Sunday, May 25, 2008

Artistry

An article in the Sydney Morning Herald describes an outcry against photographs of naked children on display in an art gallery in that city. The photographs were felt by some to contribute to the sexualization of children, while others felt differently. From the article:

Art market analyst and commentator Michael Reid said the naked bodies of young women had been the subject of art for thousands of years. Mr Reid viewed the exhibition on Wednesday morning before the photographs were seized. "I have noticed people are prepared to give their opinion without actually seeing the photographs," he said. "I find this quite disturbing because this debate is very important."

Mr Reid said he judged the artistic merit of the work to be valid and not pornographic. "The main photograph in question is in the style of the Old Masters," he said. "The model is enveloped in a black velvety shroud and she is backlit. She is very still. There is not any sexual charge about the image. It is quite restful and contemplative. She is demure. I was aware of the child sexualisation issue but that does not exist here in my opinion. Bill Henson had done a huge body of work that goes across a whole range of areas . . . this is a debate that has to happen - but rationally."

It seems that there's always a reason found to allow this sort of thing. There's always someone who says that they don't think it's sexual at all, or whether it is or not, it's art, and so the rules are off. At what point do we say 'enough's enough?' Ever?

2 comments:

Lone Chatelaine said...

This sort of thing sets me off like a skyrocket. It makes me furious. Squealing for protection under the "art label" is complete cowardly crap.

I bet the pervert and internet child pornographers think it's a wonderful art alright. Bet they don't see a thing wrong with it. I bet they love it.

And that should be all that's needed to define whether it's child sexualization or not.

Cerulean Bill said...

I don't know about the internet porn folks, and I believe that there are people who really do think of something as harmless and artistic that I find disturbing and even perverted. I even acknowledge that some of the things I dislike, reasonable people CAN like.

But when you have to hesitate in the description of the 'art', as the people in the SMH article did, you've crossed the line.