Also - a follow up...

[ampheebian]

How is it that Bill Henson was cleared of all charges and it went by without my notice? It pisses me off that someone can so easily be defamed and then the pieces not be picked up again and proper apologies made.

I still have things to say, most primary of all, is to those who say it was an issue of consent not the content of the images - this has

Comments

[secondslater]

Okay can I play devil's advocate? If parents make bad decisions on behalf of their children, ones that cause harm, either mental or physical, is that okay because they are the parents? How do we decide what is and isn't okay?

I agree with artistic freedom. I agree that those images were done in a respectful manner and the intent was only to produce an artistic work. But if a child is not old enough to give legal consent for this, is it right that the parents make that decision? I wonder if it's a problem 'cos we have no control over how those or any other images are used 'after the fact'.

Just putting a different POV. Pheebs I support most of what you said.

[ampheebian]

Yes, you can!

And I absolutely agree with that. And hell, I have nearly taken children away from parents given I knew that I could do a better job than the parents could - and I don't have a parental bone in my body!

Of course we need bodies that state and govern such things - like child protective services... -but- it's important that these bodies view things impartially. My real problem with Hetty Johnston is that this is not the first time she has taken down a public figure for the sake of beating her breast - and she doesn't do it with reasonable argument - she always takes things to the extremes.

Sure, we can change the law on these things, but as it stands right now, the legal system is working in a specific way and that's what we all have to work within, whether we like something's content or not. And to change such laws, or to govern what parents cannot give consent to, I believe, gives more loop holes than not... if that makes sense? For example - you can give consent for photograph type 'A', but not photograph type 'B',

[secondslater]

Yeah I agree, but the law is way behind in most things and with the prolific use of the 'net to portray people in any way that the 'user' sees fit, then I reckon it's impossible to stop abuse. Hetty Johnston is like so many 'advocates'. They lose sight of what's important in the big picture in the hunt to destroy people's reputations and lives. And it's often the wrong people. Take pedophilia, wasn't there 12 million hits on one pedophile site when pics were put there for 76 minutes? Now there's your problem.

[ampheebian]

And that's the shit that gets me ropeable! I also like the idea that we live in a society where we don't punish everyone for the assholes on this planet that are screwed in the noggin'. I think there'd be better advantage to train people to look for the danger signs in the onlooker, so that those of us that don't need to be sanctioned can enjoy all that life has to offer - but apparently that makes me idealistic. Oh well...

It's complex, I don't deny it, but man did it make me angry at the time.

Promised opinion

[manchester_red]

Without knowing quite all the ins and outs and the cultural background re Australia, I've read Phoebe's comments, Steve's arguments and also what Cate Blanchett had to say. I am broadly in line with Phoebe on this - I think you have identified the key points correctly and I think your analysis is spot on.

What is interesting, as an outsider, and we have touched on this above, is seeing Australia find its way in the world. Seems to me that Australian cinema has played a crucial role in this - it's something that the world has been aware of for a long time. I think that a country's cultural output is a good barometer of that country as a whole. For example, America really found its cultural feet in the 20th century - in literature, music, art, cinema.

Feel free to tell me I'm speaking utter bollocks!

Re: Promised opinion

[ampheebian]

The problem I have with most mainstream Australian cinema is it constantly tries to inform Australians of what Australia is - which to me is silly. I don't know if they're aiming to show it to other countries and are so desperate to define to the outer world who we are, but the fact is, most Australian film will only ever be seen here and - even so - is rarely seen here. I think a lot of Australian 'art' (whether it be literature, film or painting) struggles with this identity all too consistently. Like, I don't want to read about what it is to be a 25 year old in rural Australia because it's the quintessential story that every Australian should know, rather I'd prefer to read about experience, or just a story that happens in Darwin. For example, no one watches Six Feet Under to watch what life in LA is like, right?

I'm not saying all Australian arts are caught in this trap, but those that are lauded as the most important stories, or films do - and it's troublesome, some good stuff is really being shoved to the side... in that

Re: Promised opinion

[manchester_red]

Know what you mean, remembering the kind of Aussie films that have done well over here and have been critically acclaimed.

Re: Promised opinion

[secondslater]

I didn't think Pheebs initial argument was so much about what made us 'Australian', so much as what made us, meaning 'people' in the generic sense, think the way we do. Why do we see one thing as 'indecent' and another as 'art'?

I agree tho' that what defines us as Aussies is sometimes misrepresented to the rest of the world. It's like we have to 'play the role' of an Aussie as others see us, in order to be accepted OS.

Just another 10c worth!