I am not into anrachistic art where rules are broken in an unruly, rebellious adolescent way, but I feel their can be portraits of all that are very endearing. For instance, regarding context, for those that are from WA, I was sent a copy of a photo in postcard fashion of a young family one day. This couple has just recently had a baby and both husband and wife plus newborn were naked bearing all. At first I thought how strange - but eventually found it quite engaging and threw it on the fridge. The mother was a Miss Jean West Winner (with trophy, car and all) and she was flat chested and at that time looked like 14. She was not. I eventually found it moving. I know them well.
In this case, if the audience are disgusted, if they are confronted, they should esentially not be there. Each to their own but I believe that Rudd has pulled the wrong card here. Art sensibilty is not about Christ in urine or adolescents posing in a naked state - it is the reflection and careful deliberation of perhaps a "chosen" audienceb that should view - not rattle the chains of taboos and the deeper secrets of the human condition.
Again, I of course abhore the exploitation of children, but should we also face the sexualisation of children that we are confronted with everyday and why do we want to conceal this? Many are having sex well before 16 - this is modern life. Why complain about the simple artistic licence of adolescent nudity and why do many object so much to this? What demons does it bring forward and how do we tackle this? By censorship? I think not.
