Art Monthly Australia -- Child Pornography Update

This was something that I posted on previously and posed the question as to whether the photo should be considered to be child pornography. Not many comments, which is more indicative of my limited readership than the importance of the issue, however it would seem that the Classification Board in Australia has made this decision for us.

After Art Monthly Australia chose the picture for its cover as a protest on the recent seizing of images from an exhibition of Bill Henson's work in Sydney, the magazine was reported for a possible violation of the law. The Classification Board was asked for an opinion and it has now given one.

That opinion is to classify the picture with an M rating. This translates to "suitable for publication, though discretion is advised for viewers under the age of 15."

The photo in question of Olympia Nelson was taken by her mother, Pollixeni Papapetrou. Olympia's father Robert Nelson had this to say after the Classification Board came back with its decision, "I think she's feeling very happy because her argument has always been there's nothing wrong with the picture" and "the idea that it's pornographic is absurd."

It is worth noting that the Classification Board decision was not unanimous as several members arguing that the magazine should have been given a Refused Classification rating. The magazine did have additional graphic sexual images inside. A Refused Classification translates to the magazine being prohibited for sale.

At the time the politicians from all parties sensing blood in the water began circling like sharks around a defenceless surfer. The majority were jumping up and down describing the image as pornography, the sexualization of a child, the theft of Olympia's childhood, and that Art Monthly Australia should have all its public funding removed. Now that the Classification Board has issued an M rating I wonder how these same politicians feel about the Classification Board. Are we going to see a full-scale spill at the Board?

Life goes on!

More on Naked Kids as Art

The girl whose picture sparked the latest outbursts in the sexualization of children / child porn debate has come out in her own defence. The girl, Olympia Nelson, at the time the picture was taken was a mere six years old. She is now a much more commanding 11 years old. At 11 years old I am still not convinced that she knows or understands the implications of the photo or the debate that surrounds them.

The photos were taken by the Olympia's mother, Polixeni Papapetrou. I am not sure this makes a difference to the idea or arguments relating to exploitation. However, it does add to the dynamic of the argument the question, who should be able to make decisions relating to the photographing of minor children?

Nevertheless, the interesting part of this story is that Olympia Nelson is "really, really offended" that the PM, Kevin Rudd, cannot stand the images of a naked six year old Olympia. I prefer Brendan Nelson's (no relation as far as I know) characterization of the cover of Art Monthly Australia being the equivalent of a two-fingered salute to the rest of society.

The arguments being presented from both sides have some validity but none seem to be structured with a view to finding or striking some balance between the value of protecting children and any artistic value such images might have.

Art Monthly Australia have missed an opportunity to advance the argument by including other images of bondage involving a Japanese schoolgirl and a woman on the receiving end of some oral sex from an octopus. Sounds a little fetishy to me but I am sure it will peak some one's interest. Nevertheless, this is hardly a good means of getting people on side with your position.

The idea that these publications receive federal funding and therefore must comply to a certain standard would seem that the government offers funding as a means of dictating norms. There are probably arguments relating to free speech on this front but there are equally valid arguments that if the government is paying for it then it perhaps has a right to expect certain content acceptability provisions are to be put into place.

It would seem that this debate still has a ways to go before any resolution is found.