Last week Age arts critic Robert Nelson reopened the debate on the representation of children in art by publishing a naked picture of his daughter Olympia on the cover of Arts Monthly magazine.
Professional dyspeptic Andrew Bolt, in his new role as moral crusader (taking a break from his role as fingers-in-the-ears-antiscience-climate-change-denier) was obviously horrified.
On Thursday Bolt published on his blog an earlier piece by Nelson, in which Nelson talks about the ways in which images of children are sexual. Bolt describes Nelson's piece as "disturbing", but as is often the case, he's completely missed the point.
If what Nelson says about the images being sexual isn't true, then Bolt's own argument that the images shouldn't be seen . . . because they're sexual . . . make no sense!
Of course the pictures are sexual. But the point is that the pictures aren't sexualising the children. They're just bringing out, as Mr Nelson says, the latent sexuality that is already there.
You can't make a teapot sexual merely by photographing it naked.
Bolt and Nelson are actually in complete agreement on this point.
The only difference is that Nelson advocates the pictures' public display, while Bolt (along with Kevin Rudd and Hetty Johnston and all our other self-appointed moral nannies) wants them hidden away.
I have to agree with Robert Nelson. Let's bring it out into the open. Hiding our children away in dark corners does not keep them safe.
If we genuinely want to see a reduction in child abuse, then let's give our kids pride in themselves, pride in their strength and most importantly, ownership of their sexuality.
The problem with the current stampede of moral outrage is that it works completely counter to this goal. Kevin Rudd saying he "cannot stand" the picture of Olympia is a case in point.
Olympia was understandably offended by his statement because she's proud of her pictures, as she should be. And does Olympia sound like the sort of girl who would stand to be abused? Of course not.
A child with a healthy sense of his or her own worth is the child that will kick an abuser in the nuts and run away.
Surely that's what we want our kids to be.
Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts
Saturday, 12 July 2008
Monday, 7 July 2008
Yet More Moral Outrageousness
A few weeks ago, when Bill Henson's pictures were quietly returned to the galleries from whence they'd been confiscated and our self-appointed moral guardians had been distracted by the next shiny controversy, I thought this little storm in a teacup was done.
It's obviously a slow news week though, because it's taken only the slightest of nudges to get it back on the front page.
In a protest against the ridiculous view that nudity = porn = bad, the publishers of Art Monthly have put a picture of a naked 6-year-old on the front cover of their latest issue.
Apparently this is what we're getting outraged about as a society now.
Millions are starving all over the world, we are on the verge of doing irreparable damage to our climate, and soon Australian Idol will be back on our screens.
And what's the biggest issue of the day? The thing that's threatening our society the most? A picture of a little nude girl. Seriously.
The reaction from our "leaders" has been sadly predictable. K-Rudd and Dr Nelson have fallen over themselves in a scramble to see who can appear the most apoplectically outraged. I think Nelson may have clinched it with his threat to call the cops.
In an interesting development the subject of the photograph, now 11 years old, has hit back saying she is proud of the picture and offended that K-Rudd said he hated it.
Take that, Kevin.
Now can we talk about something serious?
For goodness sake, Idol will be back any day now. If we really want to do something about child exploitation, then our efforts would be much better spent ridding the world of that abomination.
It's obviously a slow news week though, because it's taken only the slightest of nudges to get it back on the front page.
In a protest against the ridiculous view that nudity = porn = bad, the publishers of Art Monthly have put a picture of a naked 6-year-old on the front cover of their latest issue.
Apparently this is what we're getting outraged about as a society now.
Millions are starving all over the world, we are on the verge of doing irreparable damage to our climate, and soon Australian Idol will be back on our screens.
And what's the biggest issue of the day? The thing that's threatening our society the most? A picture of a little nude girl. Seriously.
The reaction from our "leaders" has been sadly predictable. K-Rudd and Dr Nelson have fallen over themselves in a scramble to see who can appear the most apoplectically outraged. I think Nelson may have clinched it with his threat to call the cops.
In an interesting development the subject of the photograph, now 11 years old, has hit back saying she is proud of the picture and offended that K-Rudd said he hated it.
Take that, Kevin.
Now can we talk about something serious?
For goodness sake, Idol will be back any day now. If we really want to do something about child exploitation, then our efforts would be much better spent ridding the world of that abomination.
Saturday, 28 June 2008
All Heil the FCC
The US Federal Communications Commission (you know, the geniuses behind the media beat-up of Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction) have had another brilliant idea.
I know, they've said . . . let's auction off part of the broadband spectrum to anyone that will provide free Internet without pornography! Or, in their words, a "network-based filtering mechanism...in order to protect children and families."
Recognising this as just one more step back into the Victorian era by a crowd of fascist Luddites, the reaction from the technological crowd has been one of bemusement and muted giggles. The reaction from potential bidders has been more or less non-existent.
Remember when the Howard Government, thinking along similar lines, offered free home-based content filters? Yeah. It took a sixteen-year-old less than 24 hours to crack it.
Hopes and dreams of moral crusaders notwithstanding, the technology required to achieve this just doesn't exist yet. What's more, it's many years of intensive development away.
So here's what will happen:
First, there will be a lot of discussion about freedom of speech from bloggers, and a lot of resistance from the dominant telcos (AT&T etc.). They won't be worried about about the filtering, of course, but about someone providing net access for free.
Then there will be a few parties interested in the auction, but not many. The ultimate price paid will be less than impressive.
Finally once the dust has settled, the costs associated with providing the required porn-free access will blow out massively. Kids will download porn from that spectrum just to show it can be done, and the FCC will be bombarded with complaints from their parents.
The strawman company set up to run the thing will be weighed down by lawsuits and declare bankruptcy, a lot of well-meaning but ignorant creditors will lose their money and the whole project will be summarily abandoned.
Or, there might be a sudden outbreak of common sense and the whole thing might be dropped before it begins. But I wouldn't count on it.
I know, they've said . . . let's auction off part of the broadband spectrum to anyone that will provide free Internet without pornography! Or, in their words, a "network-based filtering mechanism...in order to protect children and families."
Recognising this as just one more step back into the Victorian era by a crowd of fascist Luddites, the reaction from the technological crowd has been one of bemusement and muted giggles. The reaction from potential bidders has been more or less non-existent.
Remember when the Howard Government, thinking along similar lines, offered free home-based content filters? Yeah. It took a sixteen-year-old less than 24 hours to crack it.
Hopes and dreams of moral crusaders notwithstanding, the technology required to achieve this just doesn't exist yet. What's more, it's many years of intensive development away.
So here's what will happen:
First, there will be a lot of discussion about freedom of speech from bloggers, and a lot of resistance from the dominant telcos (AT&T etc.). They won't be worried about about the filtering, of course, but about someone providing net access for free.
Then there will be a few parties interested in the auction, but not many. The ultimate price paid will be less than impressive.
Finally once the dust has settled, the costs associated with providing the required porn-free access will blow out massively. Kids will download porn from that spectrum just to show it can be done, and the FCC will be bombarded with complaints from their parents.
The strawman company set up to run the thing will be weighed down by lawsuits and declare bankruptcy, a lot of well-meaning but ignorant creditors will lose their money and the whole project will be summarily abandoned.
Or, there might be a sudden outbreak of common sense and the whole thing might be dropped before it begins. But I wouldn't count on it.
Thursday, 12 June 2008
ClearPlay
Here's an interesting idea from the Land of the Free . . . ClearPlay.
It's a modified DVD player that will play regular DVDs, but edit them on the fly based on downloaded templates. It'll remove violence, sex scenes or profanity, depending on what you choose to find offensive.
A quick glance at the list of movies available has some surprises: Fight Club and Saw are both there, and presumably run for about five minutes each.
I'm genuinely ambivalent about this.
While I find it offensive that someone's art can be arbitrarily cut up by some prudish hack, I appreciate the argument that a consumer should be able to choose what they see.
Mostly I feel sorry for people who would willingly rob themselves of the breadth of feeling you get from films like Pan's Labyrinth. If you take out the sickening violence, you miss the contrast with the childlike innocence at the heart of the story, and you might as well be watching The Little Mermaid.
Imagine if this catches on. Rather than a movie being rated PG, M or R, studios will release a different cut corresponding to each rating.
More cinemas be built to cater for the multiple versions of blockbusters. A new breed of auteur will arise that refuses to make multiple cuts.
And George Lucas will use it as an excuse for yet another special edition of Star Wars.
So what do we think, kids? Good idea or bad idea?
It's a modified DVD player that will play regular DVDs, but edit them on the fly based on downloaded templates. It'll remove violence, sex scenes or profanity, depending on what you choose to find offensive.
A quick glance at the list of movies available has some surprises: Fight Club and Saw are both there, and presumably run for about five minutes each.
I'm genuinely ambivalent about this.
While I find it offensive that someone's art can be arbitrarily cut up by some prudish hack, I appreciate the argument that a consumer should be able to choose what they see.
Mostly I feel sorry for people who would willingly rob themselves of the breadth of feeling you get from films like Pan's Labyrinth. If you take out the sickening violence, you miss the contrast with the childlike innocence at the heart of the story, and you might as well be watching The Little Mermaid.
Imagine if this catches on. Rather than a movie being rated PG, M or R, studios will release a different cut corresponding to each rating.
More cinemas be built to cater for the multiple versions of blockbusters. A new breed of auteur will arise that refuses to make multiple cuts.
And George Lucas will use it as an excuse for yet another special edition of Star Wars.
So what do we think, kids? Good idea or bad idea?
Saturday, 29 March 2008
Games Rating Redux
The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG . . . no really . . . it's called SCAG . . . tee-hee) met yesterday, to discuss the introduction of an R-rating for video games in Australia.
Surprise, surprise, they failed to reach agreement. South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson is continuing his stubborn opposition to the proposal.
To me, Atkinson's immovability is a clear case of government overstepping its charter, and making decisions for the people that the people should be making for themselves.
The happy news is that the majority of SCAG agrees with me. The outcome of yesterday's meeting was that there will be a public consultation on the issue. In some form or other.
I can predict the results of that consultation already. The last time the public was asked, in a 2005 Bond University study, the public was resoundingly in favour of the proposal.
Of course, whether it translates into a legislative change is an entirely separate question.
Surprise, surprise, they failed to reach agreement. South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson is continuing his stubborn opposition to the proposal.
To me, Atkinson's immovability is a clear case of government overstepping its charter, and making decisions for the people that the people should be making for themselves.
The happy news is that the majority of SCAG agrees with me. The outcome of yesterday's meeting was that there will be a public consultation on the issue. In some form or other.
I can predict the results of that consultation already. The last time the public was asked, in a 2005 Bond University study, the public was resoundingly in favour of the proposal.
Of course, whether it translates into a legislative change is an entirely separate question.
Tuesday, 18 March 2008
An Open Letter to Michael Atkinson
Hon. Michael Atkinson
488 Port Rd
Welland SA 5077
Dear Sir,
I respectfully add my voice to the growing chorus asking you to reconsider your stance opposing an R-rating for video games in Australia.
Your opposition means that many fine games available overseas are simply banned here in Australia, as they do not meet the requirements of the MA15+ classification.
You know that the median age of Australian gamers is 28. You know, for you have been told repeatedly, that video games are not just for children.
Despite knowing all of this, you seem have missed the main point. The point is that video games are not even primarily for children.
I don’t think you fully understand this.
I think that when you envision a group of video gamers, the image in your mind is one of 10-year-olds, not 30-year-olds. If this is the case, it must be a major stumbling-block to your analysis of the issue.
There are, of course, video games designed for children. But there are far, far more designed specifically for adults.
The complexity of storytelling and character development in modern video games like Bioshock, Halo and Mass Effect easily rivals the best Hollywood has to offer.
More to the point, these games require a level of reasoning and patience that, while not beyond children, is much less interesting to a child than it is to an adult.
In your speech to State Parliament on March 6, you made specific mention of the game Reservoir Dogs, banned in Australia in 2006, but which would become available under an R classification.
The game is based on the 1992 film of the same name. The film is readily available in Australia with an R-rating.
Because of this R-rating, there is no concern in the community that children might be adversely affected by this film. The classification system gives parents the information they need to make informed choices for their children.
This classification system works very well, and would work just as well if applied to video games. Were the game to be available with an R-rating, there would be no concern in the community for precisely the same reason.
In closing, we the people of Australia thank you for your concern, Mr. Atkinson.
But we want you to understand that we can look after ourselves and our children. We believe that the responsibility for monitoring a child’s entertainment choices lies with the child's parents. It does not lie with the government, and it does not lie with you.
That, Mr. Atkinson, is not your job. Your job, as an elected representative of the people, is simply that. To represent the people.
The people of Australia are saying clearly that they support an R-rating for games.
Your colleagues in the parliament agree.
Every other developed nation on Earth has an R-rating for video games.
Your views are out of step with the views of your colleagues, the views of the Australian public and the views of the international community.
Mr. Atkinson, I ask you to please consider your position.
Yours Sincerely,
Matt
488 Port Rd
Welland SA 5077
Dear Sir,
I respectfully add my voice to the growing chorus asking you to reconsider your stance opposing an R-rating for video games in Australia.
Your opposition means that many fine games available overseas are simply banned here in Australia, as they do not meet the requirements of the MA15+ classification.
You know that the median age of Australian gamers is 28. You know, for you have been told repeatedly, that video games are not just for children.
Despite knowing all of this, you seem have missed the main point. The point is that video games are not even primarily for children.
I don’t think you fully understand this.
I think that when you envision a group of video gamers, the image in your mind is one of 10-year-olds, not 30-year-olds. If this is the case, it must be a major stumbling-block to your analysis of the issue.
There are, of course, video games designed for children. But there are far, far more designed specifically for adults.
The complexity of storytelling and character development in modern video games like Bioshock, Halo and Mass Effect easily rivals the best Hollywood has to offer.
More to the point, these games require a level of reasoning and patience that, while not beyond children, is much less interesting to a child than it is to an adult.
In your speech to State Parliament on March 6, you made specific mention of the game Reservoir Dogs, banned in Australia in 2006, but which would become available under an R classification.
The game is based on the 1992 film of the same name. The film is readily available in Australia with an R-rating.
Because of this R-rating, there is no concern in the community that children might be adversely affected by this film. The classification system gives parents the information they need to make informed choices for their children.
This classification system works very well, and would work just as well if applied to video games. Were the game to be available with an R-rating, there would be no concern in the community for precisely the same reason.
In closing, we the people of Australia thank you for your concern, Mr. Atkinson.
But we want you to understand that we can look after ourselves and our children. We believe that the responsibility for monitoring a child’s entertainment choices lies with the child's parents. It does not lie with the government, and it does not lie with you.
That, Mr. Atkinson, is not your job. Your job, as an elected representative of the people, is simply that. To represent the people.
The people of Australia are saying clearly that they support an R-rating for games.
Your colleagues in the parliament agree.
Every other developed nation on Earth has an R-rating for video games.
Your views are out of step with the views of your colleagues, the views of the Australian public and the views of the international community.
Mr. Atkinson, I ask you to please consider your position.
Yours Sincerely,
Matt
Monday, 23 July 2007
Tintin in the Adults Section
Borders bookstores have made the decision to move the book Tintin in the Congo out of the kids section and into the adults section of their stores.
For those who haven't read it, this is the earliest Tintin to be published in the familiar book form, after first appearing as a serial in Belgian newspaper Le Vingtième Siècle. First published in 1931, it tells the story of intrepid reporter Tintin's visit to the Belgian Congo on a hunting trip.
It's easily the most violent and racist of the Tintin books, featuring scenes of animal slaughter and some genuinely shocking colonialism. Africans are portrayed as naive children, desperately in need of the guiding hand of enlightened Europeans to achieve something resembling civilisation. While this is a genuine reflection of European attitudes at the time, it's definitely not for kids.
The thing is, I think similar charges could be made about all the Tintin books, or at least the vast majority of them.
The portrayal of Africans in Tintin in the Congo is a racist and offensive caricature, but portrayals of Chinese people in The Blue Lotus and Native Americans in Tintin in America are not much better. And these are just the most obvious ones. The Tintin books regularly deal with Arabs, Jews and Eastern Europeans in less-than-flattering terms. The only ones that get off scot-free are Western Europeans.
Hergé even has a go at white America, showing it to be full of gangsters and money-obsessed buffoons. But really, that's just funny.
The more I think about it the more I wonder, was this stuff ever really just for kids? It's cut from the same cloth as the Hardy Boys and the Famous Five, with gun running and drug smuggling two of the most common plotlines. But Tintin is much more upfront about the subject matter. People are regularly shot and killed with the guns being run, and the drugs being smuggled aren't just nameless "packages" being moved in the dead of night . . . the drugs are used as poison, or to knock people out. And even to get high. The book Cigars of the Pharaoh, about a narcotics smuggling ring, makes no bones about what this stuff is for, with some really wacky psychedelic imagery. And this was way back in 1934.
So move them all to the adults section, I say. The kids of today's iGeneration surely aren't interested in this stuff. Let's face it, the only people still buying it are boomers and Gen X-ers on a nostalgia trip.
Not that that's a bad thing.
Friday, 18 May 2007
The Great Firewall
So both Budge and Paul's blogs are illegal in China.
Mine is too. So says this little site here.
Which got me to thinking . . . just what does get through the Great Firewall? Let's try a few.
Starting simple: http://www.google.com/
Hmmm. This takes a while . . . not sure I can be bothered doing too many of these. And . . . . No! "Your URL is blocked!"
No big surprise there.
Although I'm not sure the exclamation mark is necessarily required. It's almost like they're pleased.
What about the Chinese version? http://www.google.cn/
That's blocked too? I'm getting suspicious now.
Let's have some fun with http://www.theonion.com/
Hooray! Success! They need to be careful with this one, though, especially after this little debacle.
Let's try some serious(ish) media. http://www.ten.com.au
Nope. Must be all the boobies and turkey slapping in Big Brother.
Or Rove.
One last try. I'm getting bored. What about that bastion of Aussie left-wingism . . . http://www.abc.net.au/ ?
Yes. Available. Well, it's nice to know that for all the restrictions, our Chinese comrades can still see Your ABC.
And http://www.fox.com.
Go figure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)