Flashermac Posted July 7, 2008 Report Share Posted July 7, 2008 A child pictured naked on the cover of an Australian arts magazine has said she is "offended" by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's criticism of the photo. Mr Rudd re-ignited a row over children in art when he criticised the July cover of Art Monthly Australia. The girl, Olympia Nelson, 11, has said she is proud of the image taken by her mother, a photographer, in 2003. The magazine's editor said the cover was in protest at the closing of a photo exhibition of naked children. Mr Rudd had reacted strongly to the front cover image, saying: "Frankly, I can't stand this stuff." He added: "We're talking about the innocence of little children here. A little child cannot answer for themselves about whether they wish to be depicted in this way." He was supported by opposition Liberal Party leader Brendan Nelson, who described the image as a "two-fingered salute to the rest of society". This kid is eleven??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Posted July 7, 2008 Report Share Posted July 7, 2008 Eleven now.. The pic is 5 years old... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian2 Posted July 7, 2008 Report Share Posted July 7, 2008 They interviewed her and her father on Australia Network on the weekend. The father is straight out of the 60s; the real stereotypical arty farty, hippy, almost certainly bats for both sides... need I go on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torneyboy Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 However, Olympia Nelson appeared at a press conference with her father, the art critic Robert Nelson, and said the picture was her favourite image. It shows her sitting naked in front of a painted landscape. The photograph was taken by her mother, Melbourne photographer Polixeni Papapetrou, when she was six years old. "I'm really, really offended by what Kevin Rudd had to say about this picture," she told reporters. Well said .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted July 8, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 Eleven now.. The pic is 5 years old... I meant that accompanying photo of her NOW at eleven. She is painted up like a street whore. Must have a great mama. Memories of Jon Benet Ramsey ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USVirgin Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 My kid sister was the subject of some artsy-fartsy photos taken by a renowned American photographer living in Ireland, when she was about 13 years old. Nothing pornographic, topless as I recall, and I never could figure out why anyone would want to look at those kind of pictures anyway. Later, while studying at Berzerkley, she decided to make a fiance of a childrens' rights activist, and then the game was on. Dad was suddenly a child abuser for having sent her over to Ireland, leaving her in that guy's custody, and there were court proceedings pending. It caused a bit of a rift in the family. Fortunately, she wised up, dumped the fiance, found a decent guy and after many years now lives happily in the west of Ireland. I don't really know what to say about this subject, because I don't consider 'artistic' material offensive. But since nudity is largely considered a bit dodgy, and kids are considered too young to make decisions, why not then leave the kids alone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 Here's a link with the original photo that started the trouble. It looks harmless enough. Art? I don't know. I suppose the next show will be a bit riskier and so on. People get used to things fast these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USVirgin Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 Personally, I see nothing wrong with that photo. We see naked kids since childhood, become parents, and never think of having a wank over a pre-pubescent girl. At least, most of us. However, we all thought my sister was nuts when she objected to being in those pictures that I posted about. Problem was, it was her and not us who was the subject - I guess that gives her more of a right to protest. And if she says she was uncomfortable taking her clothes off for that photographer, who are we to say her memory was adjusted by her childrens' rights idiot boyfriend (which she was) ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted July 8, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 Parents have been arrested in the States over nude pics of their new born babies! The idiots are out there ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 I don't know about your sister...maybe she feels she was exploited. Sounds like somebody put that idea in her head. And parents not being able to take pics of their own kids naked is just plain stupid. I guess the point where society gets involved is precisely when somebody puts pics of naked kids on art gallery walls. Somebody has to decide whether it's art or not. That's become just about impossible to say. Nobody really knows what art is and nobody wants to be accused of censorship. That picture of the little girl certainly looks harmless but who's to say the next one won't be a little more provocative? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.