Cate Blanchett: Nude Photos Of Young Teenage Girls “Art”
Hollywood actress Cate Blanchett has come out in defense of a new art exhibit in Sydney, Australia, featuring nude photographs of twelve- and thirteen-year-old girls, saying the exhibit is “art” and efforts to shut it down “censorship”:
Blanchett joined 42 other leading arts figures from Down Under in signing an open letter slamming Mr [Kevin] Rudd [the Australian Prime Minister]Â over his criticism artist Bill Henson’s photographs of naked 12 and 13-year-old children.
Police shut down Henson’s exhibition at a Sydney art gallery last week and confiscated 20 of his photographs as part of an investigating into whether charges should be laid. [...]
“The potential prosecution of one of our most respected artists is no way to build a Creative Australia and does untold damage to our cultural reputation,” the mother of three said the letter, which was addressed to Australia’s environment minister and the premier of New South Wales state.
“We should remember that an important index of social freedom, in earlier times or in repressive regimes elsewhere in the world, is how artists and art are treated by the state.”
The letter is signed by Blanchett, whom Rudd visited in hospital only days after the birth of her latest baby in April and whom he invited to Canberra to take part in his national 2020 conference on Australia’s future. Other signatories include Nobel winning writer John Coetzee.
“We wish to make absolutely clear that none of us endorses, in any way, the abuse of children,” they said. “Henson’s work has nothing to do with child pornography and, according to the judgment of some of the most respected curators and critics in the world, it is certainly art.”
Since when are nude photographs of girls this young considered “art”? We arrest people for taking photographs of children this young in a sexual setting, and sometimes even if they are in a non-sexual setting. But if we label it “art” and put it in a gallery, suddenly that is okay?
I’m an artist myself, and I understand that there must be a certain amount of freedom for the arts to flourish and thrive. But I’m also the parent of teenagers, and children this young should have their innocence preserved, not hung up on a wall, even if it is in an art gallery. There is a reason why we have laws in place that make it illegal to take or possess photos of nude children and teenagers, no matter what the setting.
I know there will be someone come along and say, “What about naked photos of baby bottoms on things like greeting cards?” I would say there’s a huge difference between an innocent little baby butt and a thirteen-year-old girl’s butt. And there’s a reason why you don’t see nude photos of children on greeting cards at your local store. You see little babies, but not children…and that’s because most people know it isn’t right.
Yes, there is a fine line to be walked here. But in a day and age when simply owning a photograph of a nude teenager, in any setting, is enough for an arrest, labeling it “art” doesn’t make it any more correct. I would wonder if Cate would offer up one of her children to be photographed nude.
Pink Stripe WordPress Theme Designed by Joni Mueller &
it’s really walking a fine line doing this kind of “art”
Comment by tuffyt — May 28, 2008 @ 11:54 am
Agree with above.
Art or no art, predators will use this to justify offenses against children. That is for sure. Kate is wrong.
Comment by jane — May 28, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
I can’t believe her stance. I don’t want to see anyone who is unable to vote or drink naked. Period. Enough said.
Shame on Cate.
Comment by D — May 28, 2008 @ 2:37 pm
I have to disagree with you k. I haven’t seen the exhibit in question so I can’t really render an opinion as to whether or not these particular photos are artistic or pornographic. My guess is that you have not seem them either.
Ultimately, labels such as “art” or “pornography” are undefinable. To dismiss them offhand as being artistic means that you must think they’re pornographic. In my opinion, there’s nothing inherently pornographic about the human body. I understand as a parent you have a knee-jerk reaction to want to protect your children. What exactly are your objections? Do you think that displaying these photos it will somehow increase the chance that children are sexually abused? I don’t have to tell what’s wrong with that argument. It’s a common argument used to try to censor art and free speech. Are you concerned that these particular girls are being exploited? That’s a valid concern. I’d have to know more about the exhibit, the artist and his methods, and the girls in question before I could render my opinion.
Comment by Brandon — May 28, 2008 @ 3:11 pm
If you have a child old enough to identify its body parts, then there’s no reason to take nude photographs of that child for any reason whatsoever, in any setting. Nude is nude and if someone takes a photograph of a child with its clothes off, I don’t have to know the artist or do research to know the child is nude. And that’s wrong. Period.
Comment by k — May 28, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
k,
I’d love to throw hypotheticals at you and ask where you draw certain distinctions. But, you sound pretty resolute in your opinion and not interested in debating the subtleties of the argument. So we’ll just have to leave it at that. It’s your blog. Peace.
Comment by Brandon — May 28, 2008 @ 8:10 pm
Well, you’re right…I’m really not interested in the subtleties of this particular subject. However, there are lots of other subjects we can debate at a later time.
That’s one nice thing about this place…if you hang around long enough, there will be a subject come up worth debating. Unlike what some commenters would have you think, I’m not a horrible person.
Looking forward to future discussions.
Comment by k — May 28, 2008 @ 11:01 pm
“Ultimately, labels such as “art†or “pornography†are undefinable.”
I basically agree with this, but I’ll go further. There’s a Japanese movie called _Ai no Kori-da_ (_In the Realm of the Senses_ in English). It’s based on the true story of a prostitute named Abe Sada (you can wiki her) who strangled her lover (with his permission) during sex. Anyway, in the movie, the sex scenes are all real, and this spawned a huge debate on IMDB over whether it’s art or porn. Personally, I’d say it’s both, and I see the debate as founded on a false dichotomy (much like asking if Scientology is a religion or a cult; I think it’s both - a religious cult!).
Incidentally, at one point in the movie, Sada grabs a small, nude boy’s, well, you know, and you can buy this movie uncut in the U.S., complete with a quote from Madonna on the front cover praising it. So I guess there’s another celeb to pounce on, not to mention Amazon and any other retailer that sells it.
The question for the law should be whether or not the child is sexually EXPLOITED, and if not, there really shouldn’t be any controversy. Why not just ask the kids how they feel about the exhibit?
“Art or no art, predators will use this to justify offenses against children. That is for sure. Kate is wrong.”
Art or no art, murderers will use depictions of violence in media to justify murder. Art or no art, zoophiles and animal torturers will use Cat Fancy magazine to justify offenses against cats. Am I the only one who can see how dangerous this kind of thinking is to free speech and free expression?
Comment by Josh — May 29, 2008 @ 1:03 am
I have to agree with Brandon. There is nothing offensive or criminal about human nudity. This is a Judeo/Christian brainwashing argument. I have not seen the exhibit and therefore can’t comment on the art/porn issue. Making arguments that nude photos lead to abuse is wrong on many levels. Abuser are going to abuse with or without pictures. My “abuser” had no pictures in his household. I was “abused” from the age of 7 to 11. I’m using the PC term here, although people like to avoid the correct term (the R word). And if you now say, I’m biased and probably an abuser because I was a victim of abuse, answer me why everyone who’s ever been robbed hasn’t become a thief?
Bottom line: nudity in and of itself isn’t wrong. It’s what you do with it that’s wrong, or right. In fact, I’d be willing to bet none of us would be here if it were not for someone, sometime, somewhere being nude.
Comment by JackWaldron — May 30, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
Characteristics of National Socialist Rule
1. Become a one party state
We basically only have two now and both of them try to do all of the following.
2. Totalitarianism
We become this more and more everyday. Early in our history it was not up to our goverment to tell us whether god was real or not, or that we had to live under gods rule (homosexuals not being able to marry because god said so) or what was porn or not. It can never be a good sign when a police force raids a mueseum.
3. Control Education
Have you seen a chemistry set recently? And don’t think that the goverment doesn’t control our education, ( no child left behind) we are getting dumber by the minute!
4. censor the media
Just ask Howard Stern! Our media is so censored by the goverment I have to my news from underground sources!
5. Censor the arts
I KNOW you don’t think discusting thought when you see a nude 12 year old and neither do I. And if 100,000,000 out 250,000,000 thought that this was child porn or exploitation that STILL would not be a cause to ban them. That is democracy!
6. bring churches under goverment control
This is why we still have the cult of scientology and really as much as i would like to see them go away, i wouldn’t want the goverment to outlaw them.
7. ban unions and strikes
How many times has this happened? Atlanta, georgia anyone?
8. use terror as a tool for control
Terror, Terror, Terror, Terror, Terrorists, Terrorists, Terror, Terror, Terror, Terror, Terrorists, Terror, Terrorists!
9. Use standing armies within the nation as police
How many photos of police in kevlar have you seen, police using automatic weapons, police using tanks?
You may think its child porn, i have seen them and i do not. I think bad people do bad things and you cannot blame the good people in society for the crimes of the bad.
Comment by myron — June 1, 2008 @ 3:37 am
Human bodies are human bodies, no matter they’re young or mature. Why would people assume those who take these photos and those who appreciate these photos lustful and perverted? Who are we to judge what’s in other people’s mind? That’s the justification for censorship — ASSUMPTION of others’ “corruption” and “harm” to society.
Comment by Jin — August 13, 2008 @ 9:11 am