Australian Art Attack

A sense of shameless squeamishness is gripping the Australian government with regard to the substantiation of nudity and childhood as subjects of art. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has shown enormous inflexibility about the depiction of children in artistically executed photographs. Last May 8, he ordered the closure of Bill Henson's photo exhibit after complaints were raised over the e-mail invitation which included the nude image of a 13 year old girl. Several other pieces were seized to determine violations of Australia's obscenity and Child protection laws, but the charges were dropped. Bill Henson, a renowned and accomplished artist, cancelled the exhibit.

This case sparked an inflamed nationwide debate in Australia. International movie star Cate Blanchett defended Henson, citing the risk to Australia's cultural reputation, the wrong signal it sends towards building a creative Australia, and the impact that the closure of the exhibit has on the index of social freedom in the country. She argued that Henson's work is not child pornography and has been affirmed by respected curators and critics worldwide. But PM Rudd expressed being sickened by these creations which he described as "revolting".

The controversy does not stop here. Yesterday, the Art Monthly Australia reignited the debate on pornography and censorship by publishing a nude photo of a 6-year old child on its front cover, to protest the closure of the exhibit and to"restore some dignity to the debate". It seems art supporters and artists are doing what Kevin Rudd has described...revolting.

Depictions of child nudity appear in works of art in different cultures and historical periods. During the Italian Renaissance, nudity was featured in art especially those with Christian themes. Cherubs were also painted nude and were called putto, as with Jesus Christ as a baby. But PM Rudd's counter argument that a little child cannot fully discern being depicted naked , and is therefore abused, is a classic censorship reasoning. It is based on the belief that children have limited rights, child development and cognitive abilities are not mature enough, and that parental rights and responsibilities should be supported by libraries. Arguments against point to the right to learn, the right of parents to raise their kids as they see fit without interference, that parents ought to oversee the child's development - not libraries, and that children are underestimated, and are more capable than adults give them credit for.

The adamant stance of Kevin Rudd, who said he was acting as a parent, is bewildering. The exhibit was by private invitation, from collections by a famous and respected artist who has not been accused of child molestation. Is the Prime Minister afraid that the exhibit might arouse the prurient interests of pedophiles in Australia? Is he cautious about keeping the secret of several education ministers and deputy ministers who have pending child abuse cases in schools, and who are in fact harassing the whistle blowers rather than the predators? How many of these pedophiles have been sentenced? How many more cases pending? How many teacher whistle blowers lives have been ruined by persecution from these higher ups? How many more cases are not being reported?

Prime Minister Rudd is misdirected. The problem is not in the art or the artists' depiction. Neither is the problem with the children used as subjects of art. The problem is that there are those who are blind to art and who can only salivate at the images with their sinister and pernicious minds. Kevin Rudd said " I'm passionate about children having innocence in their childhood". If his words match his passion, then he should prosecute those who willfully take this innocence away wantonly, to the fullest extent of the law. Not the artists who depict the beauty and splendor of innocence, but the pedophiles who ravage and devour the spirit and soul of this essence found only in the purity of childhood.

Haaarrrrwwwwk...Twoooooooph...Ting!