Naked kids aren’t sex objects

6 07 2008

I don’t think it’s radical concept, is it?

I’m really finding it hard to understand it when morally outraged people are calling art with naked children “provocative”. Then in the same breath these people (*cough* Kevin Rudd *cough*) are saying we need to let children be children.

If we were letting kids be kids, we wouldn’t be too fussed that they were naked now would we. Either they are kids or sex objects, they can’t be both.

Art Monthly Magazine has decided to launch an issue containing multiple naked children artworks in protest over the recent media-generated hysteria over the Bill Henson exhibition sparked by the ghastly victimisation of victims organisation Bravehearts.

AMM receives public arts funding so is going to be in some serious hot water over this. NSW Premier Morris Iemma has already attacked the magazine. Cheapening the protest to a “cheap, sick stunt at the expense of a young child” to boost their sales. Whether it will actual result in anything tangible being brought against the publishing group has yet to be seen.




One response

4 07 2010

I agree that critics of child nudity in art are very confused. They ignore the most frequent and most deadly dangers that children face at home and on the road, and instead worry about nudity? I’m working on a long-term photo documentary of a girl going through puberty and would love to contribute some of my images to the Art Monthly Magazine speical issue, but the link in the original post is a “Page not found” error, and I can’t find any other information about the planned issue!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: