Quote:
Originally Posted by Malgate Recently here in Sydney, Australia and artist had a show of his cancelled fora week or so becuase he had full frontal naked shots of kids on display under the banner of 'art'. the whole world thought it wrong except for the 'art' community. Unfortunately the legal eagles who would have been prosecuting the artist reckoned they had no case as it was 'art' or some crap reason. |
Ahhhhh Bill Henson. Now that was interesting. We had a debate about this particular issue at school, as one of my mates who does art defended artistic license and creative rights. I highly disagree with this stance, as it is irrelevant, art or not.
Just because an 'artisitic expression' such as this is deemed to have no sexual connotation, I think artisitic liscence, nor media hysteria is the point of the issue. For me, personally, I agree that the teenage body and what it represents is indeed an emotional and poigniant experience, but i vehemently disagree with it being exploited for art. Yes, exploited. The media and politicians may be societys renowned spin doctors, but don't fool yourself, artists can be too. I am not in any way condemning freedom of expression, or artistic liscence, I just believe that the body of a teenager is a PERSONALLY intimate thing, and some actions just shouldnt take place for the emotional purity and integrity of a child, no matter how 'artistically enlightened they, or more to the point thier parents, may be. Photographing naked children, NO MATTER WHAT THE CONTEXT, is wrong.
In short, suffice to say, intellectualism is no excuse for the exploitation of an innocent child.