Those artworld people!

And I thought the whole Bill Henson kerfuffle had blown over! Apparently not. Now there's a new bit of kiddie porn exciting the masses. There are 100+ articles on Google at the time of writing. The Daily Telegraph,with usual overreaction, (for non-Sydney residents, The Daily Telegraph is a tabloid rag, barely a newspaper at all. It's like Who magazine on newsprint) has written:"IF THE community can't get "hysterical" about naked pictures of a 13-year-old, what can it get hysterical about?"
Ummm, how about children who die through physical neglect by their parents? How about poverty in the developing world? How about abuse of political power? There seem to be a lot more important issues to get "hysterical" about. Of course I have to wonder why "the community" needs to get hysterical about anything.

The Telegraph continues: "But, remarkably, even after the furore over the Bill Henson photographs has subsided, the arts community still doesn't get it." No, the art community doesn't get it because, you may have noticed, the art community rarely gets hysterical about things, discusses things rationally, and accepts a plurality of opinion on subjects such as this. And what is there to "get" on this subject? The Telegraph's opinion? My opinion is, 'Yes, I can see that you feel strongly about this, but why should I accommodate myself to your position?" Surely one (sorry Patti!) could suggest that "remarkably , even after the furore over the Bill Henson photographs has subsided, the non-arts community still doesn't get it." I think it's a bit like atheists not "getting" the reaction of Muslims to the Danish cartoons of Mohammed, or not understanding the opposition by some Christians to the teaching of Evolution in schools in America. It's just not rational!

I also think that anyone who looks at the picture of the six-year-old girl on the cover of Art Monthly Australia (the reason for the latest excitement - I forgot to mention that above!) and thinks that it is sexual (and all the images for the news articles seem to have been censored with a big black square) really needs to examine their own feelings about children and sexuality. My dime-store psychoanalysis would suggest that these people have repressed sexual desires for children and are therefore attempting to suppress any pictures of naked children to avoid having to confront their own desires. I found an interesting article in the New Statesman about the screening of adults to work with children, how hugging or any touching is becoming anathema for those who work with children, and what this is doing to us as a society.

I know the point of this blog was to talk about my own art, but the chance to have one's say is seductive and addictive! I've had many letters to The Sydney Morning Herald rejected, and now's my chance to have my say!