What IS child abuse?
May 28th 2008 13:32
As many of you have no doubt heard, the recent controversy regarding Bill Henson and his art has sparked heaps of heated debates about child pornography, paedophilia and the decline of marality within art as well as society.
The PM has declared the pics 'revolting', whereas Cate Blanchett is fully in support of the artists and free expression.
I can see how it's a very difficicult issue, because it is battling two concepts which are integral to our community. One the one hand, art is being stifled, censored by not only the public, but now by the government. What is the point of artistic expression and pushing the boundaries of society if they're just going to get rejected? And at worst, these actions can even be punished by law.
I can understand how taking nude pictures of young teenagers can offend people. After all, children have always been de-sexualised in our society - and sexuality and nudity somehow are often associated with one another. So, naked pics of kids mean entering a forbidden zone of sexuality which is considered morally wrong.
Or is it the panic over what 'ímmoral' reactions these images may elicit? The people who believe that these images are dangerous to our society should think about WHY they are supposedly so wrong.
I had a look at some of them, and the naked 12 year old girl is covering her genitals, staring modestly at the camera. She does not look scared nor uncomfortable, nor is she placed in a sexual position. Bill Hsencon's goal of this exhibition, to my understanding, was to discover and capture the bare essence of adolescence through photographs: the raw emotion, the feeling of what it means to be transforming from a 12 year old into this young adult.
These children have not been exploited for the artist's dirty purposes: in their photos, they still emit a childlike innocence mixed with a sense of adulthood.
The danger of these images does not lie with Bill Henson, nor with the parents who gave the artist their permission to photoghraph their children. The 'danger' is the reactions that these images can supposedly draw out of individuals who find them sexually arousing, or those who believe that these subjects have somehow lost their childood now that their naked chests have been exposed.
Please, like you don't see naked children running around on the beach, outside on their front gardens, playing innocently in the water. Nobody associates their nudity with a sexuality. So why should these pics be any different?
The PM has declared the pics 'revolting', whereas Cate Blanchett is fully in support of the artists and free expression.
I can see how it's a very difficicult issue, because it is battling two concepts which are integral to our community. One the one hand, art is being stifled, censored by not only the public, but now by the government. What is the point of artistic expression and pushing the boundaries of society if they're just going to get rejected? And at worst, these actions can even be punished by law.
I can understand how taking nude pictures of young teenagers can offend people. After all, children have always been de-sexualised in our society - and sexuality and nudity somehow are often associated with one another. So, naked pics of kids mean entering a forbidden zone of sexuality which is considered morally wrong.
Or is it the panic over what 'ímmoral' reactions these images may elicit? The people who believe that these images are dangerous to our society should think about WHY they are supposedly so wrong.
I had a look at some of them, and the naked 12 year old girl is covering her genitals, staring modestly at the camera. She does not look scared nor uncomfortable, nor is she placed in a sexual position. Bill Hsencon's goal of this exhibition, to my understanding, was to discover and capture the bare essence of adolescence through photographs: the raw emotion, the feeling of what it means to be transforming from a 12 year old into this young adult.
These children have not been exploited for the artist's dirty purposes: in their photos, they still emit a childlike innocence mixed with a sense of adulthood.
The danger of these images does not lie with Bill Henson, nor with the parents who gave the artist their permission to photoghraph their children. The 'danger' is the reactions that these images can supposedly draw out of individuals who find them sexually arousing, or those who believe that these subjects have somehow lost their childood now that their naked chests have been exposed.
Please, like you don't see naked children running around on the beach, outside on their front gardens, playing innocently in the water. Nobody associates their nudity with a sexuality. So why should these pics be any different?
| 156 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Anonymous
It seems what you call "done a bit of resarch" is little more than a cursory scan of the relevant wiki, which isn't very taxing now, is it.
and i think you'll find it's Cate Blanchett.
Comment by Caroline Zielinski
And I believe I did read a little bit more extensively about and into this issue than you think, so I'd thank you not to make assumptions. Since you didn't particularly offer any opinions or information of your own, I don't really consider you an authority on this debate. But thanks for commenting anyway.