<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.1.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Yes, it&#8217;s art&#8230;</title>
	<link>http://intepid.com/2008-05-27/20.15/</link>
	<description>like tears in rain</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 11:16:25 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: JR</title>
		<link>http://intepid.com/2008-05-27/20.15/#comment-2551</link>
		<author>JR</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2008 05:40:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://intepid.com/2008-05-27/20.15/#comment-2551</guid>
					<description>Why don't we just burn half of classical art while we're at it. Or is that stuff OK because the naked children depicted are all dead now and no-one is liable to be sued by their descendants, and who cares, if there's no liability...

I'm in a city where, in the big end of town it's hard to look up without seeing tiny cherubic genitalia carved in stone. Is that ok because it's traditional, or allegorical, or too expensive to remove?

This Bill Henson trial-by-media makes me sick. Not as sick as the people whose minds are so diseased as to assume pornography and exploitation because that's what's uppermost in their own minds, and then phone in death threats to to careers of respected and respectable artists, though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why don&#8217;t we just burn half of classical art while we&#8217;re at it. Or is that stuff OK because the naked children depicted are all dead now and no-one is liable to be sued by their descendants, and who cares, if there&#8217;s no liability&#8230;</p>
<p>I&#8217;m in a city where, in the big end of town it&#8217;s hard to look up without seeing tiny cherubic genitalia carved in stone. Is that ok because it&#8217;s traditional, or allegorical, or too expensive to remove?</p>
<p>This Bill Henson trial-by-media makes me sick. Not as sick as the people whose minds are so diseased as to assume pornography and exploitation because that&#8217;s what&#8217;s uppermost in their own minds, and then phone in death threats to to careers of respected and respectable artists, though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric Rose</title>
		<link>http://intepid.com/2008-05-27/20.15/#comment-2552</link>
		<author>Eric Rose</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2008 06:41:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://intepid.com/2008-05-27/20.15/#comment-2552</guid>
					<description>I thinks there's something to the fact that classical art is done using media that doesn't involve such a close replication of the subject. Photography is perhaps uncomfortably close (to some people with category blindness) to the mechanism used by Joe Average in taking his holiday snaps and by the kiddie fiddler down the road in getting an image of the kids in the schoolyard. Therefore it's not true art (whatever that might be).

That said, there's a silly situation in the US at the moment, where a Christian group is protesting over the Starbucks logo because it looks like a woman with her legs spread. It doesn't take much to set the ratbags off.

I also noticed that Miranda Devine has stuck her oar in, in the SMH, calling artists the "true philistines". I'm not linking to it here, and not reading it myself, since I think she should just curl up and die, and I don't want to give her any more airspace than necessary.

The ABC repeated the 2002 documentary on Henson, on Tuesday. Lots of shots of him wandering along deserted streets at 3am, looking for that just-so shot of moonlight, smoke, buildings etc. It also showed the wonderful portrait of Simone Young that he did.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I thinks there&#8217;s something to the fact that classical art is done using media that doesn&#8217;t involve such a close replication of the subject. Photography is perhaps uncomfortably close (to some people with category blindness) to the mechanism used by Joe Average in taking his holiday snaps and by the kiddie fiddler down the road in getting an image of the kids in the schoolyard. Therefore it&#8217;s not true art (whatever that might be).</p>
<p>That said, there&#8217;s a silly situation in the US at the moment, where a Christian group is protesting over the Starbucks logo because it looks like a woman with her legs spread. It doesn&#8217;t take much to set the ratbags off.</p>
<p>I also noticed that Miranda Devine has stuck her oar in, in the SMH, calling artists the &#8220;true philistines&#8221;. I&#8217;m not linking to it here, and not reading it myself, since I think she should just curl up and die, and I don&#8217;t want to give her any more airspace than necessary.</p>
<p>The ABC repeated the 2002 documentary on Henson, on Tuesday. Lots of shots of him wandering along deserted streets at 3am, looking for that just-so shot of moonlight, smoke, buildings etc. It also showed the wonderful portrait of Simone Young that he did.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mark</title>
		<link>http://intepid.com/2008-05-27/20.15/#comment-2554</link>
		<author>mark</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:05:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://intepid.com/2008-05-27/20.15/#comment-2554</guid>
					<description>I concur on the Miranda Devine thing. She is vile. I imagine she'll be especially so now what with the return of a "politically correct" government (relatively speaking).

It is funny that Rudd came out so strongly against this work so soon after talking about the importance of art in challenging and inspiring vacuous middle class Australians...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I concur on the Miranda Devine thing. She is vile. I imagine she&#8217;ll be especially so now what with the return of a &#8220;politically correct&#8221; government (relatively speaking).</p>
<p>It is funny that Rudd came out so strongly against this work so soon after talking about the importance of art in challenging and inspiring vacuous middle class Australians&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jo</title>
		<link>http://intepid.com/2008-05-27/20.15/#comment-2555</link>
		<author>jo</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jun 2008 01:27:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://intepid.com/2008-05-27/20.15/#comment-2555</guid>
					<description>charges dropped - yay!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/06/2267360.htm</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>charges dropped - yay!</p>
<p><a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/06/2267360.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/06/2267360.htm</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mark</title>
		<link>http://intepid.com/2008-05-27/20.15/#comment-2556</link>
		<author>mark</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jun 2008 06:33:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://intepid.com/2008-05-27/20.15/#comment-2556</guid>
					<description>That's a relief!

Which is more disturbing for the young model I wonder? To have her nudity discussed at length in editorials like this or to have the Prime Minister describe her portrait as "revolting"...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s a relief!</p>
<p>Which is more disturbing for the young model I wonder? To have her nudity discussed at length in editorials like this or to have the Prime Minister describe her portrait as &#8220;revolting&#8221;&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mark</title>
		<link>http://intepid.com/2008-05-27/20.15/#comment-2558</link>
		<author>mark</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 04:44:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://intepid.com/2008-05-27/20.15/#comment-2558</guid>
					<description>I find myself respecting Andrew Bartlett more and more as I follow his blog:
http://andrewbartlett.com/?p=2037</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I find myself respecting Andrew Bartlett more and more as I follow his blog:<br />
<a href="http://andrewbartlett.com/?p=2037" rel="nofollow">http://andrewbartlett.com/?p=2037</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
