Vanity Fair cover upsets Moral Minority www.piperpost.net - 4.5.08. Another stunning photograph by the brilliant Annie Leibovitz has upset the Moral Minority. Miley Cyrus, the 15-year-old star of the Disney TV series Hannah Montana appears on the cover of the June issue of Vanity Fair in a discrete semi-nude pose. The photo with others taken at the same time has stirred the usual critics into action. The mere hint of flesh flashed by a teen star is enough to send them into a frenzy. More than 3 million viewers watch Hannah Montana and Miley is reportedly rapidly reaching the status of being a billionaire a result of her stunning success in this show. COMMENT: It is a beautiful photo, as one would expect from the conjunction of a great creative photographer and a truly lovely young subject. Miley - you have nothing to apologize for. And as for Disney, they should be thankful for having you as one of their stars. Uproar over topless teen photo. www.piperpost.net - 18.5.08 Zippora Seven, a 16-year-old New Zealand model, has appeared bare-breasted in a photo spread in the lifestyle and fashion magazine Russh Australia. One photo show Zippora and a 16-year-old male model Levi Clarke in a bath together. Bottles of champagne are nearby.  In another photo Zippora rides a horse while topless. It was later reported that the Australian Classification Board had contacted the publisher. There are rules about depicting nudity involving minors, with emphasis on prohibiting 'sexualised' nudity. 'It's not just the nudity itself - for example there are nature magazines that might show naked children - it's the manner in which it is depicted,' a spokeswoman for the Board said. Initially it was reported that Zippora's modelling agency, Red Eleven, was shocked by the photos but since then the agency has stated publicly that they support their model's decision to go topless. Amanda Betts, a Red Eleven director who discovered Zippora said the agency was surprised, but not disappointed, with the  pictures. 'That's a misquote. I think it's a really beautiful shoot - I love Russh.' All the models Red Eleven represented were taught to research each proposed photo shoot, and to discuss the details with family members. 'Making an educated decision is the most important thing - once they make those decisions we back them,' she said. It has since been announced that the Classification Board has decided no action is necessary. COMMENT: More fuss about nothing. Furore continues over Vanity Fair photos www.piperpost.net - 11.5.08. The criticisms continue to flow in the USA over the photos of Hanna Montana star Miley Cyrus.It has been claimed that the TV audience for the show fell as a result of this 'exposure' of the popular teenager. But the show still attracted 3.2 million viewers, a huge audience. Meanwhile Hugh Heffner has added fuel to the fire by stating he would offer Miley a place in Playboy magazine once she turned 18. And The Spoof site (http:www.thespoof.com) posted the report: 'Today Barack Obama announced in a surprise move that he had chosen as his running mate, none other than Miley Cyrus.' COMMENT: What can one say about those poor Americans who get so uptight about a bit of skin? Editorial: IS THE AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER'S RELIGION SHOWING? www.piperpost.net - 25.5.08 Prime Minister Kevin Rudd joined the unthinking rabble who implicitly slapped the Scarlet Letter 'pornography' onto Bill Henson's breast when they saw his latest batch of photos. In Mr Rudd's words the images were 'revolting.' Mr Rudd should crawl back into his pew, along with Opposition leader Brendan Nelson with the latter's nonsensical babble about the 'inherent dignity of young people.' As we have now been denied by the censorious apparatchiks the opportunity to view the images in their untrammelled form it is hard to tell but from what one can see, e.g., of the one below, they must be lovely photographs, enhancing rather than detracting from 'the dignity of the young people' involved. The matter may go to court. It might be a good thing if we had this issue out in the open once and for all. I believe the court would throw out any such case.  Time and again through the years courts have determined that in essence nakedness per se is not obscenity, even if the nakedness is of a young child (as discussed in my own book The LAW AND THE CAMERA*). And as for 'pornography' - the true definition of this word has long since been lost in the warped minds of the rabble. I quote from the Concise Oxford Dictionary: 'The explicit description or depiction of sexual activity in literature, films, etc., intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.' For many decades photographs of fully naked children have appeared in various nature magazines without let or hindrance. And the church itself has been fond of naked 'cherubs' (modelled by real children) cavorting in its artworks.  There may be suggestions of sexual activity in Mr Henson's photos. I don't know. As I have said, we cannot know as we cannot now see them, but what has been seen appears innocent. Hopefully the American disease - fear of nakedness - is not taking over our mindset. It is a disease fostered by religion. But perhaps the truth is that some of the rabble who cry loudest (and I have to except our politician masters) against such an exhibition are uncomfortable when confronting the beautiful bodies of young children. Perhaps their erotic rather than aesthetic feelings are aroused!  If that is the case we cannot blame the photographer for potential child abuse, any more than we can blame the swimming-pool maker for the child who drowns in the pool they make. True art triumphs over the philistines. www.piperpost.net - 8.6.08 The pack of yapping self-taught art critics have been dealt a blow by the very institution they hoped would consign Bill Henson's photography to the flames - the Censor! As reported in the last issue art photographs by internationally renowned photographer Bill Henson were removed from the Oxley9 Gallery in Paddington. The photographs included studies of naked children and were no different to many similar images produced and displayed by the artist over the years. But suddenly our morals police, including - to the disappointment and even embarrassment of many of us - the Australian Prime Minister, Mr Kevin Rudd, swooped. Many of us expected a more enlightened response than we got from the PM.  Unfortunately he has since refused to retract the pejorative 'revolting' tag he unwisely used to describe Henson's works.  Doubtless it would be more to his taste to view portraits of famous Australian sporting personalities. It is fortunate that the Classification Board is of more enlightened disposition and describes all the images as being 'mild' - PG-rated in fact. Police later announced that no charges were being laid - as it was highly unlikely any conviction would result. Even a lay lawyer could see that. Once again, let it be reiterated - nudity per se is not pornography. And nudity per se is not obscenity. As for 'pornography' - the true definition of this word has long since been lost in the warped minds of the rabble. I quote from the Concise Oxford Dictionary: 'The explicit description or depiction of sexual activity in literature, films, etc., intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.' Writing in The Gympie Times (Queensland) Greg Wildie expresses the view of many of us: 'The one-sided media reporting of this matter misses the real question. Why have our supposed civic leaders such twisted infantile minds that they cannot look at the image of a naked child without immediately having sexual thoughts? Assuming we are all of equally puerile mentality is insulting.' Footnote: As this issue was being hotly debated a report came through of widespread child sexual abuse perpetrated by United Nations 'peacekeepers'. Yes, UN peacekeepers . . . children as young as six being subjected to sexual assault from UN and other aid workers. What is your Government doing about this shameful situation, Mr Rudd? Image from website devoted to an exhibition of Bill Henson's works at the Art Gallery of New South Wales Art magazine stirs up child nudity issue. www.piperpost.net - 5.7.08 In a follow-up to the storm over Bill Henson's photographs of naked children (detailed in an earlier issue) the latest issue of Art Monthly Australia has appeared with a photo of a naked child on its cover (see below). The NSW Minister for Community Services, Kevin Green, immediately waded in, claiming the images are 'distasteful and inappropriate.' He added: 'We've now reached a sad point where naked six-year-olds are being used to make some sort of artistic comment. It's totally inappropriate in any sense to be using naked six-year-olds on the front cover of any magazine whether it's an art magazine or a general magazine.' COMMENT: As a photographer myself who has taken thousand of photos of children (alas, none nude) I can't believe Mr Green finds the image 'distasteful'. Frankly, I find it neither 'sexy' nor even sensual. And it is not even revealing! But it is not distasteful. What is all the fuss about?  Some years back a book appeared on the Australian market (below) that showed far more of a naked small boy. This book was freely sold in bookshops and as far as I know was never criticized. Footnote to World Youth Day. www.piperpost.net - 12.7.08 What an amazing spectacle: Politicians condemn beautiful art but support the Church that harboured so many criminal child abusers. The Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the NSW Minister for Community Affairs, among others, have publicly denounced the publication of the photo of a naked child in an art magazine (see previous issue of Piper Post). Rather than accuse the makers and publishers of this photo of harming the child (which is patently a nonsensical claim) these gentlemen should explain to the Australian people why they are pouring millions of dollars of our money into promoting the Catholic Church - a body that has harboured hundreds of child-abusing priests over many years, and worse, has covered up that abuse, shielding many of the abusers from prosecution. Let them tell us - why so many bishops and cardinals in many countries escaped prosecution when they had clearly failed in their public duty to report abusers to the police? Did some politicians and officials turn a blind eye to this dereliction of duty? In the last few days we have seen the child in question, Olympia Nelson, an intelligent, well-adjusted young girl, appear with her family. Olympia, now aged 11, quite rightly expressed dismay that our Prime Minister should describe the beautiful photograph taken by her mother as  'offensive'. Watching Olympia and thinking about earlier reactions to Bill Henson's photographs as also to the magnificent photograph of Miley Cyris taken by Annie Lebovitz I finally realized what it really bugging the critics. For all their talk of protecting children and not 'sexualizing' them (as they quaintly put it) the hidden core of their objections, the one they dare not admit, is the fear of human nakedness!  Thus in such circumstances it is so often claimed, 'the model will be sorry when she gets older.'  Sorry for what? For being naked in public? Clearly human nakedness frightens the Christians who are so quick to condemn the photographers who find beauty in the nude body. Obviously they are still in thrall to the primitive fear expressed in the Genesis fable (chapter 3). Adam and Eve were 'naked and afraid'! So we have the contrast - on the one hand, children like Olympia who are not being abused and who, in fact, live wonderfully full lives and who share something precious of themselves with the rest of us - freely and happily. And on the other hand, children (droves of them, too, remember) whose lives were forever blighted by being forced into sexual activities unwillingly at an early age by the representatives of the very Church that parades itself blatantly through Sydney's streets, supported by Government largesse. CHRISTIAN GROUP URGES CONTROLS ON ART. Following the outcry over artworks featuring naked children (as reported in earlier issues of Piper Post) a religious organization known as The Australian Christian Lobby is urging Government action to control such art. Meanwhile the Classification Board approved the July edition of Art Monthly magazine, which featured a naked Olympia Nelson, then aged six, on the cover, taken by her mother Pollixeni Papapetrou. Earlier the Board had also approved images of naked adolescents by Bill Henson. www.piperpost.net - 09.08.08 Children in art controversy . . . www.piperpost.net - 09.11.08. Following the controversy over Bill Henson's photographs of nude children - detailed in an earlier issue of Piper Post - The Australia Council has announced plans to develop a set of protocols governing the depiction of children in art. The protocols, to be in place by January 1, 2009, will cover photography, artworks, exhibitions and publications. The Council holds the whip hand in that it controls the administration of Government funds handed out to artists and art organizations. Securing funding will depend on adhering to the protocols. Meanwhile some state governments have also been examining the laws relating to such activities. Bill Henson had some of his photographs seized by police but these were eventually returned to him and references of his work and an issue of an art magazine to the Film and Literature Classifications Board resulted in no action being taken. No laws had been broken. Concern has been expressed by some in Government and the community about the effect on the subjects of such photographs. One such child was very outspoken on the matter. Olympia Nelson, an intelligent, well-adjusted young girl, appear with her family on TV. Olympia, now aged 11, quite rightly expressed dismay that Prime Minister Rudd should describe the beautiful photograph taken by her mother as  'offensive'. At the time I commented: 'Watching Olympia and thinking about earlier reactions to Bill Henson's photographs as also to the magnificent photograph of Miley Cyris taken by Annie Lebovitz I finally realized what it really bugging the critics. For all their talk of protecting children and not 'sexualizing' them (as they quaintly put it) the hidden core of their objections, the one they dare not admit, is the fear of human nakedness!  Thus in such circumstances it is so often claimed, 'the model will be sorry when she gets older.'  Sorry for what? For being naked in public?' I am not in the same league as Bill Henson nor Annie Lebovitz but I have taken thousands of pictures of children, alas, almost none of nude children. But here is one of mine to brighten the page . . . Arts Council of Australia kowtows to critics . . . www.piperpost.net - 18.01.09. The Arts Council of Australia has kowtowed to the noisy moral minority who came out of the woodwork over the issue of photos of nude children (reported in earlier issues of Piper Post). The Council has set up a set of onerous conditions it will impose of photographers and artists who wish to work with children in future. Artists will be inhibited in publishing not only works depicting naked children but any children. These conditions apply to anyone who receives funding from the Council, a body supported by the Rudd government, whose leader is a well-known Christian moralist. He is evidently backed by Arts Minister, Peter Garrett. The rules apply to all 'children' under the age of 18 (young people can drive at age 17!). 'Publication' embraces books, magazines, the Internet, catalogs, indeed virtually anything. Criticism of these oppressive requirements has been widespread. 'These are very onerous conditions that amount to de facto censorship,' says Tamara Winikoff of the National Association for the Visual Arts. 'It seems excessively paranoid and misdirected.' FOOTNOTE: No such restrictions apply to those who are not supported by the Arts Council (yet!). For any of my readers who dare enjoy looking at children's photos I append some of my own - HERE.

Go back to front page of site