PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd says he can't stand artwork that depicts naked children.

(Prime Minister) Rudd slams (pictures of) naked (child on an) art cover (book)

www.news.com.au

PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd says he can't stand artwork that depicts naked children.

Mr Rudd today said work such as that shown in this month's edition of Art Monthly Australia did the opposite of restoring dignity to the debate over depictions of children in art.

The taxpayer-funded magazine used a picture of a naked six-year-old girl on the cover of its July edition in protest against the treatment of artist Bill Henson.

(visit the link for the full news article)

www.abovetopsecret.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Mod Edit - Headline: Please use the original story headline from your source.

[edit on 7/8/2008 by Gools]

Hot on the heels of the Henson furor a few weeks ago, we have a tax-payer funded art cover featuring more naked pictures of children.

This time, our christian prime minister has entered the debate...

Although I don't like censorship, I feel as though a lot of artists are more full of their own egos, if they support stuff like this.

www.news.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

I really don't see anything wrong with a nude picture of a child, so long as it is not done in a lewd fashion. If you saw some naked little kid running around in the Summertime, would you look away in shame? Nude art is all about appreciating the human form, in a non-lustful manner.

theres still a fine line between what's considered inappropriate and art.
politicians are to unsure where to draw the line, with animated child pornography an issue
would you consider that art?
if it was drawn by someone its not porn?

reply to post by offtheheezay

politicians are to unsure where to draw the line

The only line that should be drawn is where a person is harmed, abused or taken advantage of.

with animated child pornography an issue would you consider that art?

Yes I would, but obviously of a completely different nature.

The trouble with this thread maybe that a lot of people wont want to comment on it for fear of being called a sex pest or some such word, so i would expect the replies in the main to be against the magazine.

I personally dont have a problem either way who wins, the prime minister or the artists, the only problem i had was that the op just had to mention it was their christian prime minister.
What has religion got to do with it, it is just another sad case of stupid pointless idiotic brainless logic stifling science castrating religiousness sticking its ugly pointless follish nose into things instead of letting things be debated and decided on what really matters, the logic of the subject.

I guess he should send somebody to Florence to smash Michelangelo's David to bits, since it's a nude depiction of an underage male...

Seriously, there is a huge difference between artistic nudes and pornography.

This is the kind of idiotic blinkered prudery that ends up with parents getting arrested for taking pictures of their toddlers in the bathtub...

Politicians looking to score cheap political points have done so by going after "decadence" in the arts since Hitler, probably long before that.

Originally posted by xmotex
I guess he should send somebody to Florence to smash Michelangelo's David to bits, since it's a nude depiction of an underage male...

And what about all the images and statues of the virgin mary with child? I take it all the Christians want to destroy those too?

It might be wise for those on both sides of this debate to read "A City Possessed" - The Christchurch Civic Creche Case" by Lynley Hood, to see how destructive and how irrational witch hunts can become.

Here's what the girl in the picture has to say. She defends the pictures and is proud of them.

Link

Here's what Opposition Leader Brendud Nelson has to say. He's asking the police if any laws have been broken.

Link

This seems a very rare occurence when our dud PM agrees with our dud opposition leader.

let me get this straight the only reason this was on cover was to support an artist who had got frowned upon by depicting naked children. doesn't that mean the public funded magazine exploited this little girl for its own agenda.

(Forum poster) Plucky is stunned (taken aback) rhetorically (the ancient tradition) by your use of parenthesis (in this discussion thread).

nudes espicely those of younge people have been a common subject of all the arts for centuries from statues such as david, to photographs and paintings and drawings.

this is nothing new, hell most seriouse art classes at a college level includes atleast a section if not whole courses on figure studies of nudes of both sexes and variouse ages and body types.

if the photos were not lewd or sexualy suggestive then its harmless espicialy if the subject and and their legal gaurdians agree with the photos being taken and the manner of the composition.

as far as animated child porn as brought up by a earlier poster considering that from what iv read they dont use real models, and no child is harmed or taken advantage off. yes i would consider it art just as i consider erotic rendition of any other sort as art.

now i would be a lil concerned with any one who wants to look at or produce the "lolicon" art, and i wouldent take my eyes off any children in an area where someone with those tastes are around. but i do support the right for those renditions to be made as it hurts no one and does not depict real people.

Originally posted by pluckynoonez
(Forum poster) Plucky is stunned (taken aback) rhetorically (the ancient tradition) by your use of parenthesis (in this discussion thread).

If you haven't figured it out, the story originates from Australia, so it might not be as well known overseas, when described with a few short words. It's spilled over from the scandal that we had a couple of months ago, with the Henson gallery pictures, where he used nude girls as models.

As such, the original title of the article might not obviously point out the content of the article.

The bracketed words were added by me, to flesh out the original title of the article.

Your completely useless and off-topic post really wasn't worth the effort. Thanks for your contribution, though.

reply to post by tezzajw


Wow, plucky is hurt. I was merely pointing out that the thread title is rhetorically unsound. But go ahead and bumper-sticker my response in hopes of some mod jumping my case. You, sir, are a jumpy-jumperton.

reply to post by proteus33

doesn't that mean the public funded magazine exploited this little girl for its own agenda.

I would hardly say "exploited" or that it was their "own agenda" if the girl and her parents are in favor of the statement made by the prominent positioning of the piece. Putting the image on the cover still doesn't make the image lewd.

Was Life cereal exploiting Mikey when they put him on the box cover to sell cereal?



[edit on 7/7/0808 by jackinthebox]

Yeah, this is a touchy subject.

I think the problem is, we have to clearly define what is lewd, and what is still just art.

However... I think it would be pretty funny to see the Christians smash their own statues of baby Jesus (wow, Jesus isn't in my PC's dictionary!? it underlined it, heh...), the cherubs, et al. All because they realized that they too are depicting naked children.


Sure, we have to put and end to child pornography, but make sure you define a line between lewd and art, otherwise, we could see the renaissance happen all over again.

(So much art destroyed senselessly... much of it ancient.)

What about the Queensland Paedophile cover up Rudd was involved in. Everyone has forgotten about that, which is exactly why he keeps taking this morale highground. It would probably be better to try and run the country instead of wasting our money, which Iemma does extremely well on his own in NSW, than worry about this sort of nonsense. Maybe he could start by not wasting our money on all these trips, so far we have not signed one trade agreement as a result of his holdays abroad. I'm just glad the people that voted him in are suffering, his policies or lack of them have taken us back in the global world 5-10 years. I'm ashamed to call myself an Australian with the intelligence shown by my fellow Australian voters. If he thinks he can play with the Bilderbergs of this world he is sadly mistaken. HIstory repeats, there has never been an Australian Liberal Government who has taken us to War, (i.e. Iraq is a Policing Action, not a war), in a war civilians are targetted. Maybe the Bilderberg Group have put Rudd in because the global economy is collapsing, the only way out is another major War. Rudd is too stupid to even know if he was being manipulated. Time will tell.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
there has never been an Australian Liberal Government who has taken us to War, (i.e. Iraq is a Policing Action, not a war), in a war civilians are targetted.

You're well and truly on your own with that statement.

Sure, Iraq's not a war. Now pull my other one instead.

Main Entry: 1war
Pronunciation: \ˈwȯr\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English werre, from Anglo-French werre, guerre, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse
Date: 12th century
1 a (1): a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations

I again try to explain that Iraq cannot be a war because who are the Nations or States involved. It is a Policing Action created to reap the oil (George Bush) and prolong companies such as Haliburton (Dick Cheney) and other interests of Companies set up by the U.S. Administration. The vast majority of contracts are in Jewish hands but of course you might need to read more than your local paper to get the big picture. So rather than pull your other leg, it might be simpler just to say "baa.'