Rudd’s artistic tastes
Uncategorized - - Posted on July, 7 at 5:34 pm by Ken L
Our prime minister’s artistic preferences have become an international story; everybody responsible must be thrilled. It’s a much more important issue than trivial crap like, oh, climate change or Australia’s role in the Middle East.
A photograph of a nude six-year-old girl on the front cover of an Australian art magazine has re-ignited a row over the depiction of children.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said children could not choose for themselves if they wanted to be portrayed naked, adding: “I can’t stand this stuff.”
The photo is on the cover of the July issue of Art Monthly Australia.
Its editor said the cover was to protest against the closing of a recent photo exhibition of naked children.
Mr Rudd said: “A little child cannot answer for themselves about whether they wish to be depicted in this way.”
Government officials have said they will review the magazine’s public funding.
Review their funding? I thought that kind of blackmail was a Coalition speciality but apparently not. The BBC is even running an online questionnaire asking ‘Was Kevin Rudd right to step in on this issue?’, suggesting that Our ABC’s British counterpart may share its journalistic priorities.
Rudd’s rationale is staggeringly idiotic even for a politician. A little child cannot answer for themselves about whether they wish to be depicted in this way. Kevin a little child cannot answer for themselves about most things in their lives. What’s your point - that parents should refrain from making decisions on behalf of their kids? That in making such decisions they should first write to the PM’s office to find out whether you approve? What is your point?
Here’s another brilliant bit of reasoning:
Joe Tucci from the Australian Childhood Foundation says the photo could have repercussions.
“We have seen these sort of cases in the [United] States and elsewhere, where a person in their 30s or their 40s decides that they want to be the President of the United States or they want to be a teacher or anything, they want to take up a public role, and those photos come back to haunt them,” he said.
Here’s the photo that is going to ‘come back and haunt’ the poor child we are talking about. Isn’t it shocking? Not only can she forget about ever being president of the USA, I’m amazed she’s game to be seen in public.
This episode, coming after the Henson nonsense, reveals an extremely ugly phenomenon. The fact that someone ‘can’t stand’ a picture like the one in question says more about their neuroses than it does about the child or her parents. And of course the alternative prime minister had to make an ass of himself by going completely over the top; he’s going to refer the matter to the federal police and reads a whole sinister sub-text into the photo:
Dr Nelson says the photos are indefensible, whatever the motivation.
“It is absolutely essential that we stand up to this,” he said.
“What these people have done in this publication and using the photographs of this child in this way is send a two-fingered salute to the rest of society.”
What in god’s name does he mean by ’stand up to this’? If the police saw no grounds for prosecution in the Henson matter they’re hardly likely to do so with respect to this latest picture. If that’s unlawful then a lot of newspapers and magazines and web sites better get good lawyers. Of course lots of the pictures of naked children in the MSM are published without anybody’s permission at all, but since they tend to be of Iraqi kids smashed up in a bombing or indigenous kids being the subject of an intervention they don’t really count I suppose … not the way proper white kids do who might want to run for president one day. Maybe Brendan thinks a vigilante mob should burn the offices of Art Monthly to the ground in the name of Common Decency.
The hypocrisy is staggering. Every election campaign we are treated to endless pictures of children being used as props in politicians’ electioneering. Can their own kids answer for themselves whether they want to be dragged around the streets with mum or dad on door-knocking exercises, or made to stand at polling booths for 12 hours handing out how-to-vote cards? I guess they think it’s permissible for parents to make some decisions on behalf of their children but not others.
If it’s not NSW Labor chucking tens of millions of dollars at the Catholic Church to stage medieval superstitious rituals in the streets of Sydney, it’s Queensland Labor with the enthusiastic assistance of Hetty Johnstone trying to introduce a mutation of 1950s Australian wowserism. All with the enthusiastic backing of the Libs. It must only be a matter of time before we start banning books again and closing bars at 6 pm.
The strange thing is that this doesn’t seem to be reflecting any groundswell of Mary Whitehousism in the community generally. Anyone who’s familiar with the kind of pictures that are commonly posted on social networking sites must be completely bemused by the fuss over a few artistic photos in Art Monthly. For some reason Rudd and Nelson, like Howard before them, are either extravagantly susceptible to moral panic or they see benefits in pandering to its existence in a small section of the community.
Does authoritarianism go hand in hand with wowserism? Maybe sociologists or historians can comment.
Posted in Uncategorized |
July 7th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Is there anywhere one can point out that the current hysterical pearl-clutching tends, once again, to hide the fact that it is neither the artist, the parents nor the child who is the actual offender?
That individuals who wish to “pleasure” themselves with the sexual possibilities of children are, essentially, bullies of a particularly nasty type.
That the current behaviours of those who are pearl-clutching in shock/horror are missing the target by a country mile! And are in their stridency just as bullying and intimidatory as those whom they should be targeting.
It’s either that, or Anne Geddes is a really horrible, wicked person for the type of imagery she creates.
July 7th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Ken, wowserism is authoritarianism, full stop.The same as god botheres use hype to forward their progress for their own gain, band wagon jumpers as were seeing now from the politicians,( just heard those rotten Union Rail mob are going to strike on god bothering day, this may well call for a miracle, man, I’m going to be watching for that, the only time I see miracles is when I get a full muster,though j.c is called on several times)is as calculated as your accountants glare. This is pander from Rudd, I’m not surprised, I did say on here some time ago that whilst a relief to turf out Rodent that Rudd should be equally subject to our examination, and lately this crap is beginning to wane.
About hypocrisy, check out Hettys claim for fame when she solicited funds from the porn industry, oh, they were apparently over the age of, whatever is law, mind you in other countries, Hetty may have been procuring, or may well have been happy to take the funds from children(I think Japan and some other countries have low age of consent,pls; correct me if wrong) so it all comes down to ,sorry Alistair, self serving agenda driven bull shit.You ‘recon Rudd, Nelson or the Hetty’s of this world would sacrifice their ego driven ‘moment in the sun’ to actually say maybe, do something practical to help those in actual need, naw, miracles don’t happen.
July 7th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Oh dear, what a rant Ken. Your not a parent are you?
Let me pose a dare, if you like, Ken. Photograph yourself nude, full frontal and post the photograph on this website and call it art. Go on, I dare you. Actually, if you do have children, photograph them nude or maybe even a niece or nephew? I’d love to critique the outcome.
July 7th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
I called Rudd Howard-lite prior to the election. I think I was being overly-generous.
And you make a good point about pollie’s kids. Did Rudd’s younger son have any say in the photo ‘ops’ with his father particularly the ones outside the various churches (chunder stuff).
I am a Greens voter so I’m biased, but I am sure the saying governments lose elections oppositions don’t win them is true in Wowser Rudd’s case. As bad the opposition is, I’m not going to be surprised if it is a one-term government.
July 7th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Lang Mack,
I am going to assume in good faith that you weren’t suggesting that I’m driving some agenda (although I’m not sure why you’re apologising to me). I was genuinely posing questions as I didn’t feel I knew the answer. It seemed obvious to me that many people on here are very sure of their opinions on this - I thought it might be interesting to hear them further. Shame some of you couldn’t respond in good faith.
When it comes to this photo of the six year-old girl on the cover of Art Monthly Australia, I see absolutely no problem with it. It appears to be purely artistic. What’s more, the girl in question seems to strongly approve of it.
I also admit that I did not check the photo in question (which I should have done) before commenting in the last thread which no doubt contributed to some confused messages. However, as I’ve already said, I was only bringing up discussion points - there was no need for people to get personal.
“Kevin a little child cannot answer for themselves about most things in their lives. What’s your point - that parents should refrain from making decisions on behalf of their kids? That in making such decisions they should first write to the PM’s office to find out whether you approve? What is your point?”
Thanks Ken. Well said. Sometimes my brain goes missing and I miss obvious arguments like that.
I would also add that I agree with the crux of your post here (although I do think that there were some understandable and genuine concerns with Henson’s work).
July 7th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Rudd says “I can’t stand this stuff.”
But I had to ’stand’ it in the world headquarters of the Catholic Church, in the fabulous Vatican art displays, in the Sistine Chapel, and in Le Louvre in Paris. And in equally famous places.
Naked children. Smiling and frollicking cherubs. Beautiful human beings, depicted for centuries by the world’s most famous artists. Revered throughout millenii, and worshipped and portrayed in the Bible.
But today’s stupid world has gone completely bananas. Bananas Stripped of their Pyjamas! While we see our own kids naked in the bath every day, it’s suddenly become taboo to espy anyone else’s kid in the nuddie.
Just what has occurred that makes young human bodies so revoltingly disgusting when the twelfth century had already declared them a big bore? And passe?
It’s the idiot media that drives this avalanche. It sells papers and air time. It means that our Mr Rudd should stop staring at that pic of the 13-year-old girl all day and declaring how disgusting she is, to the ultimate insult of the girl herself, as she said, and attend to other minor matters such as running Australia.
Witch-hunting cavepeople who persist in this ludicrous pogram should instead look within themselves and may discover a much darker motive for their frothing rabidness.
Welcome to the 10th century.
July 7th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
My comment which should have been #3 disappeared.
July 7th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Jesus Christ, I thought my head was going to explode when I heard Kevvy, Brendy and Hetty braying about this AGAIN.
I can understand Nelson going for it, because the Opposition needs every bit of traction it can get, no matter how stupid (cf 5c reduction in fuel excise), but Rudd is proving to be a real disappointment. His remarks today seemed almost petulant (”I just can’t stand this stuff!”) with no attempt at a considered response.
I looked at Braveheart’s
homepage. Their mission statement says in part that Braveheart “…aims to forge a movement for change in how paedophilia is dealt with by the criminal justice sector, government and the community at large and to provide survivors with a voice.”.
For the life of me I don’t see haw this has anything at all to do with the issue du jour. Is Hetty speaking on behalf of Braveheart or as a private citizen I wonder? Perhaps she just likes to see her name in the papers…
Welcome to 1956. Burn the witch!
July 7th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Alastair, thank you for your considered and civil response to what is probably a quandary for all of us, I had taken for granted that you are a person of judgment, and of standards and those we all need. I was in no way suggesting you were on a voyage, far from it, I was however pointing out that some can get swept away with the hype perpetrated by barrow pushers.When you hear ‘well I haven’t seen it yet, but I find it repulsive’ from bloody people who should know better, fuck that.
That’s the Howard/Downer Iraq /PNG/Solomons/ and etc;dog whistle. To the voters.
Probably not my position to say, however RTS needs people with an opinion to stir up some of these old brothel creeper wearing staids like me to say,hoy.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
I think all of our political leaders ,must of come from Melbourne,and saw Ossie Ostrich and Zig and Zag turn into child disturbers! Hey kids! Solve the mystery references and win a Heaven Ice-Cream !Are they that serious that no-one would accuse them of being sheer bloody minded oppurtunists having a moral equivalent of a ,dare I say it, wank!
July 7th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
“For some reason Rudd and Nelson, like Howard before them, are either extravagantly susceptible to moral panic or they see benefits in pandering to its existence in a small section of the community.”
Exactly! What further comment is needed? Go to the top of the class.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:27 am
When the pollies talk this crap, we all roll our eyes in the knowledge that it’s all fire and noise and there’s not a damn thing they intend do about it. Our votes remain unchallenged.
…but if Kev said “stfu wowsers”, enough rubes would cry bloody murder that marginals could fall over. Seriously, does anyone expect any mainstream pollie to take a stand on this? and be beaten to death in effigy on every talk radio or morning “news” show in the country?
It’s politics, folks. We have absolutely no indication what Kev or anyone else here actually believes - apart from the simple statement that they still want their jobs.
Welcome to democracy. It is vapid.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Amazing, isn’t it? We see a reasonably comptetent photograph of a child in front of a jolly painted backdrop; and all the two highest pollies in our land see is SEX! SEX! SEX!. Talk about revealing.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:49 am
How does that quote go from the bard himself?
“The polly’s protest to much me thinks”
If some cleaner doesn’t find a copy of “Art monthly” in the crapper of parliament house,Well!
And I don’t mean tugging the forelock.
You have to laugh, otherwise in my case,I would go insane. Yea I know and F.U. too.
July 8th, 2008 at 9:51 am
What was the name of that strip joint he visited in the USA again; perhaps his problem is the women didn’t excite him but the pictures on the wall did.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:29 am
# 11 Magpie, you are so correct.I think that the ones protesting the most on what our Kevie said,are just pushing and keeping the non story alive and I for one cannot understand why. I do have 6 granddaughters aged from 8 to 14 years old and 2 grandsons aged 6 to 15. As for why and how should protect our children is another story.Also I wish people wold stop bringing the Sistine Chapel and other works of art with paintings of naked people and compare them with provocative photographs of young children.As for May Gibbs Puleese, they are of infant children clothed with flowers and other inanimate objects,are beautiful and a work of art.Don’t use straw men.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Strike a light, we’ve elected the DLP.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Muskiemp
The picture (without the little black square to hide how innocent it is) can be seen on the front page of the Australia web site.
Compared to it, the paintings at the Sistine Chapel are positively pornographic.
Interesting day isn’t it, Pells in trouble over protecting a priest who abused children, the prime minister is in trouble over condemning a very tasteful picture taken by the child’s mother.
Yes perhaps justify the photo in terms of a painting in a catholic church is not wise.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Contest over Kids!?No winners!Must be a discontinuity between generations, child entertainment is as always outside the scope .Pell makes me laugh,and I tend to want to sound like an hyena!
July 8th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Altemeyer, a Canadian psychologist who spent his career studying authoritarianism. He ended up calling it right wing authoritarianism because among average people not in positions of authority, authoritarianism is conservative or wowserish. They worship authority and its capacity to enforce.
He started out studying the psychological aspects and went on to more sociological comparative studies because psychology was inadequate to explain how small vigilante groups end up being Nazism.
July 8th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
This is simply another example of politicians exaggerating sentiments they think the masses want to hear.
They are competiting to take the moral ‘high ground’ to appear more attractive to your average voter. Its pure granstanding nonsense.
July 8th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Philip Travers @9:
It’s not Ozzie Ostrich doing it in Melbourne, it’s teen and sub-teen kids manufacturing porn themselves, http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23959256-24218,00.html:
Youths aged from 10 to 14 were among those using new technology to exchange nude images. The most active group in producing child porn last year was aged from 15 to 19. One child questioned by police in Victoria over nude mobile phone images was eight years old.
What has been happening is more than mere curiosity. Teenagers have used their mobile phones to show images of their friends having sex.
Often mobile phones at a teenage party are part of the fun and sometimes it goes further.
Children must be locked up for their own good, and Prime Minister Krudd should be charged with child abuse for insulting young children.
July 8th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Philip Travers @9
You defame Zag, sir. He was an honourable clown. Zig was the one convicted of indecent assault.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/05/1091557981862.html?from=storyrhs
July 8th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
All this panic about ‘the sexualisation of children’ would be hilarious if it didn’t imply some disturbing tendencies on the part of our political class.
Who do they think has been drawing those big phallic pictures in public places from time immemorial … grown-ups? Kids get fascinated by sex almost as soon as they are capable of independent thought. Anyone who thinks otherwise led a very sheltered childhood indeed (or more likely has cultivated selective amnesia since becoming an adult).
Nudity, on the other hand, is not necessarily associated with sexualisation. People who see sexual overtones in the picture on the cover of ‘Art Monthly’ have really, really hyperactive imaginations.
July 8th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
I did play ‘Doctors and Nurses’ when I was about 8 or 9. That has nothing to do with rude,naked photos of young children and calling them art. I am also an atheist, so my feelings on this matter has nothing to do with religious or puritan matters.
July 8th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
I do not see the photographs in question as pornographic,that is going to extremes as usual by interested groups sensationalising to enforce their views.
July 8th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
But the thing is Muskiemp I’m a very sensitive poorly developed individual. I look at Michelangelo’s work and can’t help thinking pervert, porn. I know I’m disturbed, but it would seem I’m not alone. Why even the prime minister thinks nudity is, what was the word he used?
July 8th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
“I do not see the photographs in question as pornographic,that is going to extremes as usual by interested groups sensationalising to enforce their views.”
The only people interested here, are right wing control freaks, and other assorted religious cretins.This has five fifths of F.A. to do with the exploitation of children, this is the thin end of the wedge of censorship.
You know I nearly chocked on my corn flakes this morning,some copper on the A.B.C. was giving his worldly experience, on what he considered was good taste,and you can guess what he thought, of the offending photo.They probably still keep files on people who buy “Playboy” Blind Freddie can see where this is all leading to.
I bloody despair.
July 8th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
‘You know I nearly chocked on my corn flakes this morning’, bet they weren’t GM.:).
Now don’t go wandering off again, there’s a lot to do.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Apologies to my critics.I am stone deaf to the plight of those who find something unamusing in what I was pointing out.Apologies.Apologies.Apologies.Cannot do it 90,000 times with one finger,so there is a coincidence between lost full time jobs and repeats,of my mind.So a hand up your arse as a serious feathered entertainer person,never inspired a arrest of a person in Sydney who thought he was a big bird who could prowl the underpants of kids when they were wearing them!? And,if I mention Zig and Zag ,does that really mean defaming both men!?Or was there a message in the spray of their combined song,that emerged with a different meaning and action!? Have a Go-Between for me.And watch out for Rock Spiders !? Rudd must sit on one regularly,and Nelson playing his Fender is!?
July 8th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
“Now don’t go wandering off again, there’s a lot to do.”
Indeed there is,and we had better make good use of the next three years,cos after that, it’s back to the born to rule bedroom police, The only nooodey titlation we’re gonna get, is when you sneak a peak up a barbie doll dress in your local toy shop,out looking for the good shit,toy guns, bows and arrows,the real offensive shit.
Should that scenario happen, I will commit suicide by boredom.This will happen very slowly, by reading Bob the “Bodje Hawke’s biography,this will cleanse me of all my marxist thoughts,and punish me for all the hate in me.
Nero get your arse over here.
July 9th, 2008 at 1:55 am
If you think no-one jacks off to baby photos, then you live in a happier world than me. There are people wanking to kids in undie ads. There are people who love nothing better than the sight of sneakers, or braces, or school uniforms.
Basically, to avoid subjecting kids to the eyeballs of pervs, we’d need to ban all photos of children from the public domain. This is not the proposal, so this is not about keeping the photos of kids from pervs.
And we’re not talking about banning photos of naked kids, either, as long as it’s not “sexualised”, whatever that means - hence the relevance of Sistine cherubs and poor naked starving kiddies on the charity ads. So it’s all about “sexualisation”, and we should, apparently, ban it. But who’s writing this law? What does it say? Will it list limb and joint angles, give diagrams? My boy was in pretty much exactly the pose that girl on the cover was in when I took his photo in his kiddy-pool when he was 12 months old (not that he was holding the pose, he was just trying to get up). Am I a perv now? Should I erase that one?
Kiddy porn is banned, but it has to be pretty clearly porn. “Borderline” doesn’t cut it because it’s just too hard to define.
The law probably can’t be written. More relevant: it HASN’T been written. People (or the media, at least) seem to think that the government can ban things they don’t like, which is not only dopey, but scary. Put in a law to let the PM ban things that he deems offensive, and what’s to stop him thinking that criticism of his own self is offensive?
I think the photos are icky. They’re a bit creepy, and I find them in poor taste. This is not a reaction I get from other photos of kids I encounter, even naked ones. I wouldn’t hang this stuff on my wall. Maybe that does say something about me - in which case, Well Done Art. This is not grounds for banning them, though, any more than it is grounds for banning any of the many things I find offensive. We all get to say “that’s good/ bad/ evil/ tasteless/ art/ great/ sexeh/ boring/ irrelevant/ nice/ etc” and no-one gets to use the force of law to shut us up. I like that.
No-one has an inalienable right to never be offended.
July 9th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Magpie, the reason that it hasn’t been written is that it can’t be written,if tried,Governments would lose power,that is the crux.
I enjoyed your post,thanks.
July 9th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Oh no … I just watched the tv ad for Nurofen for Kids in which naked babies fly around to the song ‘Because you’re gorgeous I’d do anything for you’.
Absolutely disgusting … I can’t stand this sort of stuff!
July 12th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Lang:
Sans: I… enjoyed it. A couple of times.