Nonsensical comments, abuse, baiting, ranting and leftist stupidity will not be tolerated.
Obviously the arts community is only now finding its voice after years of suppression under Howard. Geez, I can't ever imagine why they were suppressed???
The images we lock people up for are nothing like the images by Henson or Art Monthly. Nothing at all. Yes, they both feature nudity, but nudity does not equal sexualization.
You call this new photograph filth. I simply don't understand how you can look at an image of a child and call it filth. Anne Geddes has been publishing images of naked children for years and her photos are just as harmless as the one that's gotten you, and probably many other tax payers, upset. Why the double standard? What would have made this one better? Putting her inside a flower? Placing little fox ears on her? (Two things Geddes has done a thousand times before.)
As another tax payer, I would prefer to not see my hard earned money be spent on a multitude of things too: Wars, Private education, Prisons. (Prisons are necessary, of course, but who wants to actually pay for the room and board of the guy who stole your car?)
I'm glad they don't let taxpayers, particularly ones that are upset, make the decisions on how their money should be spent. Arts are already underfunded, and if you honestly think it should be cut further, for something as harmless as the front cover of Arts Monthly, then we're in more trouble than I previously thought.
The so-call artist who use naked children are so ignorant of other people's right especially the right of the children. If the Artist are so right, they should just photograph each other themselve naked instead of innocent and know-nothing children who can't tell between what is right and what is wrong. As for "Another Taxpayer", the issue is on the use of money tosupport the picture of naked children. It has nothing to do with supporting war, private education, prisons etc. Those are a different issues altogether and in no where that we taxpayer said that we are supporting those as well. That is why we are portesting against each issue one at a time. Right here right now we are prtesting agianst you all artist that are so pervert and uneducated in using children as a nude object.
Indeed AR, and i noticed that the PM and the Premier have weaseled out of cutting their funding, instead choosing to squeal some throw away lines and hope it all blows over.
Anne Gedes isn't showing pictures of little girls breasts and genitalia, I don't know what she has to do with anything, anyway it's not like i'm barracking for her or something. Besides she isn't getting taxpayer's money.
"...who wants to actually pay for the room and board of the guy who stole your car?"
I'd much rather pay for jailing criminal scum than this crap, you obviously prefer paying for this, what a shock.
"I'm glad they don't let taxpayers, particularly ones that are upset, make the decisions on how their money should be spent."
You should be glad, because assholes like you think that our money is just for you to do with as you please.
"...if you honestly think it should be cut further..."
Yes i do, now i know you won't be convinced otherwise and that's fine, i don't give a shit what you think. I shall leave you with this, if you love it so much then you and creeps like you can pay your money for it but i highly doubt that you make much of your own, hence your propensity to insist that other people's money be spent for this shit.
Thanks for stopping by.
"Anne Gedes isn't showing pictures of little girls breasts and genitalia,"
Yes, I think you'll find she is. Google Image search Anne Geddes. First page will show you images on the same wavelength as the front page image of Arts Monthly Australia.
"I don't know what she has to do with anything, anyway"
Really? You don't see the connection? Nude children being used for art?
"it's not like i'm barracking for her or something."
Absolutely correct. I didn't insinuate that you were. But no one, NO ONE, is calling her photographs filth. Nor pornography. Because it's CLEARLY not. Now, I want to be clear on this, I'm not comparing Geddes' photos to Henson's. They are worlds apart, (in my opinion that difference is artistic merit, not obscenity level). I am not even comparing her photos to the photographs INSIDE Arts Monthly, as I haven't seen those and I wouldn't dream of supporting or denouncing so-called art without having first seen it. I'm talking about the front cover photo that you labeled filth.
The reason I commented on your article was because of that overly harsh criticism. And I brought up Geddes cause I was hoping you'd respond with an answer to my question: If that is filth then is Geddes work also filth? If not, why not?
"Besides she isn't getting taxpayer's money."
I'll have to take your word for that as I don't know either way. I'd assume that she'd have applied for Government grants throughout her career, most probably when she was starting out. However, (after a very brief google search) I found that she has raised over US$3 million for charity towards stopping child abuse in Aust and New Zealand (which is fantastic, of course) but it's quoted as she wanted to "give back" to the community, which implies she's received some funding at some time. But really, this is a minor point.
"You should be glad, because assholes like you think that our money is just for you to do with as you please."
Ok, now I'm an asshole? I asked some questions about your blog and I'm an asshole? Are you serious? Listen, we don't see eye to eye on a lot of things. I've read some of your posts since I stumbled across the site tonight and there are some things that I agree with 100%. But I disagree with this, and for that I'm an asshole?
Ok, leaving that aside, you've missed my point entirely. I wasn't saying that our money is for me to do with as I please. I was saying the exact opposite. We elect officials to decide these things for us, so that angry citizens aren't the ones making the decisions in the heat of the moment.
And before you start bashing Rudd for not acting on this, Howard was PM for eleven years and Bill Henson has been producing photos for over twenty. There was plenty of time to act on it and he didn't.
"Yes i do, now i know you won't be convinced otherwise and that's fine, i don't give a shit what you think."
If you don't give a shit what I think, then why post blogs at all. Why allow comments by anyone who happens along? What is wrong with healthy debate? I haven't called you names, I've not been rude, I've not made unfair assumptions about you based on your views. I've asked questions because I'm interested in your opinion.
"I shall leave you with this, if you love it so much then you and creeps like you can pay your money for it but i highly doubt that you make much of your own, hence your propensity to insist that other people's money be spent for this shit."
Now I'm a creep and you highly doubt I make much of my own money? Sir, I have a job, my wife has a job, we have a mortgage, we pay our taxes. I'm not a left wing non-bathing hippie.
I do enjoy reading about issues and finding out all sides before making a judgement. Sometimes my opinion is toward the left, other times toward the right.
I DO believe that children are being overly sexualized more and more, but I believe that advertising and the media in general are more at fault than photographs hanging in a gallery, or the one on the cover of the magazine in question.
"Thanks for stopping by."
Thank you. If you would like to answer my questions, I welcome any and all discussion.
But if you're going to go back to name calling, I'd just as soon not bother.
I tell you something I find Anne Geddes pictures way more disturbing than anything by Henson. The models Anne uses aren't old enough to let people know if they want to be made to look ridiculous, if you are going to use that argument. I am a photographer, and I use my daughter all the time as a model, if she says no..that's it. She loves the pictures I take.
"I'm not comparing Geddes' photos to Henson's. They are worlds apart, (in my opinion that difference is artistic merit, not obscenity level)."
Then don't. Yes your opinion and you seem to have great difficulty with accepting that other people have different opinions.
"Ok, now I'm an asshole? I asked some questions about your blog and I'm an asshole? Are you serious?"
This makes you an asshole in my book - "I'm glad they don't let taxpayers, particularly ones that are upset, make the decisions on how their money should be spent." Sorry.
"I wasn't saying that our money is for me to do with as I please."
Well, you certainly fooled me.
"I was saying the exact opposite. We elect officials to decide these things for us..."
So we're supposed to all shut up and they'll just figure out what we want them to spent our money on, right.
"I've read some of your posts since I stumbled across the site tonight and there are some things that I agree with 100%."
Would you care to write that on those some that you agree 100% with or are you just talking shit?
"If you don't give a shit what I think, then why post blogs at all."
Now you're being arrogant. I won't be posting to find out what you think or to get approval from you. Now that i think about it, you seem to have some sort of delusion that i'm not allowed to hold an opinion or position unless it's been through the kangaroo court of Another Taxpayer. if you don't agree with what i write, then you are most welcome not to read it or hold the same opinion.
"Why allow comments by anyone who happens along? What is wrong with healthy debate?"
We don't allow any comments by anyone, commenting here and on my blog is a privilege not a right. There's a difference between healthy debate and going round and round in circles, saying the same thing over and over in different ways to brow beat people into line.
"I have a job, my wife has a job, we have a mortgage, we pay our taxes."
Then you and your peeps fund Art Monthly. I for one, think that there are many more important things to fund like public hospitals, roads, PM Dudd's half baked education revolution etc. Personally i think my taxes are funding too much useless shit, the less of it that's wasted the better.
"I DO believe that children are being overly sexualized more and more, but I believe that advertising and the media in general are more at fault than photographs hanging in a gallery, or the one on the cover of the magazine in question."
Ah something we can agree on, but that doesn't mean we should let the galleries and "arts" magazines slide, in my opinion.
Babies in hollowed-out pumpkins vs children with parted lips staring down the camera... only a leftard fuckwit couldn't tell the difference.
I love your idea of utopia. A world without art? Just fund hospitals and forget the arts? What kind of wierd world would that be. Art affects our entire daily life from the chair you sit on to the architecture that brings a smile to your face. From a painting to a bus ticket. Balance is all. But to say that pictures like Hensons are pornographic is simply absurd. Those people that can only see things on a superficial level, really worry me. Sometimes this is a fine line, but provocative does NOT have to be sexual. If I could afford a Henson I would be in like a shot. This is such a hollow argument.
Thanks AR.
I just don't want this type of so called art to be funded by my taxes just because you've deemed it. If you love it so much and can't survive without it, then you fund it.
I understand that argument. But there are plenty of things I don't want my taxes spent on. Like troops in Iraq, like the state funded destruction of the forests here in Tasmania. But we can't do that. We just have to say to ourselves my tax dollar gets spent on eductation and hospitals, and not the things we dislike. You can actually write to Canberra and stipulate that. what good it will do is debatable. But to say that the state shouldn't fund arts is a tad broadsworded. Just because you deem it unpalatable. Touché?
No, it's not just me but a lot of people and if the majority doesn't want to fund it then i say let them decide.
"We just have to say to ourselves..."
No, we can also blog about it and influence or leaders into doing the right thing, something you seem most unhappy with, even with having the opinion that it shouldn't be funded by the rest of us.
It's not me insisting that everyone else pay for something they don't approve or have any interest in.
Oh and only a leftist would think that funding pics of naked little girls on magazine covers is more important that money for the troops in Iraq or spending on our hospitals to look after the sick. But you are free to barrack for that on your blog.
I'm actually a bout a right wing as you can get mate. So stick that in your liberal pipe, and take a long draw. But if you are going to start calling me names then I refuse to debate any longer. You are obviously that strange animal that whats a debate as long as it's on your terms. You are seeing only your side of the argument and not even listening to what others say. Then when you start to run out of debate you insult. In my book you just lost. There I was enjoying your blog.
"I'm actually a bout a right wing as you can get mate."
Course you are. You keep telling yourself that alright.
"But if you are going to start calling me names..."
Huh.... alright then, whatever you say.
"You are seeing only your side of the argument and not even listening to what others say."
Right back at ya.
"In my book you just lost."
You're right Ifan, you're the man Ifan. I concede Ifan, oh please make it stop, you're just too much ifan.
"There I was enjoying your blog."
It's not my blog, may i suggest you head over to the local supermarket and get a bag of lemons, head home and make yourself a nice, tall glass of fresh lemon juice and sip angrily or not. Because face it ifan, you're just huffing and puffing because i don't agree with you.
Hey there, MK.
I don't know where you got the idea that I was somehow trying to change your opinion. I'm not. I'm INTERESTED in your opinion, which is why I'm here. I don't want to change your mind, I want to know your thoughts on my question.
I've asked it twice now and you still haven't answered, instead you've attacked my writing and called me names.
The subject of your blog post is about the Arts Monthly Magazine. Specifically the photo used, (You called it filth) and that they get tax payers money for publishing what they like.
I've tried to discuss the second part without any success here, so I'm just going to drop it and ask my question again which was about the first part. You called the photograph filth.
It's a very simple shot of a six year old with a painted background. Her bare chest is shown but no pubic area. I commented that the shot is on par with Anne Geddes work. She uses nude children, (not always nude, always children) she shows bare chests and bottoms. And in my opinion, they are just as harmless as the shot on the cover of Arts Monthly magazine.
Do you look at Geddes' work and call it filth? If not, why not? Is it the context?
She publishes in magazine, postcards, calendars, posters, everywhere.
I AM interested in your opinion.
Please don't take this as an attack. I never meant ANY of my comments as an attack. If they were taken that way, I apologize.
cheers
WS
(And just cause you asked, here are some of the articles on this site that I agree with:
Principal demanding kids wear deoderant (The guy is obviously a nut-bar),
British sniper getting payout (I despise the idea of people demanding money for hurt feelings. Just get over it!)
Water and workouts compulsory for preschoolers (Don't even know where to start with this, but education about the issue, rather than forced labour? Why not just play games like Tag where they have fun running rather than forcing them to do star jumps!?)
The Serial Rapist being allowed to remain anonymous (Who in their right mind thinks that this is a good idea?!)
Those are just the recent ones on the front page here that I've read. I realize these aren't your articles specifically. I misspoke earlier when I said they were YOUR opinions. I just mean the opinions on this site.)
"I don't know where you got the idea that I was somehow trying to change your opinion."
Oh i don't know, you keep going round and round in circles saying that there is nothing wrong with the picture. And since this is my post and i think the picture is filth.... well you should be able to see how i came up with that conclusion.
"Do you look at Geddes' work and call it filth? If not, why not? Is it the context?"
There you go again banging on about Geddes. No i don't actually actually look at her pictures, i have seen a few in passing, but i don't have her spring collection up on my wall or something if that answers your question. The very few that i have seen a handful of times are not the same as this one, to me. If she does show this sort of picture, then to me it's also filth. But then my taxes aren't paying for her work.
I was still "banging on about Geddes" because you still hadn't answered my question. If you had've done so at the beginning I would've left it alone there and then.
However, now that you have made it clear that you would also consider her award winning photographs filth (if you ever saw them), then consider the matter dropped.
Agree to disagree.
Cheers
WD
It was a pointless question in the beginning and it still is. But since you were yearning so, i thought i'd oblige.
I didn't say all her photographs, but feel free to imply that if it makes you feel better.
Yeah, Agree to disagree.
Cheers.
No matey boy, I am leavig the debate because you resort to insult. Not necessary. Simple. I love a good debate, but when someone resorts to that..well it gets pointless. And I'm the complete fucking cunt idiot you think I am.
Child pornography is despicable; I believe we can all agree to that but I fail to see how this particular image on the cover of this magazine is in any way sexualized or constitutes child pornography. Simple nudity doesn't preclude perversion. Just my 2 cents.
I had a feeling you'd go down that route ifan, i have a knack for picking slimeballs like you out, accuse me of calling you names and then proceed to spout off like anything. Just can't stand it when someone doesn't agree with you eh.
Well suck it up old son, your bullying will only work to a limited extend on the blogosphere where you can hide behind your pc and pretend to be a big boy. So long ifan you waste of space. Enjoy the lemon juice and don't come back, or is that too complex for you.
I just saw a video of that girl who is now 11 and the clown for a father she has. He obviously told her what to say when she was lecturing the PM saying that he should go and learn what "art" is, but when asked herself, she had to ask her father for help. I think that just about said it all.
I saw him, MK. Apart from the ludicrous shirt, the fellow is a bow-tie wearer. Nuff said.
I have no problem with art, but why do the nude persons have to be children? What is wrong with legal, overage women?
i dont understand this
JOhn Howard spent nearly 12 years not paying for his electricity or phone or car and he will spend the rest of his life doing the same.
Yeah, the bow really topped it all off eh.
Exactly Jamie, why, something the "artists" can't really explain to the parents who can't even take pictures of their own children at sports events or in public. Basically from that clown of a father said that there should be no scrutiny into child photos "artists" take. Why indeed.
Marilyn, stick to the point of the post, if you have nothing of value to say then just move along.
To those of you whose comments i've deleted, there's a warning at the top of the page. It's not there for fun. Don't like it, move along.
As a parent of two girls now aged 22 and 21 I find it very disturbing that a parent would photograph their child naked and display that photo for all to see. As a 6 year old, this child has no say in what should be done with her image, she is totally under the control of what should be a caring and protective parent. Exploitation of children in the guise of art should not be condoned. Wake up you fools.
Can't argue with that Bernie, though i doubt the fools will wake up.
I think Art Monthly Australia's fundings should be pulled because they're idiots. They wanted attention and now they've got it. What they've done is similar to a student going up to their teacher and telling them, hey, your paunch is so big I'm surprised you can tie your own shoelaces since you probably can't even see your own feet. Flipping a bird to the people giving them money is definitely none too bright of them.
I read about the video here and looked it up. What a farce. Posting it up for laughs.
Commenting by HaloScan
