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.
Friday, 30 May 2008
Two Sides of China
Reading through China Digital Times this morning, two articles came to my attention that illustrate two sides of China. On one hand, when we think of the Middle Kingdom, we conjure images of the violence of the Cultural Revolution and the corruption of the early reform period. These images are strengthened by an underlying sense of Orientalism, xenophobia, and more generally the fear of the unknown. These photos of riots at the Northern Auto Mechanics School in Handan, Hebei show that sometimes these fears are not unfounded. The uproar began after a teacher allegedly beat a student during military training. Photographs and an article in Chinese can be found here:
http://news.wenxuecity.com/messages/200805/news-gb2312-614851.html
China Digital Times provides an English summary of the events as well as a slideshow of photographs from the school.
On the other hand, the Sichuan earthquakes have revealed the positive side of patriotism and nationalism that became so ugly in the wake of the Tibet uprising and the Olympic Torch relay furor. People are willing to give all that they can both financially and in terms of volunteering their time to help their countrymen get back on their feet. China Digital Times has captured the spirit of the Sichaunese affected by gathering together jokes initially collected by the blogs and SMS in China.
I've reproduced some here:
http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2008/05/humorous-spirit-of-the-sichuan-people/
http://news.wenxuecity.com/messages/200805/news-gb2312-614851.html
China Digital Times provides an English summary of the events as well as a slideshow of photographs from the school.
On the other hand, the Sichuan earthquakes have revealed the positive side of patriotism and nationalism that became so ugly in the wake of the Tibet uprising and the Olympic Torch relay furor. People are willing to give all that they can both financially and in terms of volunteering their time to help their countrymen get back on their feet. China Digital Times has captured the spirit of the Sichaunese affected by gathering together jokes initially collected by the blogs and SMS in China.
I've reproduced some here:
* A friend told me that he was riding his bicycle at the moment [of the earthquake] at the city’s central square, and saw Chairman Mao [statue] waving to him… He was so shocked he fell off his bike, and then realized it was an earthquake.
* An old man in Beichuan, dragged out by a Russian rescue team. The first thing he said was “This is one hell of an earthquake, it shook me all the way to a foreign country!”
* Four old ladies were in the middle of playing a game of mahjong, and noticed the table was shaking badly. They did not say anything, went to find some cardboard, put it underneath the table and continued their game.
http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2008/05/humorous-spirit-of-the-sichuan-people/
Monday, 12 May 2008
Saturday, 26 April 2008
Tuesday, 15 April 2008
Tibet, well balanced
Use this link to read a fair and balanced op-ed thast focuses on the Tibet issue. I think that it is fantastic
Wednesday, 9 April 2008
China and Demonisation
This article by Daniel Bell has recently come to my attention. For those of you who can't be bothered to read it, I'll give a quick summary here. Bell criticises the tendency of the Western press to demonise China. He admits that it is important to cover such issues as the Tibet riots because the Chinese press isn't able to, but that there is a dearth of coverage of the positive developments. He lists improvements such as increases in personal freedom, increased acceptance of homosexuality, and economic improvement as cases in point.
Bell also mentions negative news coverage of China, such as its involvement in the Darfur is reported whereas Japanese and Russian involvement is ignored by Western news outlets. Furthermore, comparisons to the Nazi Olympics are useless hyperbole; China is not out to start a world war and has no genocide policy.
Bell calls for some self-reflection, lest we create overly-antagonistic relations with the Chinese. China is not some sort of 'Evil Empire' out to swallow the world. At the risk of being labeled an apologist for the regime, I ask why it is that musicians (such as those who appeared at last week's V-festival), journalists, and semi-educated protesters single out China for attention that is deserved of many other nations of the world. It would seem to me that we are still dominated by xenophobia and a style of issue-populism. Is it any wonder the producers of the videos that I posted earlier this month feel set upon by the Western media?
A couple of years ago I was part of an Australian university student delegation to China. We were traveling with Hon. Greg Hunt MP (yes, that is his real name) who expected us to be a bunch of China-bashers. Consequently, his welcome speech in the forum of the Beijing Hotel urged to stand up for our beliefs and be proud of Australia as a nation. In a return address, from one of the students present, we did just that. Laurie intimated that we were proud Australians and we stand up for our beliefs, but we weren't anti-China.
Yes, China needs to improve aspects of its social policy. But to demonise China is a mistake that serves neither China nor the rest of the world any clear purpose. Anyway, I must go, so I apologise for the weak conclusion.
Bell also mentions negative news coverage of China, such as its involvement in the Darfur is reported whereas Japanese and Russian involvement is ignored by Western news outlets. Furthermore, comparisons to the Nazi Olympics are useless hyperbole; China is not out to start a world war and has no genocide policy.
Bell calls for some self-reflection, lest we create overly-antagonistic relations with the Chinese. China is not some sort of 'Evil Empire' out to swallow the world. At the risk of being labeled an apologist for the regime, I ask why it is that musicians (such as those who appeared at last week's V-festival), journalists, and semi-educated protesters single out China for attention that is deserved of many other nations of the world. It would seem to me that we are still dominated by xenophobia and a style of issue-populism. Is it any wonder the producers of the videos that I posted earlier this month feel set upon by the Western media?
A couple of years ago I was part of an Australian university student delegation to China. We were traveling with Hon. Greg Hunt MP (yes, that is his real name) who expected us to be a bunch of China-bashers. Consequently, his welcome speech in the forum of the Beijing Hotel urged to stand up for our beliefs and be proud of Australia as a nation. In a return address, from one of the students present, we did just that. Laurie intimated that we were proud Australians and we stand up for our beliefs, but we weren't anti-China.
Yes, China needs to improve aspects of its social policy. But to demonise China is a mistake that serves neither China nor the rest of the world any clear purpose. Anyway, I must go, so I apologise for the weak conclusion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
