Discussions about China seem to bring out the worst in everyone.
Have a quick read of the following article from the Far Eastern Economic Review. It tells the story of the "50 Cent Party" and how it functions of the Chinese Web. The article is fairly non-judgmental and merely relates the practice of opinion management as is practiced by the Chinese Communist Party. It also provides some examples of smaller institutions that have employed similar measures, such as Nanjing University.
Now look at the comments that follow. They are full of emotionally-based posturing and argy-bargy.
ICBMs! Danger! China is not practicing multicultural diversity in the same way as the US! Horror!
On the other hand...
Foreigners don't understand China! Angst! Foreigners bully China! More Angst! [Wave fist]
Really, more often than not people who comment on articles in the electronic press dress up emotional outbursts as textual analysis and criticism. When one thinks about it, the court of public opinion is poorly named. Rather, it should be termed the kindergarten sandpit of public opinion.
Tuesday, 22 July 2008
Friday, 11 July 2008
Art, Pornography, Squabbling
It's been some time since I last posted here. I've been writing other things, the quality of which is debatable. Nonetheless there has been something that has caught my eye in the press recently. (Or rather not so recently any more.) That is the squabbling over the Bill Henson and child pornography.
I feel as though I need to have my two cents here, along with the rest of Australia. The photographs that are taken by Henson are of nude children. We all know that. But the debate rages over whether or not these images are either a) pornography, or b) exploitative of children. I'll tackle the former first.
This photo taken by Henson and it is this photograph that caused the original outcry.
The photograph is not presented in a sexual manner. It is, rather, a picture of innocence which is highlighted by the nakedness of the subject.
The next photograph comes from a child beauty pageant. (I pinched it from here.)
In this image, it is quite clear that the subject is being presented as an object of desire. The clothing, make-up, and hair-do create a miniaturised version of a glamour model, almost reminiscent of a soft-porn shoot.
If one objectively compares the differences between the two photographs, particularly in context with other photographs from the same collections, it becomes clear that it is the latter that over-sexualises children, not the former. It has been the public statements of people like Hetty Johnson, Kevin Rudd, etc. who have sexualised the Henson images by creating an association between the images and sex where one did not previously exist. In essence, they have turned a photography exhibition into a child porn show by dint of their own actions. Consider this, if paedophiles were unaware of Henson before, or were aware but did not consider his work as sexually gratifying, I'm sure they do now.
On to the second point. The question remains whether Henson is exploiting a child in his work. One could argue that this is so, simply on the basis that the child cannot make the decision to be photographed him/herself and therefore the parent and Henson are exploiting the child. However, if we do use this line of argument, children in advertising, regardless of the product which is being sold must also be being exploited. In this case, they are still too young t make the decision themselves, so it is the advertising machinery and the parent who are responsible for the exploitation. Thus, one cannot argue that Henson has exploited children unless one concedes that all images or films of children are also exploitation.
If Australia is to avoid its tag as the nanny state, we must avoid this ridiculous over-governance of small issues, particularly by narrow-minded philistines. Children must be protected from predatory behaviour, but we must exercise proper judgment on what is considered predatory. Instead of bickering about art, we should be focusing on larger issues such as climate change, fixing public services such as transport and health, and maintaining a peaceful and prosperous world.
I feel as though I need to have my two cents here, along with the rest of Australia. The photographs that are taken by Henson are of nude children. We all know that. But the debate rages over whether or not these images are either a) pornography, or b) exploitative of children. I'll tackle the former first.
This photo taken by Henson and it is this photograph that caused the original outcry.
The photograph is not presented in a sexual manner. It is, rather, a picture of innocence which is highlighted by the nakedness of the subject.
The next photograph comes from a child beauty pageant. (I pinched it from here.)
In this image, it is quite clear that the subject is being presented as an object of desire. The clothing, make-up, and hair-do create a miniaturised version of a glamour model, almost reminiscent of a soft-porn shoot.
If one objectively compares the differences between the two photographs, particularly in context with other photographs from the same collections, it becomes clear that it is the latter that over-sexualises children, not the former. It has been the public statements of people like Hetty Johnson, Kevin Rudd, etc. who have sexualised the Henson images by creating an association between the images and sex where one did not previously exist. In essence, they have turned a photography exhibition into a child porn show by dint of their own actions. Consider this, if paedophiles were unaware of Henson before, or were aware but did not consider his work as sexually gratifying, I'm sure they do now.
On to the second point. The question remains whether Henson is exploiting a child in his work. One could argue that this is so, simply on the basis that the child cannot make the decision to be photographed him/herself and therefore the parent and Henson are exploiting the child. However, if we do use this line of argument, children in advertising, regardless of the product which is being sold must also be being exploited. In this case, they are still too young t make the decision themselves, so it is the advertising machinery and the parent who are responsible for the exploitation. Thus, one cannot argue that Henson has exploited children unless one concedes that all images or films of children are also exploitation.
If Australia is to avoid its tag as the nanny state, we must avoid this ridiculous over-governance of small issues, particularly by narrow-minded philistines. Children must be protected from predatory behaviour, but we must exercise proper judgment on what is considered predatory. Instead of bickering about art, we should be focusing on larger issues such as climate change, fixing public services such as transport and health, and maintaining a peaceful and prosperous world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
