trying hard enough, if at all, it leaves me wondering.
Well said, Damo
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
I expect that there will be a bigger fuss over this in the media.
Funding hurts.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Cinema Three
It will just keep slipping and sliding down and down, people more and more find extreme art tolerable and to compensate shock-jock artists become more and more extreme.
Amongst other types of 'art', using naked children is just the lowest of the low, artists who engage in such behaviour are simply the shock jock equivalents of the art world. News has andrew bolton, art has bill henson.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I have kids and like all parents this sort of publication puts a chill down my spine. I just wonder what was going through the minds of the magazine managers when the come up with this concept. Controversy sells?
Comment by civil standpoints
Comment by Josie
Unique Parent
I would take you one step further and say that there shouldn't be government funding into the arts at all. I recently read a great point from Ron Paul- Its not the best artists who get grants, its the best grant writers and the two are rarely the same people. If they had to rely on philanthrophy to stay alive, a magazine like this would be less likely to pull a stunt because they would risk loosing their supporters.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I think that there has been a huge fuss and to be fair the fuss over stem cells is only over human embryonic stem cells, not other forms. I do not see any mainstream religion approving of child porn as most have clearly stated that they are against it.
The problem is this magazine was produced recently as a protest against the police investigation into a similar exhibition a few weeks ago. The charges were dropped and all the images returned despite the complaints.
This time we will see if there is the same howling down of critics and calling people philistines by the media.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
I am of the opinion that this is a situation where a child is involved. A child cannot possibly understand all the ramifications of what is going on.
Pull the grant is the first course of action. Then deal with the legalities after that in a methodical and deliberate manner.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
I am not against funding of the arts per say. Since I spend a lot time with musicians I can understand that many have given a life to their music and to thousands of people only to be left destitute when the get older. The image of the millionaire rock artist is pretty much a myth in Australia.
The problem is this particular issue is pushing all the wrong taboos. Child protection is paramount I would suggest even at the risk of being labelled a Philistine or part of the religious right (which I am not).
Comment by Norm
Consumption Malfunction
Equal and Opposite
Arses and Elbows
Footy Power
Comment by Norm
Consumption Malfunction
Equal and Opposite
Arses and Elbows
Footy Power
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for you comments.
Not sure what you are trying to say.
Do you an opinion on the magazine issue?
I am fine with art grants as long as I get one or benefit from it. Then again I am very selfish in that regard.
Comment by Norm
Consumption Malfunction
Equal and Opposite
Arses and Elbows
Footy Power
And put into educating kids about sex so they are capable of making the decisions.
Comment by Fobzy
Fobz
Comment by Norm
Consumption Malfunction
Equal and Opposite
Arses and Elbows
Footy Power
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Yes, I can see that kids will be thoroughly educated in art and be capable of making informed long term life choices by the they time they reach six.
How many kids do you have BTW?
Comment by Norm
Consumption Malfunction
Equal and Opposite
Arses and Elbows
Footy Power
Childish.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
Metaphorically speaking of course.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Somehow I think that when you start having goes at people with rhetorical questions you must accept that the term childish can be equally applied to you.
I accept that you would like the funding pulled but I am not sure what it has to do with "guns and warships...." Derision? Hmmm?
I am also a bit puzzled as to how you would educate a six year old about sex.
I have 5 kids myself and do have a reasonable idea of what you can and cannot teach to a six year old. If it doesn't come with a Happy Meal then they don't care.
Comment by Norm
Consumption Malfunction
Equal and Opposite
Arses and Elbows
Footy Power
It was a statement.
I read recently that experts are proposing sex-education for kids as young as four.
Comment by Norm
Consumption Malfunction
Equal and Opposite
Arses and Elbows
Footy Power
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Norm
Consumption Malfunction
Equal and Opposite
Arses and Elbows
Footy Power
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Maybe I misread your comments and they are not a shot at another person on the blog.
That can happen in the blog world.
I just read the article but it is not a proposal that I can endorse.
I am not sure what other parents would endorse such a training program for their 4 year old.
Legally required to teach a set of values that parents may not wish to be taught to their children?
Good luck with getting that proposal to survive the scrutiny of public opinion and the tax payers who fund the education systems.
Comment by Anonymous
We don't need to pull the plug on public subsidization of the arts, but we can sure as hell do a better job of policing what the money pays for. It only takes backbone. That's something the liberals in the US have been forced to accept and respect, if not altogether like when it comes to saying "No more" to outright and open demonstrations of debauchery.
But hell, the former superintendent of the Amherst MA public schools could only muster up backbone when it came to outsourcing older Lunch Ladies -- but NONE, WHATSOEVER NONE -- when it came to standing up to Eve Ensler and her "Vagina Monologues" and this happened twice during his regime.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
You lost me on the last paragraph.
However I do get the image that you would like to see the funding pulled on this magazine.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I have no problem with arts funding as a policy.
ACLU do not reside in Australia so the issue is moot.
I am just concerned over this particular issue and can't be giving a running commentary on every art that may be offensive.
This is actually about a magazine and I am trying to reduce the noise in other directions as that would create a situation of people stereotyping and accusations of being Philistines.
That would shift attention away from this magazine to a whole range of red herrings instead.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Early days yet.
Bloggers have no political power.
(despite what many may think)
So I am just going to wait and see.
Comment by Mountain Fog
Infognito
QUOTE ME NO QUOTES!
it seems to be a stupid politically motivated 'stunt' that will backfire, of course. However, if it was done purely to promote the magazine through sensationalized and topical means , then I think the magazine should definitely lose its funding forthwith, and all copies pulped!!
However, on the bigger questions involved;
I believe the child in question was the daughter of the female photographer, ( this was referred to in a newspaper article yesterday, I think) and was not the work of some porn maker, even so, it does raise the question, was it a gratuitous use of a child, for self promotion, who cannot fully understand the social repercussions of posing naked?
It does make one think more deeply about this issue, the rights of the child, as against the rights of an artist to express themselves, the human condition and life as they see it. But it also creates a grey area regarding how any art of any human figure is interpreted.
So, is this but a trojan horse for the right wing censorship of the arts in general? Is this but the first step to enact more draconian laws unrelated to naked children in art?
I ask this because, like the Henson issue, one has to consider how the freedom of 'speech' issues will be affected, if some open ban is made law, which is also expressed legally in a very generalised way, which can then be interpreted anyway government agencies see fit, at a later date.
If you think I am being paranoid, there have been many laws already passed the last 11 years which have this very problem, particularly regarding the "terror laws"!
So, ok, I not advocating using little kiddies for nude photography in the commercial arena per se, and I also have some issues that photography is considered 'fine art', Henson at least post shot artistically manipulated his images, and was making social commentary with his work, but it still seems like a craft to me.
However, how will this issue play out? Ok, so ban nude photos of kids by artists, fine by me. But what of family photos? Once this ban comes in, does that suddenly make nearly every home a repository of 'child porn', because of family naked baby photos?
Does that include a photo of a (semi) naked mother and child, where the genital area is unseen? Will this also mean that people who currently own art books, including libraries and government galleries and institutions etc, will have to trawl through everything in case there is an image of a semi/naked child there?
And what of film and video etc? All the documentaries about the human body, and tribal cultures etc?
And most importantly, if it is considered 'porn' by people to take a photo, why isn't it 'porn' to paint or draw the naked figure of a child? Or is this issue where all this is heading towards?
If so, does that mean we have to remove all the works of all artists who have depicted anyone under the age of 18 naked, in any form of artwork, like sculpture and oils?
Or is there going to be a line drawn; what is acceptable and what is not?
Who will make those decisions, and on what valid psychological analysis will these decisions be made? And, in future, if another Michaelangelo comes along, and wants to depict the naked human form, like cherubs or whatever, how does he do that, without having models? Will his sculpture, or oil painting, of a naked cherub be considered child porn?
Does not anyone see that all this is leading to a politicisation of artworks, and that any image can now be deemed 'pornographic', if the authorities wish to see it that way?
Is the naked form pornographic, or is it the mind of the person who sees it that way, projecting their own neurosis on to it, or justifying another agenda they may have?
Is that the world we really want to live in?
It is already an offense to take a photograph in a public area where children may be swimming, naked or not!
How far is this agenda going to be taken?
I see it separate from the vexing issues surrounding paedophilia. It does however, also involve the issue of human rights and consent; that is, being aware of ones legal and social postion enough, to be able to give 'informed consent' to being photographed naked, and the consequences that may enuse, in years following, if that same person becomes embarrassed, or angry, that their image as a naked child, is on public display.
That is the issue here, not paedophilia, which, if one looks at it dispassionately, is obviously a severe mental illness, and while society sates its blood lust and revulsion issues and treats them merely as criminals to be persecuted, we lose more time finding a way to treat and cure them, we lose more time to develop a profile modelling method that detects early warning signs etc. If we use compassion, in a psychiatric medical sense, we will gain more cooperation with paedophiles and find out more about controlling the condition, and more will come forward to get treatment.
Only this way will we have some chance to stop this horrendous problem from harming more children in the future!!
cheers
fog
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Cinema Three
It's a bit of a stretch to compare 'anti-terror' laws with laws governing art.
Comment by stu-kicks
stu kicks
they probably just did it 4 da publicitee
Comment by Anonymous
One might say, "well ... I like to help everyone, but ..." There is another "but" fly in this ointment because lets face it, the private sector won't give so freely unless there's a tax write off benefit for charitable purposes. Guess where that leads us to? Right back where we started with government support, albeit more indirectly.
For every pit bull lawyer employed by the ACLU to make sure tax dollars are allowed to be spent on atrocities like Andre Serrano's "piss christ" -- Robert Mapplethorpe's homoerotic porn "portraits" and Eve Ensler's "Vagina Monologues -- we ought to have a few rottweiler attorneys representing both taxpayers and supporters of gov't programs that support only artists and cooperatives that uphold values not already in conflict with community mores. Sounds tricky, but it also means throwing Political Correctness right back in the faces of the liberals who love to push it in everyone else's faces. Give them some of their own medicine.
There's no reason on earth that a child who wants to be inspired by classical music should be denied the opportunity to hear such music by virtue of leaving that kind of music solely in the hands of the private sector radio networks and stations who'd just as soon pump out heavy metal, shock jock talk shows, country/western/soft pop and anything but nice classical music. For many people, public funding for the arts is the great equalizer and the only means they have of ensuring that we can still maintain higher quality entertainment, arts, crafts, acting -- you name it.
But it takes vigilance, not surrender. And pulling the plug is surrendering to the worms and the commercial interests, many if not most, of whom only look at the bottom line. Adam Smith came long before radio, television and public funding for the arts. But I don't think even he would mind it, so long as it's diligently protected from the slime. No more American Justice Potter Stewarts who said he knew porn when he saw it but couldn't describe it. Hell, even a drunken sailor could pull that off!
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
It took me a while to read all that you wrote and take some of it in.
My question is really about the government funding for this magazine rather than censorship. The Magazine issue was specifically designed as a protest so it cannot be separated from it shock value.
The question at the heart of this is how a 6 year old can consent to be photographed like this and fully understand the issues involved. Artistic merit aside that is the heart of the matter. 6 years old are not adults and have little understanding of adult motivations.
The funding of $50,000 comes from public funds so the public certainly do have every right to determine who those funds are given to.
Whether this legally constitutes child porn is yet to be disclosed by the police.
Comment by Mountain Fog
Infognito
QUOTE ME NO QUOTES!
However, I still think there is a lot of potential for extended long term repercussions/ramifications, for society in general, that no one is thinking about.
The whole censorship thing should be opened up to a public debate and not just a selective/hijacked sampling of society to be used by self-interested groups and or individuals, some of whom have no intention of allowing us to live in a democracy and some of whom have no sense of social justice, in all its aspects.
cheers
fog
P.S. Maybe you could write something to generate a more generalised discussion on Orble, about this area of increasing censorship and the reinterpretation of what constitutes illegal images etc, and the extensions of that and how it balances the rights of individuals as against State control?
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
I do support the policy of government funding the arts as I hope be a beneficiary one day. (Putting on mime makeup as I write.)
This particular issue over the Art Monthly Australia is still playing out in the media. When the dust settles something may happen.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
they probably just did it 4 da publicitee
There is publicity that works and there is publicity that causes you to lose public funding.
Comment by Mountain Fog
Infognito
QUOTE ME NO QUOTES!
I am using the anti-terror laws not as a comparison, but as an illustration of the government's ability to frame law making that actually perverts the course of justice, skews it for a political agenda, and has little to do with the protection of the public interest or finding the truth of any particular matter.
And, just because we have a Labor governemnt, in no way should assure anyone, that they will not continue to perpetrate secret agendas which go against proper justice for all.
I wrote to the governemnt asking about repealing the anti-terro laws, which are absurd in their scope, for the pre-existing laws were actually good enough to do the job.
I got fobbed off basically, and told to look at their (Labor's) version, which we already know about, and which did not remove all the most contentious aspects of those laws, it merely tamed some, or toned some down.
However, so much remains in these laws, that flies in the face of true democracy, that, what my father, uncles and grandfathers fought against, in regards to totalitarianism regimes like Nazism and the Japanese Emperor version, that they would probably have turned their guns on these arsehole liars in government, had they known that what they fought against in WW2, was eventually going to be used by their own governments, against their own people!!!!
We, collectively, seem not to want to face the fact, that we are watching the end of democracy, in very real and dangerous ways!
Globalism, is the new face of totalitarianism, no doubt about it, but it needed an enemy, (sorry about that Islam), and it needed a crisis, (oil, the price is being heavily manipulated by the West, not the Arabs), and it used all these elements to drag us unobjecting, for the most part, to a dungoen we will nto know we are in, until too late!
Corporate global rule is on our thresholds...
(sorry about that Damo, but that is another area that, well connects in ways, to what I suggested before to to you, but deserves to be debated.. wanna do it?)
cheers
fog
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I think it was Mao who said that short speeches were best and Castro who used to give 5 hour speeches.
I think that it depend upon how you articulate what you are trying to say. More often when I write something too long people jump on the throw away lines more than the substance.
Censorship is a very big can of worms to open up and I am probably not the best person to tackle it.
I would however draw the line at kiddy porn and genuine snuff.
Generalized debate seem to be a thing of the past on Orble. Lately I get the distinct impression that card carrying party members are branch stacking the place. Just like a what happened to a community access radio station I know about some years ago.
Comment by Janet Collins
Acceptable Etiquette
The Social Critic
Janet Collins Blog
The weekend's episode was appalling. A mother publishing her own child nude in a magazine was about as provocative as what you could get. Reglardless, the media rewarded her well with more than her 15 minutes of fame.
I agree. Cut the funding. Not to all arts funding as I think art is worth funding. But government funding this one is really too much.
Janet
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
Actually I stayed out of the Bill Henson debate because it was in the hands of the police. I was expecting the exhibition to be pulled by the gallery but they did not.
15 minutes of fame thing seems to be a big motivation these days. I say yes to cutting the legs off the cash cow propping this magazine up.
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
You touched nerves on this one Damo.
Comment by Mountain Fog
Infognito
QUOTE ME NO QUOTES!
"Brevity is the soul of wit"
A great bon mot and so true! I guess I take after Fidel... oh well, they produced nice cigars at least!
I agree, child porn is repulsive and I still do not understand why it is still allowed to exist on the net? The authorities say they can't do anything because it comes from a foreign country, well, they can get the local servers to ID and block it all surely?
Anyway, oh, and snuff movies? I saw a film about that ages ago, "8 minutes" or something like that? Anyway, I still find it difficult to believe that such a practise exists, it seems so bizarre that it only belongs in a movie.
cheers
fog
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I caused me to shudder also.
Fog
I take after Naomi Cambell but she keeps rejecting me.
Child porn is blight on the Internet that bad people are able to get away with because the builders of the internet were inexperienced with stopping bad people. Design flaw based upon naivety.
I saw '8mm' a few years ago and it was a disturbing movie. Whether real snuff is out there or not the principle of rejecting it is the same. Do not even allow it to happen or any one to profit from it.
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
But, of course, child abuse is a horrible, horrible thing.
I think the problem stems from the fact that the law cannot differentiate between child porn and the photos of a parent. My parents have photos of me as a little boy, running bare-assed, innocent and free. Those pictures remind us of a pleasant nostalgia, from before we had shame.
My problem with the use of children in art is that they cannot consent.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
You know I have similar problems in my head with the notions of censorship. (Bloggers would be first up against the wall if that revolution ever came.) Also since my sister in law is an artist and my mother painted all her life it does ring a few alarm bells.
Thankfully I have been spared the embarrassing kid photo album. I think innocence was key in minds of parents as they would never dream of taking the same shot in a studio and making children strike poses. Nor would they be inclined to turn such picture into a protest statement for the sake of controversy. The thought of any old baby photo falling into the hands of a pedophile web site would horrify most. Some schools won't even publish school photos on the web for the same reason. Permission slip for others.
What disturbed me most about the Magazine was how adult they tried to make some of the children appear. I saw the blacked out version on television.
So rather than getting bogged down in a long winded debate about censorship I think the funding is a much more precise question.
The public pay the taxes that are turned into arts grants.
The public have a right to say how its taxes are spent.
Small children do not have the ability to give permission for what they do not fully understand.
Pull the funding on the magazine first.
Debate the merits later.
It was a dumb, provocative stunt designed to shock.
Watch the news to see where it goes.
Comment by alt_ed
Alted Opinion
ArtCombat
The Inner Saintdom
Personally, I wouldn't pose my child (if I had children) for this purpose, but then again, I also don't claim to be a photographer. Flipping through the family photo albums though, and there's heaps of pictures of me naked up until about the age of 7-8. Is this porn? Are my folks pedophiles? Well in my opinion, no.
But as I've mentioned, if we cut funding to art monthly, i think that paves the way for funding cuts to other organizations... I don't think we will all, always agree on what the government funds- If you play sport, you'd proabably want more funding for team if you're a musician you'd like more for you band etc.
Just my 2cents
Comment by KylieW
Celebrity Obsession
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating child abuse or the sexualisation of kids as a whole. But this photo was taken by the girls mother. Maybe it's because I don't have kids, but it doesn't seem to me to that big a deal. Yes, that pose of her naked with her legs crossed was a little uncomfortable to look at, but you know, they dress 7 yr olds in bras and undies for magazine catalogues and I find that a bit wrong too. But still retailers do it.
I do have to point out just one thing in your last comment:
The public have a right to say how its taxes are spent.
We don't really get to say how the rest of our taxes are spent, so why should we have a say in arts grants? If we got to say how our taxes were spent, there are plenty of other government initiatives I'd scrap before art funding for a mag that offended me.
Very thought provoking post as always
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for you comments.
I do have a problem with the the thrust of your argument as it seems to be based upon the Slippery Slope reasoning. "If the government pulls the funding on this then where will they stop?"
Now though the question may be legitimate it can equally be asked from the other angle. "If the government does not pull the plug on the funding what will the magazine do next as a form of protest?"
So I figure at this stage you can only focus on whether this issue has done the wrong thing.
Government funding gets pulled from arts projects all the time. Just fail to meet a criteria and have no good excuse then dollars will stop. They call it accountability. So I really don't see a wave of artist oppression if this magazine is deprived of it remaining share of the $50,000. The balance will be returned to the pool of grant money that anyone can apply for.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
No question that this issue is going to get a lot more controversial before it is settled. Kmart and a few others may hold a few meetings of their own . Who knows? But certainly this magazine has focused the question because of one difference: In Kmart catalogues the kids have clothes on but here they do not.
In answer to your observation, the public does have a say over how the budget is spent because we vote the government that spend our money into power. There are other mechanisms in the democratic process. Project do not happen without the parliament approving the budget. I do not see a grant for a magazine any more sacrosanct than one to build a library.
Certainly there are things I would like to see defunded but to save confusion in this post and can only talk about this magazine.
It is still worth the $50,000 we contribute in tax to it or would it be better spent on person whose grant application just missed out?
My job is to jostle the brain cells and move on.
Comment by Louie
Climate Forum
Climate Red
randomthoughts
Phil's Wellness Tips
and so it goes..... whoever grabs the headline wins, it makes me sick, yet I perpetuate it myself.....
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
I was careful to read them in full before I rattled off an answer.
You face the same dilemma of publication as I do. Should write about this subject or leave it to others to put there spin on it? Yesterday I deleted 6 posts from a anonymous poster (probably a spam robot) due to the offensive nature of what they were saying. (Incest and pedophilia)Anon comments are now disabled as a result.
After the PM, Premier, Bravehearts and everyone else has been on the air my contribution is but a whisper.
The real debate will happen in a few days.
Comment by stu-kicks
stu kicks
i just saw the pictures u guyz are all talkin bout. what the big deal? there just little kids sitting around as god made them like in those old black and white pics. DO YOU GUYS NOT LIKE GOD OR SOMETHING?
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
There is a question of how a 6 year old can consent to a thing and how the images will be used in the future. Anyway the debate is still going in the media.
Latest from ABC News:
"If people want to make a political point in opposition to me, I don't think it's right they use underage children to make that point," he said.
"They can engage the political debate as much as they want, it's a free country, but when it comes to protection of children, that should be a foremost responsibility for each of us."
And from from another source:
''This is exploitation of these children,'' she said. ''This one is six-years-old so there can be no question of consent there, can be no argument there.''
The Bravehearts founder said she would not be complaining to police about the magazine as she had in the Henson affair because her group believed it would be powerless to act under existing laws. ''What we have learned from the Bill Henson debacle is that the law in inadequate to deal with this sort of thing,'' she said.
Comment by Johnny Come Lately
Jack's Back
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
That fine for you to say so.
However there were other photos inside the magazine of a far more suggestive manner.
The question how you get a l6 year old to consent to something that they do not understand is a very difficult one to easily accept.
The other point is one of political exploitation of a child. A protest using a naked child is a bit rich.
It is in the hands of the law makers now and we shall see which way they will go.
However you have every right to say that you want it to be funded.
Comment by stu-kicks
stu kicks
man when i was little i would run around the house in the nuddy all the time and my mum would chase me and try an make me wear clothes LOL no chance! hows that for consent!
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I saw some of the blacked out versions.
You can chase them up if like.
It is a question of how you define it isn't it?
Maybe you could field this question to Bravehearts and see what their response is.
I am sure that they will respond to your email. I would be very interested in the answer. I'd do it but I just don't have time.
Comment by stu-kicks
stu kicks
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
What the...?
I get it Braveheart. Hahahaha.
Comment by stu-kicks
stu kicks
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Not you, just your joke.
You are a funny man.
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
L.A.M.P.
In my opinion, though--anyone who equates a photograph of a naked child--emphasis on child-- NOT sexually developed or in a sexual pose-- with pornography needs to go see an analyst about their own pedophilic hangups. Seriously.
It creeps me out to think that anyone would see a child in any kind of sexual context. God, how did the subject even come up??!!
The thought of anyone associating sex with a naked kid--well, it makes my skin crawl.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
Better late than never.
This has obviously been a controversial issue that has had everyone included the Australian Prime Minister commenting on. So it is easy to muddy the waters with other issues: eg: what is art, who should decide, censorship, arts funding etc. Where in fact the crucial issue is almost lost in the noise.
How does a 6 year old give consent to be photographed naked for a magazine?
Why produce a magazine with images of naked children as a protest?
Does this breach community standards?
Should the community be forced to financially subsidize what it finds repulsive?
The questions of law will be sorted out after parliament sits.