By Jeremy
…Tim Blair snidely suggesting someone would “tolerate child abuse” on the basis that they don’t see naked children as sexual objects.
Pissweak, Tim. Shame.
Also – what the hell is wrong with the sanctimonious moral majority conservatives who see an artist’s photograph of an unclothed adolescent and think “Aha! Sex!”? What a truly bizarre and disturbing thought to have. Weirdos!
God, I dread to think how they view kids’ clothing catalogues and nappy commercials. I suppose they must get some kind of sick thrill out of them. Please, guys – seek help.
PS If you really want to see “revolting”, read some of the appallingly misogynist and vicious comments from Timmy’s readers that have passed “moderation” on this particular News Ltd-hosted blog post (and the original timblair.net post it links to).
UPDATE Andrew Bolt’s column today on the subject is as miserably dishonest as you could get away with in a mainstream newspaper, commencing with this outrageous and unsupported claim:
THERE must be excellent reasons to let an artist strip and photograph a 13-year-old girl so rich men can hang pictures of her bared breasts over their beds.
Bolt repeats the claim that Henson “stripped” the model in a few other posts on his blog, as well. The suggestion that the photographer actively removed the clothes of an adolescent is, of course, a product of Andrew’s terrifying imagination, and unsupported by any evidence he’s ever presented – but what a way to start whipping up the outrage!
Andrew’s argument boils down to this:
Surely we should judge the pictures, then, not so much by the intention of the artist but by the effect on their audience.
Andy replaces one silly subjective test (what the artist thinks) with another (what some random audience member might think). How about we judge whether art needs to be banned on its actual content instead? The determining factor shouldn’t be whether minority sickos out there see an image of a naked adolescent and think of sex, but whether an image is clearly about illegal sexual activity or not.
Now, based on that article, Bolt apparently sees the Henson photographs and thinks of sex. I find that disturbing. In any case, whatever paraphilias people like Andy secretly enjoy – and people can have paraphilias about anything whatsoever – the solution is counselling for those people, not a futile attempt to try to remove anything they could conceivably sexualise in their own heads.
Grow up, people. And Andy, you might want to reconsider that “stripping” claim.
27 Comments
28 May, 2008 at 10:06 am
I am also surprised at the amount of vicious comments that have been let through at Bolt’s site. He’s done a number of posts on the topic, and anyone who dares to venture a contrary opinion is immediately howled down as a child molester.
“You think Henson’s work is OK ?? Well you’re a dirty evil pedophile and you must DIE!!”
Of course.
28 May, 2008 at 10:19 am
I have not bothered reading Bolt’s column today about the topic, but I have no doubt he states that Henson ’stripped’ the young lass before photographing her. Check out his previous blog posts on the topic – ’stripped’ gets an incredible run.
Now, I’m all for debate on this topic, but I’m sure that the girl in question disrobed herself and didn’t have Henson clawing at her garments as Bolt suggests. Whatever validity Andy’s argument has (and it aint much) is immediately weakened by such embellishments of the truth.
28 May, 2008 at 11:03 am
A quote from Bolt’s article;
“Take arts presenter Leo Schofield, who before this furore told Henson in an interview on the Ovation channel his pictures were of “high eroticism” – a description Hansen didn’t dispute.”
I am not 100% sure about this, if Leo does think this and Hansen agrees, as Bolt claims, does this change anyone’s view???
28 May, 2008 at 11:06 am
No, I think you need a more objective test as to whether something’s “erotic” for the purposes of calling it “pornography” than what some reviewer thinks, or what the artist thinks.
Anything can be considered erotic if you’re sufficiently warped; that doesn’t make it porn.
28 May, 2008 at 11:12 am
Tragic Stuff Jeremy.. hey how about they (meaning the media) actually do something about protecting the kids out there that are subject to much more degrading and humiliating behaviour.. You know the real paedophiles.
If Tim and his crew of moderators “Tran and Nkomo” were so insensed by the images why did the daily Tele publish them over the weekend? Isn’t publishing the photos in the paper making it freely available to anyone just as bad as the picture production?
28 May, 2008 at 11:17 am
A K-Mart or Target Catalogue can be considered erotic or Porn if you are into bra’s.. And don’t get me started on the bra’n'things catalogue.
Correct me if i am wrong but isn’t there a definitiion of child porn as being related to a sexual connotation?
28 May, 2008 at 11:22 am
Dam Buster, it sorta reminds me of that Milley Cyrus ‘furore’ of a few weeks back. I had never heard of the gal until I saw the News Ltd website which alerted me to ’see her scandalous pictures here’ (a 15 yo showing her bra on Myspace or something).
28 May, 2008 at 11:54 am
243k – yep, add the whole Tania Zaetta bullshit to the list as well. I know they are trying to sell copies but to make up a story is just stupid.
It is just an excuse to put the word ‘SEX’ in a headline.
28 May, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Dam Buster of Preston – Well, they do say “Sex Sells”.
I like the fact how the Herald Sun howled over an “erotic” picture, while they had no trouble printing Young and Jackson’s “Chloe” in full on the Your Say pages.
28 May, 2008 at 1:43 pm
I find this brand sexualizes young girls more than most, however we hear nothing but silence on the blogs of our self appointed moral crusaders…
http://www.thelicensingcompany.com/resources/images/entertainment/bratz.jpg
It’s just that Henson is an artist and in the black and white world of Bolt and his acolytes, “artist = lefty” so we must feign outrage….
28 May, 2008 at 2:11 pm
How can the Bolt-ists live with the fact one of their conservative leaders Mal Turnbull has come out and supported the artist?
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/turnbull-defends-hensons-art/2008/05/28/1211654092604.html
aghast he “who owns two of Henson’s works”
if you use the Bolt style of arguing that makes MT a paedophile supporter, or a hair shirt funder..
28 May, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Craigy, regarding what Leo Schofield thinks of Hansen’s pictures, it has been pointed out that Hansen’s other portraits are not all about naked girls. Leo probably saw a collection of pictures and made a comment on that basis. Perhaps, in the context of a portfolio and to the eyes of an art appreciator rather than a rabid columnist, the picture of the girl was unremarkable, just one piece of art among others.
28 May, 2008 at 5:45 pm
The thing that amazes me most is that Hansen has exhibited in Australia for years very similar photographs – I went to one at the Ian Potter I think in 2006 – but no-one attacked or criticised the exhibition as child pornograpghy.
It is as if there has been a gestalt switch and what was art has become child pornography, and anyone who seeks to argue it is art is denounced as a child fiddler or supporter of a child fiddler. This is the new (or old) political correctness.
28 May, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Well as usual issues like these are distorted and blown completely out of proportion by loud-mouthed blowhards like Bolt and Blair, whose very existences revolve around distorting and sensationalising issues, straw-manning others, and engaging in polarising provocation. It’s also another example of one of Bolt’s most common editorial tactics.
Absolutely correct Jeremy, he wants to slander the artist, and makes some sort of extreme sensationalist accusation, whilst at the same time providing a get out clause, in case he is called on his first approach, for being deceiving and defamatory. Hence he later argues that his real position is his concern as to what the effect of the works might have an audience members, and not the artist’s intentions. So he gets to slander and play the rational card in one go.
28 May, 2008 at 9:11 pm
The sexualization of children in modern society is a touchy issue.
I feel that the movie “Little Miss Sunshine” addressed this issue in its own way. Child beauty pageants make me uncomfortable.
The politicization of this exhibition detracts from what it is commenting on.
I think most people I know feel that children should be allowed to have their childhood with out being targeted by sales groups. You only have to walk down the street to see many young girls dressing well over their age (and price) – with the Britney D&G doggy bag or the Carrie Manalo Blahniks.
28 May, 2008 at 10:22 pm
It’s interesting, of course, that Andy is anti porn, yet is paid by a pornographer (Uncle Rupert has an interest in cable porn in the US). And for some reason he fails to disclose this fact.
28 May, 2008 at 11:36 pm
spot on chris of bris.
andy has further picked out a SMH writer, derisively referring to her as a ‘typist’, completely misinterpreting the crux of her argument, and dresses it all up as morally defunct pro-artists elitism of the left. he is conveniently silent on the issue of free speech, as it’s not gerard henderson or planet janet, and in bolts world doesn’t apply to fairfax or abc employees anyway. his demands that people debate his arguments rather than go nasty seem to dissipate whenever he doesn’t agree with what someone has said. massive hypocrite. and total waste os space.
29 May, 2008 at 6:54 am
“derisively referring to her as a ‘typist’”
Oh, I’m remembering that one.
29 May, 2008 at 5:53 pm
I like the way you’re addressing this issue Lefty.
We can all agree that Bolt’s rank sensationalism of the topic is utterly dishonest as per usual, and that the reasoning applied by the outraged conservatives is as faulty as John Howard’s home security system.
29 May, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Surely we should judge the pictures, then, not so much by the intention of the artist but by the effect on their audience.
And well may we also judge the writings of Mr. Bolt in a similar fashion.
In fact, there is such a paucity of enlightened, or even original, thought in a Bolt missive that you could be forgiven for thinking that its’ sole intent is to act as fodder to his audience of pageviewers.
To put it plainer, Bolt reverse engineers his screeds so as to feed his hordes.
That’s why they make no sense to normal people.
30 May, 2008 at 9:42 am
“Surely we should judge the pictures, then, not so much by the intention of the artist but by the effect on their audience.”
Then why did the Daily Tele think it worthwhile reproducing them in the weekend paper??
“as faulty as John Howard’s home security system” – GOLD!
30 May, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Why do people here keep calling him Hansen?
Anyway, in case anyone’s interested, my take:
http://newmatilda.com/2008/05/28/somebody-think-children
30 May, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Ben, you say in your article
“The question is, if we allow photographs of naked children to be put on walls unfettered, what next? Shall naked children be allowed into our schools, our sporting clubs, our very homes?”
Correct me if I a wrong, but from memory, I believe there are naked photos of people from all ages (including youths) in the Melbourne Museum?
Is this p
30 May, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Yes, something I’ve noted as well. No outrage about the museum.
31 May, 2008 at 12:55 pm
“It’s interesting, of course, that Andy is anti porn, yet is paid by a pornographer (Uncle Rupert has an interest in cable porn in the US). And for some reason he fails to disclose this fact.”
You’re right jimmy james…
Sort blows out of the water, the whole argument that journalists who work for Murdorkkk, slavishly toe his corporate neo-kkkon agenda now doesn’t it?
1 June, 2008 at 5:57 am
Obvious stuff from two smelly turds on the footpath of society.
If Bolt/Blair’s seedy and dishonest literary emissions make me so angry I want to commit acts of random vandalism, should they be banned?
4 June, 2008 at 8:47 am
Hey Liv,
What do you reckon about Ssyat’s post above? Looks like you get the highs and lows of intellectual discoures on conservative AND left wing blogs, doesn’t it?
ma’ salaama
Abu Cee
Comments are closed.