Sick of all the writing talk yet?
Yeah, me too, a little bit.
What’s left then? Well, let’s see, I was in a minor car accident yesterday. We’re all fine, thank heavens, but the car is being towed away today to get fixed because it is undriveable (luckily I was able to get it home, as the accident only happened a block away).
Which leaves me all flustered, emotionally charged and vulnerable.
So when stories like these hit the headlines, they really capture my attention – for possibly all the wrong reasons. Or the right ones. It depends on your viewpoint.
In a nutshell: a mother – an artist – takes nude shots of her six year old five years ago. These are now featured in a (tax funded) art publication. The front cover is a nude shot of the girl.
I was busy when the Bill Henson debate came out to properly formulate an opinion on the subject (thought I read many on both sides of the debate). This new controversy has kind of struck a nerve with me because it raises all these questions of what is morally acceptable when it comes to representations of very young childhood in the art world. Or in any world, really. Is it pornography? Is this family (the father is an art critic) exploiting the child?
This accusation has been pointed to many a ‘mommy/parent’ blogger – not so much in Australia, but elsewhere. I’ve read many bloggers who are charged with exploitation because they dare to tell stories about their child, post their pictures without worrying about or considering that some sort of consent would be first needed; and they’ve reacted with all the defensive indignation as you could expect.
So if this media spotlight were to shine on parent blogs here in Australia, right now, where many shots can be found of the adorably nude antics our children get up to and we, as the adoring parent, can’t help but post to boast, would we escape without charge or accusation? Would it matter if your blog was monetised or not? For surely if it was (ummm…like mine) then the prosecution could build a tidy case.
I suppose it comes down to a question of aesthetics. At what point does a photograph – any photograph – cross the line from something without significant depth or imposed meaning to one that does? Surely, if you’ve seen the front cover in question, the subject has been formally modelled into a specific pose. A pose, frankly (I feel) better suited to a female 15-20 years that girl’s senior. But do I condemn the shot?
I’m not sure.
Because if I do, am I damning the mother, or damning the artist? Do I even differentiate between the two?
Do I want to?
Normally, no.
******
Yet. Yet…
******
This has all happened the same week I found my son’s picture linked to from an adult German site dedicated to children in various forms of dress-ups. (I’ve since removed the post because the clickovers were just getting ridiculous. It was where he was in Keira’s ballerina outfit.)
Yep.
I’m about as pleased to report this as you’d guess me to be. So now, whenever I upload something to Flickr I have to ask myself a self-censoring question: “Can this be taken and misappropriated?”
Something I have all along, I stress. It’s just now, I will so even more.
I love my children; I’m sure that artist loves her girl. It’s a question of context and interpretation. It’s a whole lot of questions.
Am I drawing a link where there is none? Are any of you feeling slightly squeemish about this story?
