As first published in Crikey today.
Editor Maurice O'Riordan is a total fool for putting the image of a naked young girl on the latest cover of Art Monthly. After so much effort, so many carefully crafted messages and an industry united, this boofhead comes along and inflames an already sensitive public issue.
Not only is his decision misguided, it lacks a total understanding of how to influence public policy and play the media game. It is so misguided that today we have a situation where every single person who first condemned artist Bill Henson is now singing in unison against the artistic community with calls for laws and protocols to be introduced.
Those in the arts community have been left standing with their pants around their ankles and can now expect a royal bollocking from Hetty Johnston and her Bravehearts wowser club. In fact, the visual arts community was abuzz over the weekend, with one source revealing that on this particular occasion, they might not get behind their own -- in fact, they might leave O'Riordan out to dry.
You would expect an editor, a journalist, someone who is engaged with the written word and with the art of debate to be a little more tactful, but it appears that O'Riordan has lost all perspective on this issue.
The Australia Council for the Arts has now been left like a shag on a rock trying to, again, defend the integrity of artists. The council’s CEO Kathy Keele was even resigned to saying that "continuing to argue extreme positions is not creating any greater clarity."
Keele is absolutely correct and O’Riordan finds himself in the same camp as Johnston. To successfully engage with a debate of this magnitude you have to see that there are always two sides to any story and you must respect the opposing side. O'Riordan has lost that respect and by trying to rub Hetty Johnston's nose in the Henson debate he will ultimately lose.
Arts Minister Garrett hit the nail on the head saying the magazine was being needlessly provocative.
Let's put this into context. During the Henson debate, it was clear that the gallery's decision to put the images online and on the invitations was naive to say the least. But the arts community got behind Henson and the gallery to defend their right to freely create an exhibition of the photographs.
O'Riordan, by taking art out of context like the gallery did with Henson’s photographs a month or so ago and placing an image that could concern the community onto a magazine has unnecessarily thrown fuel onto the fire.
And now the proponents of arts censorship are on board. They have had time to re-form, re-think and re-formulate their public comments. You can’t imagine a worse case scenario.
Kevin Rudd said yesterday, "we're talking about the innocence of little children here. A little child cannot answer for themselves about whether they wish to be depicted in this way."
NSW Premier Morris Iemma chimed in, "this is an issue of child protection."
And Johnston led the chorus, "this is manufactured by adults for the pleasure of adults, the financial benefit of adults, whatever it is. This is an adult desire being projected on to children."
According to the Sydney Morning Herald the magazine editor, Maurice O'Riordan, "could not be contacted for comment yesterday". That’s hopefully because he knows that he has made a very stupid mistake.
Editor Maurice O'Riordan is a total fool for putting the image of a naked young girl on the latest cover of Art Monthly. After so much effort, so many carefully crafted messages and an industry united, this boofhead comes along and inflames an already sensitive public issue.
Not only is his decision misguided, it lacks a total understanding of how to influence public policy and play the media game. It is so misguided that today we have a situation where every single person who first condemned artist Bill Henson is now singing in unison against the artistic community with calls for laws and protocols to be introduced.
Those in the arts community have been left standing with their pants around their ankles and can now expect a royal bollocking from Hetty Johnston and her Bravehearts wowser club. In fact, the visual arts community was abuzz over the weekend, with one source revealing that on this particular occasion, they might not get behind their own -- in fact, they might leave O'Riordan out to dry.
You would expect an editor, a journalist, someone who is engaged with the written word and with the art of debate to be a little more tactful, but it appears that O'Riordan has lost all perspective on this issue.
The Australia Council for the Arts has now been left like a shag on a rock trying to, again, defend the integrity of artists. The council’s CEO Kathy Keele was even resigned to saying that "continuing to argue extreme positions is not creating any greater clarity."
Keele is absolutely correct and O’Riordan finds himself in the same camp as Johnston. To successfully engage with a debate of this magnitude you have to see that there are always two sides to any story and you must respect the opposing side. O'Riordan has lost that respect and by trying to rub Hetty Johnston's nose in the Henson debate he will ultimately lose.
Arts Minister Garrett hit the nail on the head saying the magazine was being needlessly provocative.
Let's put this into context. During the Henson debate, it was clear that the gallery's decision to put the images online and on the invitations was naive to say the least. But the arts community got behind Henson and the gallery to defend their right to freely create an exhibition of the photographs.
O'Riordan, by taking art out of context like the gallery did with Henson’s photographs a month or so ago and placing an image that could concern the community onto a magazine has unnecessarily thrown fuel onto the fire.
And now the proponents of arts censorship are on board. They have had time to re-form, re-think and re-formulate their public comments. You can’t imagine a worse case scenario.
Kevin Rudd said yesterday, "we're talking about the innocence of little children here. A little child cannot answer for themselves about whether they wish to be depicted in this way."
NSW Premier Morris Iemma chimed in, "this is an issue of child protection."
And Johnston led the chorus, "this is manufactured by adults for the pleasure of adults, the financial benefit of adults, whatever it is. This is an adult desire being projected on to children."
According to the Sydney Morning Herald the magazine editor, Maurice O'Riordan, "could not be contacted for comment yesterday". That’s hopefully because he knows that he has made a very stupid mistake.
18 comments:
Silly old "Arts Monthly". All a bit embarrassing really. And the art is truly awful - which is the part I find most offensive. "Look at my naked six year old daughter sitting on a rock"!? Please! I'd defund it too ... but not for the same reasons as Rudd and Co.
It only has 5000 readers as well.
As Crikey editorialised today,"the girl was photographed by her mother. The mother has no regrets, neither does her daughter.
"So far, so much storm in a teacup you'd think. But there is something disturbing in the vigour with which the Prime Minister attacks the issue of this so-called child exploitation."
Indeed.
It's all stonewalling to distract the population from the Senate Enquiry into "political donations".
Corruption at every level of Government it would appear.
The strategy would be to inflame the population's moral indignation and outrage while equally sinister dealings, pay-offs, bribes and cheque-book based collusion gets a hasty once-over.
No anonymous, this little stunt didn't need the help of any political spin doctor.
This rests squarely on the shoulders of the editor of the magazine and the media outlets that picked it up.
I absolutely agree Nicholas. The editor must have been planning this with the Bill Henson controversy in mind, so there's absolutely no doubt at all that they set out to be provocative.
I don't think the editor does realise that they've made a bad mistake though - it should have occured to him weeks ago that this would have been a mistake, when the idea would have first been occured. He would have discussed it with a number of other people, especially the artist, Robert Nelson, and his daughter (who was pictured). They had plenty of time to realise it would be a mistake.
Robert Nelson has hit the airwaves with this piece of spin and doublespeak. So there's no doubt that this idea has been planned for a while.
To clarify, I didn't mean to imply that Robert Nelson was the artist there. The wording in my comment is ambiguous on that point.
As far as I know, (and I'm not exactly immersed in the world of the visual arts) the woman who took the photograph had no standing as an established artist before this. Sure, she was enrolled in a post-grad program, but that doesn't require talent.
Now everyone knows her as the woman who photographed her daughter naked and caused a national controversy. It's like she's tried to replicate all of the ingredients of the Henson controversy without the one thing that made Henson defensible - his talent.
I'm somewhat in agreement with OP - this has been planned. The woman is apparently recovering from surgery (hence all the quotes from her husband - honestly!) yet she appears in a lot of staged "family" photos (see yesterday's herald). Either the photos were taken some time ago with this in mind, or the artists absence has been engineered in order to position her as a voiceless victim.
I put this one down to an artist with more media knauss than talent, a gullible editor and an ambitious publicist. And a moronic public willing to be whipped into a don't-touch-my-babies frenzy for the second time in as many months, but unfortunately, in Australia, that's a constant.
" ... It's like she's tried to replicate all of the ingredients of the Henson controversy without the one thing that made Henson defensible - his talent."
God, I wish I'd said that. That's it, in a nutshell. I actually felt quite ill watching their little media conference. Then to read an "Opinion piece" by Nelson in, yes, "The Aged".
Ugh!
Amateurs! Each and very one of them. Vain, self-interested and months off the boil.
Go easy on the censorship!
Henson was doing the same kind of thing, Japanese Schoolgirl Monthy was simply more of a pro-pedo stunt without the pathetic excuses we had from Croggon et alia.
The Pope wasn't buying large paintings of trussed up Japanese Schoolgirls, it was child pornography, & sexual, and there was a definite link between Henson and Japanese porn.
It's like she's tried to replicate all of the ingredients of the Henson controversy without the one thing that made Henson defensible - his talent?
I think you are kidding yourself, Henson's support is confined to a few 'art' pedophiles, mostly in Japan.
There are one or two people, ex-pats, cross planeters, but Henson's ego, eliminated the possibility of serious support.
Henson is a rung down from Nobuyoshi Araki, in other words not to be (credibly) compared to a cavallino rampante designer in Italy never mind, my goodness, to Caravaggio.
The latest child porn stunt is directly linked to the Henson support effort of a few weeks ago, to pretend otherwise, is risible. It is also silly to have one rule for Henson, and a rule for Jap Girl Bondage.
Maybe Croggon, should have stayed in Oz, but she didn't. So others have eliminated the smokescreen and red herrings she tossed about trying to defend what couldn't be defended.
"the woman who took the photograph had no standing as an established artist before this"
Has Henson ever sold a naked child photo in London?
Name me a few Italians cooks, car designers, artists, high-up Vatican officials, pimps, pornographers, anybody who thinks he is any good.
He insulted the City of Milan! He is not very popular in Europe. Henson has to rely on c-list idiots to do his pathetic PR.
He's a lost cause to the 'traded' art markets. who in their right mind is going to spend taxpayers money to buy fetish art for London or Zurich?
His price may have doubled in Oz, well he is going to need it. Because the police are interested in him elsewhere.
And he won't have his creepoid club to protect him elsewhee will he? So it is Japan or Oz, or the kiddie sex tourism destination of choice.
What on earth are you talking about Anonymous?
Wow! Reading these comments is like wandering through a good old-fashioned madhouse! Rivetting, rambling lunacy.
Hellooo Gregory! How nice to see you anonymously attacking me...again...with all your usual depth of thought. Please spare us your delusional art criticism. I checked out the British SOA in full after all your claims about it, and talked to some lawyers, and let me tell you: you're wrong. (Pro-pedo is a charming phrase, I must say, but is absolutely not applicable and in fact libellous - do you really think, with all your knowledge of the operations of paedophilia, that posting anonymously is going to work?)
As for the Art Monthly thing - that's a depressingly shallow move. It doesn't play into the Hetty thing so much as the mass media, who so loved this story they wouldn't let it go for weeks... what a great chance to do some real arts bashing! It might have been nice if it were a better photo. But I'm not sure that censoring ourselves is the way to go, either.
Bravo Alison I agree. Hasn't Henson suffered enough? Now he has to endure some self-aggrandising amateurs trying to equate their kitsch photos with his work? I rate this woman's photos along with the Tijuana black velvet painting of a weeping Elvis that huscksters try to sell you as you cross the border. With luck this couple will quickly disappear once their fifteen minutes is up.
Polixeni Papapetrou's daughter, Olympia, was the motivating force behind Papapetrou's Dreamchild series of 2003. (I'm guessing here, not having seen the Art Monthly mag, that this is the source of the offending image.)
FYI, Olympia found a pic by Charles Dodgson (ahem!) and wanted to act it out before the camera.
Good thing the genders weren't reversed. I don't imagine a father would get away with photographing his daughter acting out some dodgy image she'd found.
Big resigned sigh...
But, please, don't assume that Papapetrou is (a) unknown or (b) talentless. She's merely out of context.
Check out her CV here.
In addition to her recent doctorate, note that she's also an LlB/BA. I wonder if she's the litigious type?
Yep, I resile from my kneejerk comments after I looked further into the Art Monthly thing (check out my blog). Apologies all round for speaking before thinking. Not that I'm all that keen on the photo, still, but that's got nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Post a Comment