Moral panic in Australia

by Chris Bertram on July 7, 2008

On the basis of not paying particularly close attention but listening to what Australian friends had to say, I’d formed a generally positive impression of Australian PM Kevin Rudd. Now I see that Rudd has been stupid enough to “weigh”:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7492579.stm into “a controversy”:http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23979363-601,00.html about the artistic depiction of child nudity with the following comment:

bq. “Frankly, I can’t stand this stuff …. We’re talking about the innocence of little children here. A little child cannot answer for themselves about whether they wish to be depicted in this way.”

I can’t wait for the Australian government’s prosposals for banning the appearance of child actors in soap operas and TV advertising on similar “couldn’t consent to thus being depicted” grounds!

The image in question can be seen “here”:http://www.artmonthly.org.au/ . (Perfectly safe for work in my opinion, but what do I know.) Chillingly, “Officials have said they will review the magazine’s public funding.” Of course there may be questions about whether art magazines should be publicly funded at all, but if they are to be, then this seems an crazy reason to withdraw the case.

(Incidentally, a relative of mine works with someone who was on the front cover of Led Zeppelin’s _Houses of the Holy_, no doubt the Australian Childhood Foundation would have been up in arms about that too on the grounds of possible “psychological effects in later years” — there don’t seem to be any.)

{ 104 comments }

1

Kim 07.07.08 at 3:34 pm

Essential context for this is the previous controvery about Bill Henson’s photos, which has been documented in detail at our (Australian) blog:

http://larvatusprodeo.net/topic/politics/culture-wars/bill-henson-controversy/

Here’s my take on the latest intervention by Rudd:

http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/07/07/artmonthly-furore/

2

Jacob Christensen 07.07.08 at 3:48 pm

I can’t help wondering what Mr. Rudd has to say about these.

Paintings, I know, but still.

Leave aside the problem with skin cancers but it seems that the only solution will be to cover up Australian children in burqas or hide them in dark cellars, just to avoid any risks.

3

david 07.07.08 at 3:49 pm

what about the damage houses of the holy cause to real music lovers everywhere? Of course, you can’t blame the kids for that.

4

Seth Gordon 07.07.08 at 3:55 pm

There are certain reality-TV shows that make a spectacle of showing dysfunctional family relationships (e.g., Supernanny) or creating dysfunction where none may have previously existed (e.g., Trading Spouses). If we’re going to pass legislation declaring that certain media images of children are too exploitative to be distributed even with a guardian’s consent, let’s start there.

5

stuart 07.07.08 at 4:10 pm

Out of interest, is Nirvana’s artwork for Nevermind banned in Australia?

6

Katherine 07.07.08 at 4:16 pm

I’m having trouble working out why anyone would have a problem with that image. It’s not even remotely sexual, and very far from explicit.

The panic about innocent nudity just seems to feed into the twisted idea that naked children are sexual.

7

harry b 07.07.08 at 4:54 pm

Yes (to Katherine) — its as if the people who are complaining are just very keen to demonstrate that they have dirty minds. Don’t these people have children?

That said, the picture is creepy (to me). But then, I’m the kind of person who likes garden gnomes.

8

Skeptical 07.07.08 at 5:18 pm

I can’t wait for the Australian government’s prosposals for banning the appearance of child actors in soap operas and TV advertising on similar “couldn’t consent to thus being depicted” grounds!

That’s a pretty weak point. The PM is just contrasting adults being depicted nude, for which consent is possible, and children being so depicted, for which (meaningful) consent is not possible. If you want to know how appearing nude differs from appearing in a soap opera, I imagine, and hope, that the PM wouldn’t have too much trouble explaining it to you.

9

Ray 07.07.08 at 5:49 pm

Adults must give their consent to be shown on film, or before surgery. Children can’t give informed consent in those cases, so their legal guardians are empowered to consent on their behalf. Why is appearing nude any different?

10

Chris Bertram 07.07.08 at 6:08 pm

_If you want to know how appearing nude differs from appearing in a soap opera, I imagine, and hope, that the PM wouldn’t have too much trouble explaining it to you._

Actually, I’m completely puzzled about what _in general terms_ the relevant difference might be. I can imagine depictions of a person in a soap opera or advertising that are immensely problematic, and others that are not. Likewise with pictures that show people without clothes.

[by the way, skeptical, your comment violates the CT comments policy by giving an obviously bogus email address – please correct this in future comments.]

11

sincity 07.07.08 at 6:08 pm

but the real question is:

Is Kevin Rudd related to that other dear son of Australia, Mr. Phil Rudd?

12

Catholicism Inc 07.07.08 at 6:10 pm

Alison Croggon is in rebel Cork! Well the Pope has a painting of a trussed up japanese schoolgirl, the truth is trussed up, trussing up schoolgirls is not sexual, Caravaggio use to truss up Japanese schoolgirls, artists have been doing it for years.

Sydney Morning Herald, Australia – 3 hours ago
“The little girl is in there along with bondage images, including one of a Japanese schoolgirl in school uniform trussed up in rope while another image …

13

Chris Bertram 07.07.08 at 6:32 pm

#12

The passage from the SMH you quote from is “here”:http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/im-offended-by-rudd-says-girl/2008/07/07/1215282747275.html

It reads:

But it was the context in which the photographs were published alongside other more disturbing sexual images in the magazine that needed to be taken into account, said the director of Women’s Forum Australia, Melinda Tankard Reist.

“The little girl is in there along with bondage images, including one of a Japanese schoolgirl in school uniform trussed up in rope while another image shows an adult woman also trussed up, with breasts and genitals exposed.”

Ms Tankard Reist said it was hard to talk about art restoring dignity when another image in the magazine showed a woman being fellated [sic] by an octopus.

Lacking a copy of Art Monthly Australia, I’m unable to verify very much of what Tankard Reist (a conservative pundit) says, but I did scan the contents page

http://www.artmonthly.org.au/issue.asp

where the octupus image appears (illustrating an unrelated article). I think any reasonable person would agree that it doesn’t do much to support Reist’s “context” argument.

14

Thomas 07.07.08 at 6:55 pm

What about movies like The Omen? What horror for a child to grow up and realize people have seen him as Antichrist without his consent. What about forcing children to participate in really BAD movies? That can ruin their life if the other kids find out about it in school. If children should appear in movies they should wear burqa so they can’t be identified as Jacob suggested. Protect the children!

Next step is PETA making sure to protect animals from being exploited by being showed naked without their consent.

15

abb1 07.07.08 at 9:40 pm

I can imagine depictions of a person in a soap opera or advertising that are immensely problematic, and others that are not. Likewise with pictures that show people without clothes.

Hmm, I hope I’m not a prude. Still, in this context the analogy goes something like this: “depictions of a child in a soap opera or advertising can be immensely problematic; likewise with pictures that show children.” I think one could reasonably argue that pictures of naked children (older than a toddler) are already at least somewhat problematic. Not universally, of course, but in this society at this point of time.

16

Neil 07.07.08 at 10:21 pm

Chris, I don’t think you’re being fair to Rudd. He has weighed in on the issue several times – and we agree that he’s on the wrong side of it – but each time he has made it clear that he’s giving a personal opinion. The decision to review the funding of the magazine was taken by a state government, not the federal government. The pictures that sparked the uproar were examined by relevant officials, who declared them not only legal but suitable for viewing by children. So there isn’t a lot of moral panic going on down here.

17

john b 07.07.08 at 10:40 pm

But if you’re the *Prime Minister* and you weigh in on some legal dispute, then you’re not just giving your personal opinion – even if you say you are. Everything you say carries the weight of your office, and the only way to avoid that is to not say anything.

18

will u. 07.08.08 at 1:17 am

“Ms Tankard Reist said it was hard to talk about art restoring dignity when another image in the magazine showed a woman being fellated [sic] by an octopus.”

What, like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dream_of_the_Fisherman%27s_Wife

19

f.d.plessner 07.08.08 at 1:18 am

Isn’t it curious though that the little girl is positioned as if she were a grown woman? A six year old child does not sit like that. Also, the child looks as if she is wearing makeup. Or at least, there is something odd about the face–again, the expression is a bit too adult. I can’t help but feel that the photographer is deliberately sexualising the image of the child, albeit very subtly.

Perhaps the core issue here is not so much about the politics of consent, but about the intention of the artist? After all, the controversy is actually about an artwork.

20

Neil 07.08.08 at 1:19 am

Clearly if you are prime minister then your opinions carry more weight, in various ways, and you have a responsibility to be judicious in expressing them. I agree with Chris that Rudd ought to have been more judicious. But there’s a difference between policy and opinion. When the relevant authorities gave the original pictures a PG rating, Rudd commented that he disagreed with their view, but that they were the duly constituted authority. He could have sacked them (the previous government stacked the board to suit themselves). He didn’t. Even for prime ministers, there is a difference between opinion and policy.

21

will u. 07.08.08 at 1:19 am

Oh, from Chris’ link I see that’s exactly what’s in the issue.

22

hawkie 07.08.08 at 4:44 am

The Art Monthly photos of this girl (there are 3) were published as a direct response to the furore over Bill Henson’s latest exhibition of naked teen/pre-teen girls. It was a deliberate political act. The girl in question, now 11, was trotted out in the media, together with her clown-suited father, to deliver a remarkably articulate (as in scripted and rehearsed ) diatribe against Rudd and in defence of (child) nudity in art. While the photos used in this political stunt were innocuous enough (although hardly great or even interesting art) – watching this child mouth the words of aging fauxhemians like a trained monkey was cringeworthy.

I am one of those who feel a bit uncomfortable about Henson’s endless fascination with photographing naked girls, do not happen to consider him a ‘great artist’ (but think his work should be ignored rather than banned), and generally think some sort of precautionary principle should probably apply when it comes to kids. That’s about as conservatve as I get. Strangely, however, I have found myself in the chillingly orwellian predicament of now belonging to a group, together with anyone who has expressed any doubt or discomfort about Henson’s work, that has been shouted down and branded as, variously, having ‘dirty minds’, being latent paedophiles, being right-wing christian fundamentalist philistines and even, per Louise Adler on the ABC’s Q&A, equivalent to those evil book burning types in the 1930s (you know, Nazis). The problem with this hysterical response from the ‘art is beyond censure or nuanced discussion and anyone who disagrees is a moron’ clique is that they risk alienating anyone who is not prepared to be insulted and bullied into a ‘four legs good, two legs bad’ totalitarian straight jacket. While admittedly anecdotal, I am talking with many moderate-left-progressives who are decidedly unimpressed with the authoritarianism and heavy handedness that the ‘pro-Hensonites’ have trowelled on with monotonous uniformity in this debate. If moderate progressives turn away in disgust and let the authoritarians fight it out is the result likely to be progressive?

23

JamesP 07.08.08 at 5:04 am

Isn’t that octopus a fairly famous piece of classic Japanese art? The Dream of the Fisherman’s Wife?

24

Chris Bertram 07.08.08 at 6:23 am

#22

I haven’t seen Henson’s pictures, and so I’ve no idea whether I’d find them disturbing, offensive, or whatever. I’m not posting here from some absolutist freedom of expression view, though. When there was a similar controversy about a Nan Goldin picture, I found it (the picture) pretty revolting. Not so the particular image that Rudd was responding to here.

Also, I haven’t seen the footage you refer to. But I certainly don’t exclude the possibility (as you appear to) that the girl in question might be expressing her own views.

25

derrida derider 07.08.08 at 6:26 am

A six year old child does not sit like that.
Both mine did. Kids are more flexible than adults.
Also, the child looks as if she is wearing makeup.
You mean, just like every child actor? Or just like kids sitting for a professional family portrait?

IMO lots of people who should know better are making fools of themselves on this. Honi soit qui mal y pense.

26

peter kenneally 07.08.08 at 7:00 am

It seems odd that other government ministers are now weighing in with their ‘personal opinions’, which just happen to be the same as Rudd’s. Not only can young people, or children if you like not give consent to being depicted naked, now it seems they are not even allowed to have an opinion about whether they can so consent, or about art.
If they voice one then they are derided as a ‘trained monkey’. I am quite confident that my daughter when she is eleven, will be able to express her views as articulately as that girl, and that she will have views about this sort of issue.
As is common, people are seizing on a particular item, which perhaps they can ‘control’ to voice their misgivings about a social trend (the sexualisation of children)which they can’t, and which they feel guilty about somehow being part of.
The hysteria centres around the elision of nakedness and sex:which makes ‘moderate progressives’ like Rudd terrified of appearing to condone the first in any context involving young people. The fact that the ‘go to’ person for this issue is Hetty Johnston, who however worthy she may be, is only capable of addressing this subject hysterically, doesn’t help.
I am ambivalent about Henson myself, but calling his work, let alone the image in question here, ‘disgusting’ leaves your vocabulary impoverished when you want to describe something that is really, um, well, you see?

27

P 07.08.08 at 8:39 am

So where do Anne Geddes photos fit? – naked babies

28

Katherine 07.08.08 at 8:43 am

“I think one could reasonably argue that pictures of naked children (older than a toddler) are already at least somewhat problematic. Not universally, of course, but in this society at this point of time.”

What is so special about this society at this point in time? Nothing, I’d argue, except for the existence of the misguided moral outrage. It’s this kind of over-reaction to the image of a naked child that has parents worried about getting their photos of kids in the bath developed. I’ve got some lovely snaps of my 6 month old starkers in the garden and I’m umming and ahing about what to do with them for goodness sake!

29

Katherine 07.08.08 at 8:44 am

Also, anyone notice that this “outrage” is all about naked girls.

30

Ginger Yellow 07.08.08 at 10:37 am

“The panic about innocent nudity just seems to feed into the twisted idea that naked children are sexual.”

This is precisely right. We’ve got a culture (ie US-UK-Australia – don’t know enough about Canadian society to say) that simultaneously insists that children are entirely innocent and must be protected, and that they are sexual. Remind you of any harmful tropes in Christian culture, by any chance?

31

Tom T. 07.08.08 at 12:20 pm

Chris, just to be clear, there’s nothing in your views that makes the non-sexual nature of the photographs a relevant criterion, correct? As long as photographer and publisher aver that the intent is artistic, you would consider the pictures to be equally uncontroversial if the girl were expressly masturbating, or performing oral sex on a boy of similar age, or engaged in intercourse with an adult man?

Alternatively, if you would consider such depictions to be impermissible, what is the principle that animates your opinion? I.e., why is such an opinion not just a value judgment equally as arbitrary as that of Mr. Rudd?

32

Walt 07.08.08 at 12:38 pm

My God, it’s full of straw.

33

abb1 07.08.08 at 1:05 pm

Katherine (28) – exactly, there’s nothing special about this society at this point in time. It’s simply one of the taboos that exist in this society, like any taboo in any society. And there are many – words, images, gestures, smells, thoughts, what have you.

Some get shocked, offended by these things, others merely feel awkward. Some, of course, don’t care, but you’re probably still in a minority, unless you’re in rural Finland or French Mediterranean.

Hey, what’s the big deal. Not being able to wear sandals to work is certainly more annoying.

34

Chris Bertram 07.08.08 at 1:34 pm

#31 I’ve no idea where you got that notion about my views. (Your comment is, in fact egregiously offensive.)

I was objecting to the stupid idea that the depiction of child nudity is _ipso facto_ objectionable. That has nothing to do with “artistic intent”. And I’d object to strongly sexualized or pornographic images of a child even with “artistic intent”. I won’t dispute that there may be difficult cases, and I certainly can’t frame a fully satisfactory demarcation principle here and now. But then, I don’t see that I’m obliged to.

35

Tom T. 07.08.08 at 2:47 pm

#34. You’re saying that it’s “stupid” to suggest that child nudity is ipso facto objectionable. And you’re saying it’s “egregiously offensive” to suggest that child sexuality is not ipso facto objectionable. You’ve speculated that a minor could meaningfully consent to nudity, but now, apparently, not to sex.

Of course you’re not obliged to explain or defend this distinction. But since you’ve set it forth in such loaded terms that you consider your value judgment as to where to draw the appropriate line to be obviously right and Rudd’s to be obviously wrong, I thought you might have something more than a gut instinct animating your view.

But if in fact the lines are hard to draw, and it’s difficult to form a demarcation principle, then maybe it’s a bit over the top to suggest that people who draw the line somewhere around where Rudd does are stupid. Maybe it’s even egregiously offensive.

36

novakant 07.08.08 at 2:53 pm

I won’t dispute that there may be difficult cases, and I certainly can’t frame a fully satisfactory demarcation principle here and now. But then, I don’t see that I’m obliged to.

Well, if you can’t provide any demarcation principle apart from “I don’t see a problem here” or “reasonable people would agree”, you might want to be a bit more careful about calling Rudd’s objections “stupid” and “crazy”.

37

Ray 07.08.08 at 3:09 pm

You don’t need to be able to draw a sharp line through the middle of ‘twilight’ to suggest that people who can’t tell ‘night’ from ‘day’ are idiots.

38

Chris Bertram 07.08.08 at 3:20 pm

#35, 36. I’m afraid that you are the people who are confused here. From the fact that it is difficult to establish clear criteria, it doesn’t at all follow that all that is involved is “gut instinct”. For another case, think of the difficulty in judging whether the predicate “bald” appropriately applied to a given man’s head.

And #35, there is clearly sense in saying that a minor can meaningfully consent to some types of act (“Would you like an ice cream?”) and not to others, consent to which require maturity, judgement and experience that minors are not in possession of. And, by the way, I do believe that some minors can meaningfully consent to sex, _as does the law_, since (in the UK at least) the age of consent does not coincide with the age of majority.

And, further #35, I did not say that it was “egregiously offensive” to say that child sexuality is not ipso facto objectionable, I said that *your comment* with its rather sick enumeration of sexual acts involving children was egregiously offensive. It is.

39

John Meredith 07.08.08 at 3:31 pm

“there is clearly sense in saying that a minor can meaningfully consent to some types of act (“Would you like an ice cream?”) and not to others”

You are right, but surely there is strong case to be made for the idea that sitting for naked photography for public display is one of the ones a child cannot really consent to? Can they understand the loss of privacy involved? Surely the child involved in this particular controversy is likely to be suffering from the attention in way she could never have understood in advance and consented to? I remember Shirley Temple reflecting on the difficulty she had in coming to terms with the realisation that she was a sex object for many of her ‘fans’, and sexual involved in so much of her film career. And if the cost of banning commercial child nude photography (art or otherwise) was no more children in soap operas? I think we could bear it.

40

Chris Bertram 07.08.08 at 3:47 pm

#39 The consent issue was raised by Rudd, and then by commenters above. But I think it is actually less central than they think. I’m not, in general, in favour of banning anything unless there are demonstrable or highly probable harms. Clearly there are such harms (both direct and indirect) in child pornography and so it ought to be (and is rightly) banned. By contrast, the claims you make for harm in the “mere nudity” case (such as the picture on the cover of Art Monthly Australia) are nebulous, speculative and (in my judgement) without basis.

41

novakant 07.08.08 at 4:04 pm

From the fact that it is difficult to establish clear criteria, it doesn’t at all follow that all that is involved is “gut instinct”.

Well, since you have so far failed to verbalize any criteria, clear or not so clear, we can only conclude that you are going by your gut instinct. Which is fine – I think the definition of pornography as “I know it when I see it” was perfectly honest. What is not warranted, due to the fundamental subjectivity of such judgments, is calling people who might beg to differ “crazy” and “stupid”.

Also, in this case it’s a bit short-sighted to only take into account the judgment of people with a normal disposition and ignore those who might be aroused by the depiction of children in such a manner. Someone catering to the latter might have a strong legal point arguing that his products are artistic and that similar depictions have been exhibited by government funded institutions.

I’m not taking sides here, just saying that it’s a tricky business.

42

Katherine 07.08.08 at 4:16 pm

“in this case it’s a bit short-sighted to only take into account the judgment of people with a normal disposition and ignore those who might be aroused by the depiction of children in such a manner.”

No no no, you can’t start going down that road, not without getting somewhat more specific. Pretty much anything will turn someone on somewhere.

43

Chris Bertram 07.08.08 at 4:31 pm

#41 “Well, since you have so far failed to verbalize any criteria, clear or not so clear, we can only conclude that you are going by your gut instinct.”

No, not correct. I stated a perfectly clear criterion: child pornography should be banned, depictions of child nudity that are not pornography should not be.

The fact that such a principle is incomplete or vague or stands in need of interpretation does not disqualify it as a criterion, just as the principle “no vehicles are permitted in the park” is not invalidated by indeterminacy about what is to count as a vehicle.

You ask me to imagine the case of someone who thinks, then, that all and any depictions of child nudity should count as pornography. I say that such a person is stupid, crazy, lacks reasonable judgement.

Sorry if you aren’t satisified Novakant, but there we are.

44

abb1 07.08.08 at 4:40 pm

Hmm. A thoughtful conservative could say that these little taboos are here for a reason, and while it’s true that the reason might’ve been long gone or not very good in the first place, still, it represents some sort of crystallized multi-generational wisdom that requires a degree of respect, as all the potential consequences might be difficult to ascertain by thinking about the phenomenon for 10 minutes, or even 10 years.

In this particular case, the benefit of rejecting the taboo seems so minuscule that the consideration of potential (albeit not obvious) harm surely prevails.

[ha-ha-ha, I can’t believe I’m typing this. But it’s true, isn’t it? I should do more of it.]

45

terangeree 07.08.08 at 5:12 pm

The picture in question is five years old and has been exhibited numerous times since it was taken. It is part of a series where the photographer re-creates Lewis Carroll’s photographs of young girls. The picture that’s causing such conniptions is a copy of this picture.

46

Ginger Yellow 07.08.08 at 5:20 pm

” A thoughtful conservative could say that these little taboos are here for a reason, and while it’s true that the reason might’ve been long gone or not very good in the first place, still, it represents some sort of crystallized multi-generational wisdom ”

Except that it doesn’t. It’s a relatively recent taboo, at least in the West (and indeed only really exists in the Anglo-Saxon West). The naked child is arguably the single most commonly represented figure in Western art. Will nobody think of the baby Jesus?

47

abb1 07.08.08 at 5:27 pm

Baby is fine. The taboo is covering the period between post-toddler and late-teen. Note that this is also the period when they themselves are highly adverse to being seen naked.

48

novakant 07.08.08 at 5:44 pm

depictions of child nudity that are not pornography should not be.

That’s setting the bar awfully high, both because people with a perverse disposition in this regard tend to be aroused by the photographic depiction of child nudity that is not pornographic, but merely slightly suggestive (and even that factor might not be needed) and also because of the privacy and consent issues which, in my view, you dismiss too easily, since we’re talking about a 6 year old here.

49

Katherine 07.08.08 at 6:04 pm

“We’ve got a culture (ie US-UK-Australia – don’t know enough about Canadian society to say) that simultaneously insists that children are entirely innocent and must be protected, and that they are sexual. Remind you of any harmful tropes in Christian culture, by any chance?”

Yes, it reminds me of Christianity’s treatment of women – which I assume/hope is what you are getting at. And on that note, I’ll repeat something I said above that has been ignored thus far – this seems to be exclusively about female children, and the sexualisation/people’s perception of them as sexual/people’s perception of them as sexualised. I happy to be proven wrong – if anyone can point me to a recent similar controversy surrounding photographs of naked, male chidren.

50

Katherine 07.08.08 at 6:21 pm

“The taboo is covering the period between post-toddler and late-teen.”

Gotta disagree with this – late-teen nudity (15/16/17?) is an entirely different ballpark than, say, 8/9/10 year old nudity. The difference being puberty.

51

abb1 07.08.08 at 7:02 pm

I don’t think you’ll see a person younger than 18 in any of the Girls Gone Wild sorta stuff or A&F commercial. There’s probably a law against it.

52

abb1 07.08.08 at 8:53 pm

Come to think of it, the underlying taboo probably is on being sexually aroused by a child. The pictures-of-naked-children taboo is a derivative of that.

So, someone like Chris looks at the picture and feels that it’s safe enough, wholesome enough, doesn’t threaten the integrity of the underlying taboo (which he accepts). But is he sure, absolutely sure? Why risk it? Thank God for people like Mr. Rudd who guard us, protect us from evil, and deliver us from temptation.

53

Roy Belmont 07.08.08 at 8:58 pm

Ray#37-You don’t need to be able to draw a sharp line through the middle of ‘twilight’ to suggest that people who can’t tell ‘night’ from ‘day’ are idiots.
No, but if you legislate some activity that can only be undertaken by day and never by night there’s going to be, given the current squalid nature of humanity, a whole pack of twilight opportunists positioning themselves as close to the line as they can and squealing about their rights, especially if that activity has anything to do with merchandising hedonistic gratification.
There’s an inherited burden of mostly invisible behavior modification in Western societies around sex. Too many people would rather see a child dead than sexually molested, the “fate worse than death”, though most of them can’t consciously confront that because it’s too obviously wrong.
That’s a pathology reacting to a pathology.
Sexual health is the issue, and its absence is the problem. Eradicating the symptoms while leaving the disease unchecked is a function of the deeper pathology, preserving itself.
People who are convinced they act to defend the welfare of children sit idly while the automoblie takes out an obscene percentage of the innocent young, randomly. Hypocrisy abounds.

Children suffer from all kinds of things, and will continue to, not least from a warming planet, but sex is the most exciting to their erstwhile guardians.
The arbitrary behavioral limit of 18 years and its arbitrary enforcement – vote yes, drink no, in the US – is one place where the inability of those guardians is made plain.
The question mark in Katharine’s #57 is the heart of the matter. There’s nothing uniform about sexuality, or sexual maturity. The real issue is damage, harm, and intent. Why does that stop at the legal age? Why is it alright to take sexual advantage, to their detriment, of someone whose 30?
But if the neo-Puritans take that on they’ll have to reconfigure the whole magilla. Which would be good, but they’re not brave enough, and too lost in their own sexual illness to get past it.
My grandmother was married at 16, had 7 children, and stayed married for over 50 years.

54

Damien 07.08.08 at 9:32 pm

While I feel naturally on the side of Chris, there is something in me that cringes. We see the sexual hypocrisy as a specialty of the moral conservatives, but isn’t it a bit hypocritical to ignore that Bill Henson, apparently, and a lot of other artists, are nowingly playing with this taboo. Some see the photo and see sex. Other don’t. Well, isn’t it the whole point, isn’t it precisely what was intended?

This is, by the way, a pretty obvious artistic strategy. Provocation is now a strong tradition, and child sexuality is the best target. The voluntary publication of “controversial” pictures is as inevitable as rain, and follows closely the evolution of the frontiers of “controversy”. A defense of those pictures that plays only the tune of “this is mere nudity, like the pictures of my kids I take in my garden” is a bit suspect, in ignoring this context, the intent, or whatever.

That said, it doesn’t make the controversy, or the taboo, more sane. But we’re all playing this game, right now, as I hit the “post” button.

55

Ray 07.08.08 at 9:49 pm

“No, but if you legislate some activity that can only be undertaken by day and never by night there’s going to be … a whole pack of twilight opportunists positioning themselves as close to the line as they can”

Quite possibly, and those edge cases will have to be dealt with if/when they arise, _but this is not an edge case_.
The alternative seems to be
“x and y lie at opposite ends of a continuum. y is bad and x is not, but since we can’t identify a precise point where something becomes more y than x, we must ban both.”
It’s insane.

56

roy belmont 07.08.08 at 11:23 pm

Yes it is. Insidious too. But like a lot, if not all, of crazy human stuff, it works for somebody, and that’s why it’s there.
Sexual taboos in our culture are generally so fiercely emplaced they’re not even articulated. Too dark and horrible to even talk about.
That’s why child molestation was never in the news back in mid-20thcentury America, though it certainly was occurring, possibly even more frequently per capita than topday.
And it should be recognized that that it is now even discussable in polite company can be traced right back to – not the campaigning of morally outraged Christian activists, or to any other non-aligned champions of the innocent, but to the Stonewall Riots, when persecuted gays in New York City broke through the invisible barrier of taboo, shedding blood along with their anonymity, and got their predicament onto the news.

57

abb1 07.09.08 at 6:19 am

x and y lie at opposite ends of a continuum

But “pictures of naked children” is a strange choice for a continuum. A better continuum would be, say, “all pictures of children”, or even “all pictures”. In which case x and y are not at the opposite ends, they are, in fact, at the same end and very close to each other.

IOW, there is no ‘day and night’ difference between this picture and picture of a child that we all would classify as mildly erotic and therefore unacceptable; with this picture we are already well into the twilight territory. No?

58

Katherine 07.09.08 at 7:32 am

Stop saying “naked children” when ehat seems to be the issue here is naked girls, unless someone can point me to a boy based controversy. \this is in danger of develpong into a big naked elephant in the room.

59

Ray 07.09.08 at 7:40 am

abb1, why is this picture in twilight territory? It’s not in the least sexual, unless you maintain that all pictures of naked children/girls are necessarily somewhat sexual. And if you maintain _that_, then you are the one with the problem.

60

Laura 07.09.08 at 8:35 am

Katherine, you are right that in this instance (Polixeni Papapetrou’s picture – the artist by the way is the model’s mother) the subject is a girl – but some of Bill Henson’s pictures which the police removed from a Sydney gallery last month (and later returned) were of pubescent boys.

I think this picture looks stranger in isolation than it does among all the other pictures in this series.

That’s not to excuse Rudd’s comment, which is suspiciously unlike nearly everything else he says in that it appears to be an impulsive, unplanned response. I think he is saying what he thinks the electorate wants him to say, which is disappointing, since he still has enough post-Howard glamour to be forgiven for telling the electorate things they need to know. I doubt he is unaware of the dangers that would follow from the normalising of a situation where all nakedness was by default understood as having a sexual meaning.

61

abb1 07.09.08 at 8:43 am

Ray, I am a well adjusted individual, I don’t have a problem of this sort. But some do. Especially, I suspect, my opposites – the Australians; who knows what’s going on down there.

Come on, Ray. Here’s from dictionary.com for “skin”:

a. Slang. showing or featuring nude persons, often in a sexually explicit way: a skin magazine.

b. presenting films, stage shows, exhibitions, etc., that feature nude persons, esp. in a sexually explicit way: a Times Square skin house.

Notice the words “often” and “esp” here.

Why deny the obvious: skin is a sexual organ, nakedness is somewhat sexual. There is a much better chance that someone gets aroused by a picture of a naked girl than a fully clothed girl (well, unless it’s extremely thematic in a different direction, I suppose, like the famous Vietnamese girl running from napalm; but this picture is not like that at all).

Then, the intuition goes, this individual is more likely to molest a child. One could question the latter postulate (as in: playing violent videogames does not lead to actual violence), but typically no one has a nerve to make such claim in this case, so we have to assume it’s correct.

62

John Meredith 07.09.08 at 8:58 am

“Clearly there are such harms (both direct and indirect) in child pornography and so it ought to be (and is rightly) banned.”

But this isn’t so clear, is it? Most child pornography, or a large category of it is, I understand, achievable without any harm being inflicted directly on the child. The indirect harms presumably flow from later knowledge of exploitation, but the same would hold true for nude ‘art’ photography, for some children at least. The only difference is in the way we categorise the images, and, and how and by whom we imagine they are consumed. I wonder whether the child in this photograph will be happy with the longish legacy of being identified as such during her adolescent years?

Generally I would agree that the risk of real harm should be high before we contemplate a ban, but children are different, we owe them a higher duty of care. Perhaps we should put a figure on it. How many children suffering real distress from their use in nude art photography should we tolerate? One in ten? One in twenty? I don’t think it is fanciful to think there will be real suffering. The little girl whose nude photograph we have all been looking at will soon be coming into adolescence and unless she is a very strong-minded individual (which she may well be, of course), she is likely to suffer from the display and widespread knowledge of this image, perhaps as much as or even more than if she later found that a picture of herself had been taken for an obscure (to most of us) child pornography magazine. That sort of suffering can be life changing (ask Shirley Temple).

Surely there is a Kantian side to all this as well? Isn’t this an example of a person being used as a mere means, to serve the interests of the photographer, since we agree (I think) that a child cannot give meaningful consent to the act of modelling for this sort of image?

63

bernarda 07.09.08 at 9:01 am

Rather tacky and not very original, it reminds me of Dejeuner sur l’Herbe de Manet.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Image:Manet%2C_Edouard_-_Le_D%C3%A9jeuner_sur_l%27Herbe_(The_Picnic)_(1).jpg

Before photography, but look up Italian paintings of Cherubs, Eros, and baby Jesus. Rubens has some good ones.

More recently there has been the tacky David Hamilton.

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i293/pikopihi/Art/David%20Hamilton/seite111.jpg

Would it be acceptable to print Baltus’s “Thèrése Révant”?

64

John Meredith 07.09.08 at 9:03 am

“It’s not in the least sexual, unless you maintain that all pictures of naked children/girls are necessarily somewhat sexual. And if you maintain that, then you are the one with the problem.”

This is disingenuous. The image certainly is sexual in some degree. The references to Carroll, a known paedophile who delighted in photographing children n quietly sexual poses, make the intention to present a sexualised image clear. It is a powerful image, disturbing and thought provoking if you are not sexually attracted to children, but I think I know what Lewis Carroll would have made of it, because he left us a legacy. Lewis Carroll may not be typical of all paedophiles (or mathematicians, for that matter), but I would expect a fairly large crossover.

65

Ray 07.09.08 at 9:58 am

The combination of definition number 27 and john meredith’s insistence that he finds the image disturbing has defeated me. Obviously _I_ am the crazy one.

66

abb1 07.09.08 at 10:14 am

I regret posting the definition 27. All I meant to say is that the well-known colloquial meaning of the word “skin” as “sexual” or “erotic” is there for a reason. How can you disagree? This is beyond obvious.

67

Ray 07.09.08 at 10:32 am

Beds and bedrooms are often frequently associated with sex and the erotic, which doesn’t mean that any image of a bed is somewhat sexual. The vagina is a sexual organ, which doesn’t make pictures of childbirth sexy.

Re. 62, how many children suffering long-term damage from their roles as child stars, or mockery from their schoolmates for their appearance in advertisements, must we tolerate before we declare that children cannot give meaningful consent to these acts?

68

John Meredith 07.09.08 at 10:39 am

“Beds and bedrooms are often frequently associated with sex and the erotic, which doesn’t mean that any image of a bed is somewhat sexual. The vagina is a sexual organ, which doesn’t make pictures of childbirth sexy.”

That is true, but beside the point. We are talking about a photograph of a naked child. The nakedness of the child seems to be significant. The fact that the child is apparently posed in a way that is intended to be a reference to the work of a well-known paedophile, seems to be relevant too.

Re. 62, how many children suffering long-term damage from their roles as child stars, or mockery from their schoolmates for their appearance in advertisements, must we tolerate before we declare that children cannot give meaningful consent to these acts?”

How many do you think (and I am only talking about real suffering and damage, not just mockery)? One in ten? One in five? More? Less? Would it be so hard to forbid the use of children in advertisements? It works elsewhere. Should children be allowed to work in show business? I’m not sure they should. It is not obvious that they should, at any rate.

69

Ray 07.09.08 at 11:04 am

Here is a woman sitting on a bed
http://www.barbarakrakowgallery.com/stuff/contentmgr/files/bb1a5207e1d9c3b510a710c7b18d274b/img_two/segal_whtbrnzview1.jpg
The bed is obviously significant, therefore this is sexual? If the picture was an unwitting echo of a Carroll picture, would that be okay?

If you want to ban any public depictions of identifable children, nude or otherwise, that would at least be consistent. We could also ban parents from pushing their children to excel at sport or academia.

70

John Meredith 07.09.08 at 11:47 am

If you want to ban any public depictions of identifable children, nude or otherwise, that would at least be consistent.

I didn’t say I wanted to ban images of children at all, although I can see an argument for some level of prohibition (at very least I don’t think images of children should be published as pornography).

Would it not be consistent (if consistency is you thing) to ban all commercial images of identifiable naked children? That would avoid most absurdities.

I am bemused, though, by your refusal to acknowledge the sexual content of the image in question even when it has been pointed out to you that it refers to the work of a well-known paedophile and that that is, to some degree, the subject of the piece.

71

Ray 07.09.08 at 12:01 pm

It would be consistent to ban all commercial images of identifiable naked children. It would also be completely over the top, banning a lot of completely harmless material. (Anne Geddes, for one, would be extremely put out.)

If the reason for the ban is that children can’t consent to things that may conceivably harm them, a lot of other things should be banned too.

But apparently the problem is something else entirely? So let’s be clear about this.
If photographer A goes out and recreates this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/07/magazine_enl_1169145934/img/1.jpg
while photographer B recreates these two
http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/04/18/picture_19.jpg
who gets banned?

72

Chris Bertram 07.09.08 at 12:08 pm

I rather think that the implications John Meredith draws from the harm principle amount to some sort of reductio of his position. (Maybe this is where Kantianism gets you!)

I too, though, was somewhat discomfited by the Lewis Carroll connection. But I think that John may be in error in taking Carroll’s paedophilia as an established fact. From what I can gather — and my researches don’t go much deeper than Wikipedia — the claim that Carroll was a paedophile is an inference drawn from images like the one in question rather than something independently established. If that’s right (and I don’t know that it is) then there’s an awkward circularity at work here.

73

abb1 07.09.08 at 1:15 pm

Good, at least we have established that apropos of sex/erotica a naked picture to a clothed picture is like a bed to a stove, i.e. “frequently associated with sex and the erotic”. This is good progress.

The second part of your phrase (“which doesn’t mean that any image of a bed is somewhat sexual”) sounds like you’re trying to get off on a technicality. Not on my watch, mister.

Sure, not every image of a naked person is sexual, but I think “frequently associated with sex and the erotic” will do, as we are talking about the little girls here. Doesn’t it make sense to go an extra mile to protect the little girls, when all you lose is a few arguably non-sexual naked pictures of them? And, of course, exceptions can be granted on a case-by-case basis (e.g. the Vietnam/napalm exception).

Why do you hate the children?

74

John Meredith 07.09.08 at 1:15 pm

“If the reason for the ban is that children can’t consent to things that may conceivably harm them, a lot of other things should be banned too.”

Maybe, but not necessarily. Sexual harm, or psycho-sexual harm is usually considered to be a bit of a special case. But, don’t forget that there is not ban, just the suggestion that we could have one. I would quite like to see the use of children in advertising (all advertising) banned, for example. But mainly on general principles, for the same reason I find it distasteful when advertisers use images of the famous dead to endorse products. And I don’t think that ban on nude child art photography would affect many people one way or the other.

75

John Meredith 07.09.08 at 1:17 pm

“Why do you hate the children?”

Don’t expect an answer to that. He won’t even tell me when he stopped beating his wife.

76

John Meredith 07.09.08 at 1:19 pm

By the way, Ray, I have to say that both the images in your second link are very disturbing in their different ways. Are they Charles Hodgson images? The sleeping/dead child in the langorous, sexual recline is especially strange and upsetting. Surely you cannot see these images as innocent of sexual content?

77

Ginger Yellow 07.09.08 at 1:33 pm

“All I meant to say is that the well-known colloquial meaning of the word “skin” as “sexual” or “erotic” is there for a reason. ”

cf “jazz”, “blue” etc. Etymology doesn’t get you very far. Furthermore, a large part of the problem we’re discussing is that modern Anglo-Saxon culture sexualises nudity when it shouldn’t as well as when it should.

78

abb1 07.09.08 at 1:42 pm

Anglo-Saxon culture sexualises nudity when it shouldn’t as well as when it should

Clearly not only Anglo-Saxon culture, Muslims as well and they have much stronger taboos too. But that’s not a counterargument; it in fact supports my side of the argument.

79

Ray 07.09.08 at 1:43 pm

The second link is two Carroll/Dodgson pictures, yes. Are they more/less/as harmful as the picture in the original post? Do you think photos like that should be banned too?

abb1, did anyone doubt that nudity and sex are frequently associated? I must have missed that. I thought the question was whether they were _necessarily_ associated, such that a nude photo of a child _must_ be somewhat pornographic.

80

John Meredith 07.09.08 at 1:52 pm

“Anglo-Saxon culture sexualises nudity when it shouldn’t as well as when it should.”

Pshaw! Nudity is sexual. It is the rare case when this is not so. Don’t blame it on the anglo-saxons, that worm was already in the rose.

“Are they more/less/as harmful as the picture in the original post? Do you think photos like that should be banned too?”

I am not sure are harmful at all, but they were not taken for commercial purposes. They are certainly very sexual and a bit creepy. It doesn’t help that he was a rotten photographer. Look at Cameron’s photo of the older Alice for comparison. That’s a photographer. And I am not advocating a ban, just suggesting that it isn’t obvious that there should not be one. I suppose the question to you would be, if the image were published on a commercial website that was avowedly a child pornography site, should it be legal to download it from there, and should downloaders be liable for prosecution (even if they downloaded only that image)? Context, innit.

81

Ray 07.09.08 at 2:06 pm

The putative ban, that it is not obvious should not exist – would this ban include pictures like the Dodgson photos if they were being used for commercial purposes? Or would it be obvious that that ban should not exist? And how about the first photo I linked to – what would its status be under this ban (whose existential status and worth is so hard to discern either way)?

In answer to your question, I don’t think anyone should be prosecuted for downloading _that image_, from any site. (Which does not mean that ‘avowedly child pornography sites’ should be allowed to exist)

Context is much less important than production. Put any photograph on a (child) pornography site, and the subject of the photo could suffer embarassment – that is not an argument for banning photography. The appalling thing about child pornography is that children are harmed in its production. It doesn’t matter whether or not the pornography is only ever kept for private use, or distributed non-commercially.
A ban on commercially available pictures of nude children misses the target completely.

82

John Meredith 07.09.08 at 2:14 pm

“Which does not mean that ‘avowedly child pornography sites’ should be allowed to exist”

Not even if it only listed photographs like the one in dispute?

“The appalling thing about child pornography is that children are harmed in its production. ”

As I understand it, children are not usually harmed in the production of child pornography (I can’t say I am an expert, though). Should we allow child pornography where there is not harm to the child?

“would this ban include pictures like the Dodgson photos if they were being used for commercial purposes?”

Yes, it would (to the posthumous relief of Alice Liddell, I suspect). All commercial photography of children would be banned. It may be a blunt instrument, and it may be a waste of time, I don’t know. But I don’t see that there right to make money from photographing children is such a sacrosanct one. Of course the artist could still take and display the image in question so long as he got no money for it. Hands up if you think he would, though. How many edgy modern galleries would be interested if the shock value could not be converted into dollar value?

83

abb1 07.09.08 at 2:29 pm

@79 Like I said, “frequently” sounds strong enough to me when we’re talking about children’s welfare (even if girls’ only); unless there is a significant demonstrable benefit in lifting the ban, why not err on the side of caution?

This is similar to the gun control debate. Not every handgun kills someone or is used for criminal activity. Many people are likely to own a handgun without any problem whatsoever. Nevertheless, outright ban seems like a sensible enough idea. And you could aways issue a special license to someone who really, undeniably does need a handgun.

84

Gregory Carlin 07.09.08 at 2:36 pm

Sex with animals is bestiality, some of my best friends are Japanese, well, ok that was a lie, but I do speak Japanese, but not to my friends obviously.

“He searched the internet for the bestiality material but there was no active search for the child exploitation material.”

That might figures.

Well, I can’t say it is a big part of my business, but, one has intervened to protect several forms of marine life from well… It is kind of hard to describe.

Man caught with octopus sex imagesBy Maria Rae
July 04, 2008 02:12pm
Article from: AAPFont size: + –
Send this article: Print Email
A MAN whose self-esteem is so low he identifies himself as a beast has admitted to downloading images showing sexual acts with an octopus.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23968078-2,00.html

That kind of thing.

Gregory

85

Chris Bertram 07.09.08 at 2:36 pm

_It may be a blunt instrument, and it may be a waste of time, I don’t know. But I don’t see that there right to make money from photographing children is such a sacrosanct one._

As it happens, I was leafing through a book of Robert Capa’s photography the other day. Many many of his images are of children looking on bemused at the world of adults at war. Another image that springs to mind is one of Cartier-Bresson’s of children in Madrid. A third is Diane Arbus’s famous portrait of twins.

Presumably Capa, Cartier-Bresson and Arbus all aimed to make money from their pictures – and rightly so.

These examples are, I hope, sufficient to make John Meredith recognize that a ban on the commercial photography of children would be a very bad idea.

86

John Meredith 07.09.08 at 2:41 pm

Well, I am not exactly convinced that it would be a good idea, anyway. Although there are lots of possible gradations or prohibition that would allow the Capas and (with less enthusiasm from me) the Arbuses to keep going. We might ban nude photography only, or nude photography and the use of images of children for advertising or marketing purposes (actually, I would definitely support the latter of those). And any ban would only apply to images where the child was clearly recognisable, of course.

87

Gregory Carlin 07.09.08 at 2:47 pm

“A ban on commercially available pictures of nude children misses the target completely.”

The entire point of a target is the ability to hit it, for example I opposed Senator Shelby’s plans two and a half years ago.

“The goal of the Coalition is to eradicate commercial child pornography by 2008”

http://shelby.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.NewsReleases&ContentRecord_id=F3152A65-87B8-45E0-85F4-79FF2450FEA1

There is little profit in complaining of trussed schoolgirls in Japan is there?

One has to defend a ditch where a ditch exists that can be defended, and say hello to Oz.

One prosecutes anything by context and other material specifically.

Gregory

88

Ray 07.09.08 at 2:53 pm

Not to mention the fact that this ban wouldn’t cover actual child pornography, if the pornography were produced by enthusiastic amateurs rather than professionals.

(I’m no expert in child pornography either. My understanding, quite possibly mistaken, is that the production of actual child pornography is associated with sexual abuse, and the children involved do not give their consent.)

(re. ‘avowedly child pronography’ sites – the issue is a diversion. There are a lot of other issues that could be brought into such a discussion, which would only cloud the question of whether photos like that on the Art Monthly’s cover should be banned)

89

Ray 07.09.08 at 2:57 pm

“We might ban nude photography only”

Which brings us back to the Dodgson vs Geddes question.

90

Chris Bertram 07.09.08 at 3:01 pm

91

John Meredith 07.09.08 at 3:22 pm

The Jezebel post seems to take the line that some on here have that it is simply unthinkable that there may be a sexual element to the photograph of a naked six year old unless you are yourself depraved. But that is very disingenuous. Art historians have raged for years about the power relations between artist and model and the implicit sexuality in that, and have been busily deconstructing ‘innocent’ images of nude and not-so-nude sitters for years. That there is a sexual content to this picture is strongly implied, then, by the ‘fine art’ context and reinforced by the references to Lewis Carroll, who may or may not have been a paedophile (I take Chris Betram’s point on that) but whose images of children have for a long time been very contentious because of their supposed sexual content. The artist knows that and we can assume the reader of the image is expected to know it too, I think. Carroll’s images do not, after all, have much merit beyond their historical interest, which includes the long suspicion of sexual interest in Alice Liddell (Caroll’s family may have destroyed his diary entries concerning the Lidell family for other reasons, but I wonder who would bet on it given his obvious fascination with the child). It may be acceptable to publish images like this, but let’s not pretend it is innocent of sexual connotation. Of course, to a paedophile, this would be an object of straightforward sexual interest, just as the same image of a sexually mature woman would be to the rest of us.

92

John Meredith 07.09.08 at 3:29 pm

One last aside, Jezebel mentions the ‘unselfconscious nudity’ of children represented in the image. I agree that that is a quality of childhood that is very touching, but it is not apparent to me in the image where the pose looks artful and highly selfconscious. It is a pose that is familiar from the world of adult female nudes because it presents a completely naked form without exposing breasts or genitals. Very calendar girl.

93

John Meredith 07.09.08 at 3:38 pm

Actually (yes, I know I am banging on), looking at the photograph a little more, I think it is obvious that the child is quite heavily made up (it may have something to do with the colour repro on screen, but that doesn’t explain the striking difference in skin tone between face and body). The heavy rouge and dead-eyed stare is very reminiscent of child prostitutes in reportage shots, isn’t it? Surely not accidental that. Again, my point is just that I cannot believe anybody thinks this is an evidently unsexual image, or that it should necessarily be banned.

I wonder if the divide here has something to do with whether or not you have daughters. If you do, you realise that six year old girls are already quite sexual beings (in a very undeveloped and naive way) and are perhaps a little less upset at the idea of the sexuality of children.

94

Chris Bertram 07.09.08 at 3:42 pm

John,

Some of us will draw between one and three sceptical conclusions from your combination of imaginative pictorial hermeneutics, Kantian worries about instrumentalization, and broad conception of privacy rights.

95

John Meredith 07.09.08 at 3:50 pm

“Some of us will draw between one and three sceptical conclusions from your combination of imaginative pictorial hermeneutics, Kantian worries about instrumentalization, and broad conception of privacy rights.”

Well …? Don’t keep me on tenterhooks, what are the conclusions?

96

smaug 07.09.08 at 4:44 pm

I agree with Harry B — the picture is creepy. And the make-up on the model does give it a sexual edge — her face does not appear like a 6-year-old’s. The photo/painting of Beatrice Hatch, on which this photo/painting is based, is far different.

But also Papapetrou avoids nudity where Carroll had it in other photo/paintings. Her version of “Annie and Frances Henderson (Shipwrecked)” has the girls entirely clothed.

97

ogmb 07.09.08 at 6:21 pm

Out of interest, is Nirvana’s artwork for Nevermind banned in Australia?

Nevermind Nevermind, whay about Virgin Killer?

98

Chris Bertram 07.09.08 at 6:40 pm

#94 Thanks for the link smaug. Seeing the image together with the others in the series makes me think my initial take on it was a little naive. The effect of them all together is certainly creepy.

99

abb1 07.09.08 at 7:12 pm

Post and discussion at Jezebel.

I read the first 100, what a terribly boring thread. Not a single interesting comment; 0 out of 100. Oh, well.

100

roac 07.09.08 at 9:25 pm

I’m surprised nobody has mentioned (compare-and contrast) Sally Mann. (Just Google the name and images will appear.)

101

Chris Bertram 07.09.08 at 10:17 pm

#98 Yes, she featured heavily in a TV series shown by the BBC in the UK “The Genius of Photography”. I did find some of the pictures quite disturbing, specifically one with a young girl holding a cigarette iirc.

102

Righteous Bubba 07.09.08 at 11:18 pm

Not related to the art world – I hope – is the cavalier treatment of child nudity in the North American nudist and naturist subculture.

Nikki Craft is a feminist activist after the Dworkin model who has done a lot of good work tracking various predators in their travels through nudist encampments. Photography seems to be a pretty big deal for naked people who only want what’s natural.

http://www.nudisthallofshame.info/

103

may 07.10.08 at 2:43 am

sexuality is in the eye of the beholder?

all those little children in the religious schools covered up to ostensibly protect them from
nasty attentions.

for the rare and needed to be identified adult who sees children as prey such covering could quite possibly be seen as an inducement to their rotten pleasures?

given the actual damage done by respected members of religious institutions(among others-see recent reports of arrests for child pornogreaphy),versus the possible damage done by artistic portrayal(always an easy target)where is the call to close down places of worship?

104

Seth Edenbaum 07.10.08 at 1:50 pm

Sally Mann? And the disturbing image is the one with a cigarette?
I’m surprised no one’s mentioned
Jock Sturges
more

And one of his underage models grew up and made a movie about it

Foucault was good on this subject. Most others not so much.

Comments on this entry are closed.