Art Monthly stirs the pot

By skepticlawyer

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water, and all the crapola about Bill Henson and his nudie pics had died down, some hippie art mag decides to (a) piss the Prime Minister off and (b) bite the hand that feeds it by (c) sticking an arty nude pic of a 6 year old on the front cover. Since I don’t think this is going anywhere legally, I’m going to stick the graphic up next to this post (make your own minds up) and make a few comments in response to Tim Blair’s and Kim at LP’s posts on this issue.

To my mind, this looks like a fairly cynical ploy on Art Monthly‘s part to move more copies of their mag. Can’t fault their sales skills, but I’m still of the view that this is a hornet’s nest they don’t want to stir up. This is only partly because they depend on the taxpayer’s largesse in order to exist. For the life of me, I can’t figure why so many artists want to be ‘transgressive’ at the taxpayer’s expense. It’s inevitable that once you stick your hand out for state patronage, you’re going to have to hew to some sort of ‘state line’, however benign. The message (which so many of these people simply don’t get) is ‘be as transgressive as you like – on your own time and dime’.

Without defending Rudd’s views, I’m also going to hop in and defend his right to be a philistine when it comes to art. That is, defend his right to hold those views (he’s weighed in on this furore as well, and – as with Henson – isn’t best pleased). This is partly personal, because I’m still a philistine when it comes to a great deal of art. I tried for years to try to appreciate much ‘high art’ (including opera and conceptual visual art), in the main because people around me thought a novelist should have ‘views on’ and ‘appreciation of’ the ‘finer things in life’.

However, when you haven’t grown up with it, it’s very difficult. I didn’t see my first piece of live theatre until I was 16 (through my high school); to this day, this is the only ‘high art’ form apart from (some) literary novels and (some) independent cinema I appreciate. I gave up on both opera and visual art after a time and never figured out photography (I’ll take my colour scenery shots, thanks). I kept going to sleep in operas, and just don’t ‘get’ most modern art (don’t see the point). I find Henson’s teenage nudes somewhere in between ‘perplexing’ and ‘yucky’ and ‘underexposed’. I defend his right to exhibit without the Filth barging through his art gallery as a civil libertarian, not because I think his art is independently valuable.

Like me, the Kevvster didn’t grow up in an ‘artistic’ or highly educated family. The man is a highly technically proficiant linguist and diplomat, but not especially cultured. And that’s fine.

UPDATE: Armagnac’d has an interesting take over at his place.


  1. DeusExMacintosh
    Posted July 8, 2008 at 2:42 am | Permalink

    I don’t have a problem with this pic as it’s not sexually explicit ie. showing the gender defining bits. The fact that it is nude and underage is besides the point. It’s also painted, so where’s the controversy?

  2. Posted July 8, 2008 at 2:45 am | Permalink

    It’s actually a riff on a piece by Lewis Carroll. The girl is a photograph (she’s a real person, has been interviewed around the place), but the background is Carroll’s… although it’s been cleaned up and is much sharper and brighter.

    [Both the original and the modern version are here]

  3. frank luff
    Posted July 8, 2008 at 9:51 am | Permalink

    I think the opportunism of the cover to be blatant, but!
    what the hell is the fuss about?
    Have none of the anti’s ever admired the beauty of their own children as they develope,?
    The commercialisation of beauty is established! and to see it in our young is no crime.
    Those with a problem with it should grow up.

  4. Posted July 8, 2008 at 9:54 am | Permalink

    I love opera, for what its worth.
    But I do think Henson’s photos were wrong, and I don’t like this picture. I like this picture even less in the light of the little girl having been groomed to say she’s “offended” by K-Rudd saying he finds the picture disgusting.
    I don’t like this picture becase unlike the original painting linked to, she doesn’t look happy or carefree, she looks like a scared little girl, slightly bewildered.

  5. Jacques Chester
    Posted July 8, 2008 at 10:02 am | Permalink

    I said it about Henson, I’ll say it about this too. “Don’t feed the trolls”.

    If, every time somebody does something like this, the result is a few days of massive publicity, it will happen more and more.

    Saw the kid on the news. Bright spark.

  6. Sinclair Davidson
    Posted July 8, 2008 at 11:58 am | Permalink

    I think the original Henson photos were over the line. But I don’t know that he should have gone to prison for them and in the end he wasn’t prosecuted so the whole issue resolved itself.

    These guys are protesting against anti-paedophilia laws and anti-child pornography laws. I think we need to be clear on that point.

    I agree with Jacques this is only going to escalate and open a whole can of worms. So while I don’t like utilitarian arguments (although I use them a lot when proposing policy) I think a little bit of state sponsored harrassment now is going to solve a whole lot of problems down the track that will almost certainly give rise to some very illiberal laws. I’d start off by (a) cancelling any government funding to the magazine and (b) sending in the child welfare workers to extensively interview the little girl and (c) send in the cops to examine the existing photo library.

  7. Posted July 8, 2008 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

    Had a rant on mine about this. The image per se isn’t too bad, and is in itself probably less sexualised than the Henson pics.

    However in its current guise/use I see this as an attempt to be provocative, push the issue etc, coming from an underlying artistic preoccupation with pushing boundaries. I don’t like the boundaries they are trying to push, and the core of my argument is that while ‘progress’ can be seen as analogous with freedom in some areas, this is not the case for age of consent restrictions which are in fact an invention of relatively recent times.

    I don’t think the Art Monthly cover is clever and I think such actions are likely to lead to over the top reactions.

  8. Posted July 8, 2008 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

    Just had to let a bunch of people out of the spam can. Apologies for that. Armagnac’d – your blog link isn’t coming through properly on your name, and I had to let you out of the spam bin as well… and you’ve commented here before. Not sure what’s going on there 😉

  9. Posted July 8, 2008 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    Well, the link more than compensates =)

    What it’s doing is – like right now – in the Post a Comment section, under website there is no space to write, but instead a sliding bar like the one at the bottom of the page. Never seen it before?!

  10. Posted July 8, 2008 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

    Okay, might have to refer that to tech support… because right now the link to your name is broken. Leastaways we know 😉

  11. Posted July 8, 2008 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

    For the life of me, I can’t figure why so many artists want to be ‘transgressive’ at the taxpayer’s expense. It’s inevitable that once you stick your hand out for state patronage, you’re going to have to hew to some sort of ’state line’, however benign.

    There’s a certain expectation that in a democracy, the State won’t intervene unless there is a public policy reason to do so. Of course this has all sorts of snags. Who do you fund? Who decides and on what basis are all issues that arise out of the fact of public funding.

    There is however an apparent willingness on the part of politicians to converge their own morality with public policy. This may not be the whole story. Rudd has courted the Luvvies now he wants to make it clear to everyone else he doesn’t work for ’em. The ALP has a wedge issue with this one.

    However it’s interesting to me that the photo-painting looks incredibly innocuous except when the black square of decency is added.

  12. Posted July 8, 2008 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

    There was a news story, News Ltd, I think, that labelled the picture as ‘provocative’, with suggestions of course that it was sexually provocative like Bill Henson. It’s articles like that that help to frame the debate – unfairly, because there’s just nothing provocative about the image itself. (The decision of Art Monthly to put it on the cover, though was selfish and provocative, and I tend to agree with you, SL, that they just wanted to up sales.)

    The kid is bright, but way too young to be able to be exposed to the mass media. Her Dad, Robert Nelson, should be ashamed. He had no right to drag his kid out into the media like that – presumably, again, because he just wanted to make a name for himself.

  13. Posted July 8, 2008 at 9:51 pm | Permalink

    (seems to be working now)

    Thanks for the lawyer’s lawyer compliment. This was my field of practice for over 2 years y’know, I still bear the scars.

  14. Posted July 9, 2008 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

    I’m trying to figure out hte point of the link to Blair.

    This is the sum total of his post:

    “Melbourne academic and Age art critic Robert Nelson.

    Further details here. “

    Wow, illuminating.

  15. Posted July 9, 2008 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

    Sinclair – I think the original Henson photos were over the line.

    Obviously I disagree but I do agree that there should be such a line and that it’s fuzzy. On this opinion would you care to elucidate, please?

    Dataceptionist – I like this picture even less in the light of the little girl having been groomed to say she’s “offended” by K-Rudd saying he finds the picture disgusting.

    This is a reasonable hypothesis but it must be said that we don’t know that for certain. She may have actually been peeved. I know the law says you can’t make decisions until your 18 but that’s an arbitrary yet necessary line.

    It’s not like when you’re 17 years and 364 days old you’re totally incapable of exercising your capacity to make a decision and yet 24 hours later are magically a mature rational adult.

    Indeed many of us shouldn’t be able to sign a contract until we’re 50.

  16. Posted July 9, 2008 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

    I actually thought the comment she made about Rudd was rude. In my teaching days (a few years ago now, but not completely out of date), an 11 year old who did that would get a letter home (obviously, Rudd would need to be present to hear it, as he undoubtedly was in this case, thanks to the Ladies & Gentlemen of the press).

    I must admit in the video over at Blair’s both she and her father came across as having a sense of entitlement worthy of Dolly Downer.

  17. Posted July 9, 2008 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

    Thing is, the kid’s hardly going to disagree with her parents on national television, is she? Particularly with her Dad standing there right next to her.

    I would’ve. 🙂

    I’m not sure just how pertinent the various speculations about what’s going on here are. I think the debate would be better served by rationally considering where this line Sinclair’s alluded to should be drawn.

    Unfortunately there seems to be a lot of emotion chocking this off. The presumption of pornography at the depiction of the nude is one source. I guess the, by now, traditional, Artist’s posture of being not accountable to Society is likewise.

    The really fascinating thing for me is that I’m now looking at works of art (from the classical era) I’ve seen dozens or even hundreds of times and paying attention to, say, cherubs, and reading all sorts of Freudian stuff into them.

    I can’t help feeling I’ve been polluted by ‘dirty minds’ somehow.

    BTW AS far as I’m aware in all the accusation made about this Art Monthly artist no-one has yet made the observation that she is a mediocrity trying to catch a little of the media glow from Henson who is not such.

  18. Posted July 9, 2008 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

    I kept going to sleep in operas

    Everyone goes to sleep in the opera Skeptic. 🙂
    It’s what the rich have instead of bus stops.

    I think the idea of some authority on the cultivation of good taste is past it. Some people cultivate taste some don’t. Some don’t get it. Some don’t want it. It doesn’t really bear on this issue. The issue is really one of what constitutes sexual imagery, what constitutes pornography, and the ethics and consequences of the portrayal of nudity.

    I think it’s being coloured by pedophilia hysteria which is promoted by the media. People of course are right to be concerned about this problem. And it’s understandable that parents may not wish to entertain reasonable discussion on the issue.

    However I can’t help but feeling that this is also about easy targets (as well as opportunities for noteriety).

    Kevvie’s indulged the luvvies with the Apology, now he’s gotta show the Battlers he’s not a Luvvy but one of them.

    If this festers my guess is we’ll get a slate of Kevvielaws designed to close the box even tighter. Kevvie likes tight boxes.

    I support legislation punishing actual child pornographers but I can’t help tfeeling that the sentiment that labels the portrayal of a nude girl-child – revolting – has nothing to do with the supposed presence of lascivious intentions and everything to do with the Abrahamic notion that the flesh is sinful.

    There is an inverse corellation between sexual open-ness (open-ness not pandamonium) and sexual crime. There are also corellations between sex crime and repression that are not inverse. Those facts are telling.

    Tendencies to close this box, and Kevvie Christianity can factor here, might be the opposite of what is needed. It is debatable. But there’s not much by way of actual debate.

  19. Posted July 9, 2008 at 7:21 pm | Permalink

    PS Skeptic re my promise to post anew at my blg. The first essay due out addresses this very question of hi-art/pop cult. Unfortunately my earlier declared deadline had a setback. Won’t expand.

    But it’ll be out shortly. If you haven’t lost patience.

  20. Sinclair Davidson
    Posted July 9, 2008 at 7:33 pm | Permalink

    Adrien – the AFR published a head and shoulders shot of the young girl in the Henson photos. I don’t know what the rest of the photo was and I was inclinded to ignore it all as a beat-up until I noticed the girl was wearing lipstick. That turned me off, with my first thought being that if I were on the jury that could be a deciding factor. It was only later that I wondered if sending Henson to prison was actually going to achieve anything. Basically no, but nonetheless he had, in my mind, overstepped the line, but being stupid isn’t a crime. So those are my thoughts on where the line was in that instance.

  21. Posted July 9, 2008 at 8:43 pm | Permalink

    Adrien, if you want a readymade audience, you’re welcome to put it up here. My email address is helenDOTdaleATlawDOToxDOTacDOTuk

    (Without the DOTs, obviously).

  22. Posted July 10, 2008 at 9:39 am | Permalink

    I would agree that being stupid is not (necessarily) a crime. We often forget the fact that we have, as a society, a lot of sanctions short of the criminal. If we think these things are disgusting, then we can, and should, shy away from them and disassociate ourselves from them. If enough people do that, then they will tend to stop.
    Getting the law, and particularly the criminal law, involved generally just increases the interest in it.

  23. John Greenfield
    Posted July 10, 2008 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

    Ah yes, Lefty Kim, that great cheerleader of freedom of expression, artists, chicks, and stuff. Anyone remember her outrage at the nationwide censorship of the Danish cartoons?

    No, I don’t remember either.

  24. Sinclair Davidson
    Posted July 10, 2008 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

    Yes I agree generally. It is difficult for me (for example) to shy away from Henson – I’d never heard of him before, nor would I ever actually buy his work. My shying away from him would constitute me telling the world at large that I think his photo(s) crosses the line of decency.

    Anyway, in other news the censors have called for a copy of Art Monthly.

  25. Posted July 10, 2008 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

    I read a very interesting comment on a blog about this issue where someone hypothesised
    “OK, so as a piece of art, if this was hanging on the wall of your single male friends apartment, say, above his bed (remember, as a work of art) would you say to him ” Hey, great taste Bob” or would you think….eeewwww!!!
    So, now put this into the context of ART.” – brrmm

    But thats not really the point I wanted to make.

    I think there’s a hefty argument about consent with this picture, as a difference to the Henson pictures.
    A six year old cannot consent to her photo being used in a mainstream publication, and as such it is the duty of her parent not to exploit her.
    I just think Olympia has been brainwashed by her parents.


    This is a reasonable hypothesis but it must be said that we don’t know that for certain. She may have actually been peeved. I know the law says you can’t make decisions until your 18 but that’s an arbitrary yet necessary line.

    I was merely expressing ONE of the reasons I don’t like the picture. I thought the interview on tv with her with her father was contrived and farcical. She sounded like a precocious little girl who was so full of (brief) self importance that her parents had given her, she had missed the point.

    “I think that the picture my mum took of me has nothing to do with being abused,” she said.

    I agree that she wasn’t abused as such with her mother taking the photo, but essentially, how is it “acceptable” for her mother to take the photo, when if it was her father everyone would think it completely creepy?

    At the end of the day, I fail to see how this captures childhood in a good way. I think there’s a HUGE difference in re-creating some art with your daughter and hanging it in your own home, and exposing your daughter in such a massive way.
    That little girl’s name is going to be forever linked to this controversey, and she is INCAPABLE, as an 11 year old (no matter how force fed her parents opinions on the matter) of informed consent on whether she wants to feature in a debate so publicly.
    THAT is where her parents are meant to step in and protect her, not further their own views by making her the centre of a debate on paedophilia.

  26. Posted July 10, 2008 at 6:56 pm | Permalink

    Dataceptionist –

    The issue isn’t whether you like a picture or not. It’s whether that picture qualifies as ‘child abuse’.

    Of course you’re perfectly entitled to express your view of the work. I merely try to understate the significant issue as I see it. I’m also pointing out that we don’t really know what went on behind this 11 year-old’s statement. You made an assumption. However I did as well. On reflection I think perhaps it isn’t good form to put your kid in the middle of this brouhaha.

    On the other hand I doubt it’ll follow her for life. It’ll probably be forgot by August tops.

  27. Posted July 10, 2008 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

    This is, I think, pertinent:

    AN EXPLOSION of teenage sex texting is alarming teachers, police and youth counsellors.

    The new mobile phone phenomenon, dubbed “sexting”, led to 32 Victorian teenagers being charged with child pornography offences last year.

    The practice known as ‘sexting’ involves persons photographing their own pink bits and sending it to others. I’m not certain what circumstances’ve contributed to those 32 being charged but it seems to me that the law wasn’t designed to deal with minors actually producing what is child pornography themselves using themselves as ‘talent’. Naturally distributing it is also a crime so perhaps the culprits were recipients who forwarded the images.

    What this indicates to me is that our assumptions of an intact sexual morality might be wrong. The Judeo-Christian codes which defined appropriate sexual conduct were undermined in the 20th century but nothing has really replaced them. There is a vague idea of ‘do unto others’ but the reality of total sexual liberation is that it leads to sado-masochism in the broadest sense of that phrase: exploitation, power plays, degradation, schadenfreude.

    Could it be that, helpless in the face of a generation educated about sexual matters by pornography, we are sacrificing goats when we target artists?

    I’m not actually saying that there is no possible case for Henson to answer. There may possibly be one. However thus far all that is expressed is a staunch declaration of conviction that his work constitutes pornography without much by reasonable argument as to why that might be.

    It’s never occured to me that it could be ‘pornographic’ and I’ve known about it for years. I’m also not one of those people who thinks there’s a sharp line between pornography and art. That is nonsense. Many great artists produce pornography – material that is designed to provoke sexual arousal: Courbet and Carravagio come to mind.

    In the case of ‘sexting’ it occurs to me that this might be emblematic of a culture of extreme objectification. I myself couldn’t even begin to think of requesting that a girl send me a picture of her genitals so that I could show it to my friends. That would be vulgar and disrespectful to say, literally, the least.

    But I can’t see what can be achieved, in the context of this seemingly ‘acceptable behaviour’, to charge adolescents with producing child pornography. It seems to me to be an altogether different kind of problem.

    The existence of the problem doesn’t surprise me given that the culture displays such as Nicole Ritchie telling a gang of pubescent girl-campers that they’re ‘hot little bitches’ on TV or lyrics that habitually refer to women as ‘ho’s’ and lauds the man that would make money out of putting them to work in sexual service.

    But I can’t help feeling that targeting Henson in this context is not only useless it’s downright shameful. How is his work related to the general decadence described above. Nor would I think any general censorship would work. How are we supposed to monitor ‘sexting’?

    The problem lies in behaviour and attitudes. Of course that’s the most difficult of things to address.

  28. Steve Edwards
    Posted July 12, 2008 at 3:38 am | Permalink

    Seeing as Bill Henson et al have no aversion to forcing (I use this word deliberately as there is no obvious reason to believe that a person under 12 can ever meaningfully “consent” to being photographed naked for an exhibition or a magazine) young children to pose nude in public, I will presume that they will therefore have no objection if I were to drug them, remove their clothes, and place them in highly suggestive positions for my own forthcoming “Adult Art” exhibition. They certainly have no principled grounds on which to object – they undoubtedly do not endorse the right of individual self-ownership.

    And if anyone has trouble understanding the obvious parallels here (once again, if you truly believe that people as young as 6 or 11 could possibly make an informed opinion on highly controversial PUBLIC behaviour with sexualised connotations, then I will be left with no choice but to call the police), then I’m sure they will be able to find plenty of suitable non-western societies to emigrate to, where neither individual self-ownership nor an aversion to paedophilia feature prominently as ruling principles of these societies.

  29. Steve Edwards
    Posted July 12, 2008 at 4:00 am | Permalink

    “Ah yes, Lefty Kim, that great cheerleader of freedom of expression, artists, chicks, and stuff. Anyone remember her outrage at the nationwide censorship of the Danish cartoons?”

    The common thread here is a belief in collectivism, that is to say, socialism, which exists in complete opposition to the Axiom of Non-Aggression, and in fact advocates the opposite – unlimited violations of individual rights – to the logical end of endorsing slavery, violence and theocracy. There is no reason to oppose the seizure of another person for one’s own arbitrary ends UNLESS one has a principled aversion to aggression in every form. This includes defending children from the self-serving manipulations of predatory adults, and defending real artists – and genuinely progressive opponents of fascism and theocracy – from having their throats slashed by rabid Muslim street-nazis (holding up signs inciting murderous violence against anyone who disagrees with them).

    Just as the elements cited by John Greenfield hold no genuine objection to forcing children (once again, there is no reason to believe that children can meaningfully consent to such highly controversial behaviour) to appear nude in public, in the same way, they also cannot with any enthusiasm oppose forcing secular newspapers to shut down their operations due to explicit threats of violence by reactionary, theo-fascist savages. It’s the same dislike of individual inviolability and private property that leads the “progressive Left” to endorse or otherwise lend objective support to BOTH unlimited sexual license, even if involuntary, AND religious fanaticism that would otherwise preclude the former.

  30. Posted July 12, 2008 at 5:12 am | Permalink

    We have got our priorities rather ass-backward, yes. Someone was telling me the other night that several of Rushdie’s translators have bought it over the years, or come very close. One terrorist did have something of an own-goal, though, and killed himself by accident (it wasn’t a proper suicide job, just a fuck-up).

  31. conrad
    Posted July 12, 2008 at 6:21 am | Permalink

    I have a slightly different dilemma for people here. A lot of the comments over this (like Steve Edward’s) relate to age of consent or harm to the photographed.

    However, I imagine in the not especially distant future (possibly even right now), it should be possible to make digital kids that look as real as real ones. Where are the lines here?

  32. Steve Edwards
    Posted July 12, 2008 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

    Seeing as the supporters of Art Monthly do not believe that one’s informed consent should be a necessary moral and legal condition of having oneself photographed or depicted in an extremely controversial manner (particularly with sexual connotations), then I presume they will have no ethical objection to me forcing the President of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils to be photographed, at gunpoint, holding a Koran smeared in faeces.

    Once again, if you reject individual rights, reason and logic, as the Art Monthly’s supporters undoubtedly do, then there are no moral grounds on which to object to the hypothetical I have described above.

    There are of course HYPOCRITICAL grounds on which to object, and which would unquestionably form the ENTIRE basis of the Art Monthly’s supporters’ likely objection to my photo idea – clearly, the people we are dealing with here believe that law, and what is legal and illegal, should be COMPLETELY subjected to the feelings, private tastes and emotional whims of themselves and whoever their allies of convenience may be. This can explain why they would endorse the banning of the Danish Cartoons, in order to placate the FEELINGS of Muslims.

    That is to say, their position is essentially “I don’t like X, therefore X should be banned; but I do like Y, therefore Y should be allowed”. This is the basic mentality and reasoning of an Oriental tyrant, a savage, and/or a megalomaniac. There should be no place for such primitive “logic” in any public forum.

  33. Posted July 12, 2008 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

    Conrad, in my Henson post, I suggested – albeit very briefly – that CGI images may be a solution to this particular set of ‘tastes’. That’s subject to a couple of caveats:

    1. Studies need to be done on whether viewing any sort of pornography depicting children leads to harm (acting out of fantasies, etc).

    2. Drawing clearer lines on what sort of pornography is and isn’t legal. What of the mass of ‘barely legal’ sites on the intertubes featuring models that happen to look 14 but could be as old as 20?

    Broadly speaking, my presumption is in favour of liberty. This is partly because prohibition in cases of self-harming activity – drugs, alcohol, porn etc – is futile, wastes police and court time and often makes the problem worse (eg organised crime). As my partner often says, it would be so much easier if prohibition in Aboriginal communities could be enforced, but it can’t, so we have to come up with other methods (my partner is Aboriginal).

    When it comes to porn of whatever sort, the key issue is harm to others, not harm to the consumer of porn.

    Steve: I’m a big fan of bright lines too (‘simple rules for a complex world’ or ‘95% is good enough’), but the original Henson situation is more complicated than that. If drawing a bright line means that no-one can ever take pics of nude kids, then I think we need to reconsider the line.

    My main irritation with Art Monthly is the deliberate ‘transgression game’ they’re playing with Rudd and the taxpayer. I don’t think the picture itself matters a crap (although I do find the upper-class/elitist sense of entitlement both the girl and her father evince to be a pain in the arse – it’s stuff like this that led to Keating and the ‘arts-luvvies’ getting crucified at the polls in 1996).

  34. John Greenfield
    Posted July 13, 2008 at 3:17 pm | Permalink


    I do wish you would get cracking with this article. You mentioned it ages ago during the LP high/low culture threads. I think you’ll write a cracker and we’ll all be able to have a great discussion without the Stalinist jackboots of The Luvvies interfering! 🙂

  35. Posted July 13, 2008 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

    Cheers John. I’m only able to crack a bit at a time because I have to scribble various tracts of bullshit for cash. The first Culti Studi bit will be the high cult/p[op cult thing from a different perspective. The professional obfuscation and the ‘it’s all relative Neo-Machrame Studies for the differently abled is just as True as Biology comes later.

    It should’ve been out already but I got my bag nicked and the notes were inside so I’ve had to do it again.

  36. -
    Posted August 28, 2008 at 11:20 am | Permalink

    absolute outrage! how on earth could this photograph be Art? its that photoshoped, its just a backround of paniting and not to mention a 6 year old girl your looking at. really has the world gone mad? im not asking myself that coz i know the awnser, im asking you! You would think the mother of this child would be more protecting and im speaking out as a child care worker knowing and not being naive about what goes on. what women in her right mind would think that this is ok. A development of a 6 year old will remeber this. she’ll continue to think that its ok to be naked infront of a camera saying “oh its ART” by the time shes 13. deadly years as a teenager. And its all starts just from this! its ludicrous!

  37. Sophia
    Posted March 15, 2009 at 6:02 am | Permalink

    what about Zeppelin’s cover of Houses of the Holy? Plant’s nude children were featured on the cover. There was nothing wrong with that, it was beautiful art.

  38. John Greenfield
    Posted March 21, 2009 at 11:37 am | Permalink

    Different times, darl. Been a long time, been a long time, lonely, lonely, lonely…and so on and so forth.

2 Trackbacks

  1. By LINKAGE CITED « The Blair/Bolt Watch Project on July 9, 2008 at 2:37 pm

    […] Jump to Comments “Skepticlawyer” links to Tim Blair on the controversial Art Monthly cover – I’m going to stick the graphic up next to this post […]

  2. By skepticlawyer » Nanny Knows Best on July 10, 2008 at 11:01 pm

    […] a bit concerned about artists ‘feeding the trolls’, as Art Monthly have done with their latest pot-stirring exercise is that we’re becoming increasingly ban-happy as a nation. This is a global problem, as the […]

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *