Is it 'Art'?

At uni, we had this conversation constantly: "Is it 'Art'?" It never failed to illicit much desk-thumping, eye-rolling, finger-pointing, and many disparaging comments on the sorry lack of intelligence possesed by those in the opposing corner of theory to oneself.
I was reminded again how volatile this course of debate can be when I read the recent review of the Aussie photographer Bill Henson's latest show in Melbourne.
I'm not going to post pictures here, because I'd rather not have someone demand my blog gets flagged. Which in itself would suggest that the censors have already won this debate. Before continuing I'd like to specify that a) I'm NOT CONDONING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. I'M ABSOLUTLEY AGAINST CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, b) I'm talking about this because I've wanted to gauge the opinion of my readers on this subject for ages, and c) the editorial I'm going to post is WIDLEY AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET AND HAS BEEN POSTED PREVIOUSLY ON NUMEROUS FASHION-RELATED BLOGS.
I have actually seen some of Bill Henson's work in the past and will never forget my reaction to it. It's very different in the flesh to what it seems in magazines or photographs online. Bigger, (obviously), and far more confronting. I believe it would be impossible for anyone with half a brain cell to view his work and NOT have alarm bells going off in their minds about what it contains. But is that not the point of 'art'? To cause debate? To push the viewer to a deeper understanding of their own 'human-ness' by way of coercing them to decide what they stand for, and what they stand against, in visual culture and society?
I found it simultaneously necessary and interesting that Henson's show was closed in 2008, after the police decended and took numerous photographs which had been deemed child pornography. I mean, Henson does use underage 'models'. I for one am very uncomfortable with underage folks being used in fashion shows and fashion editorials - I don't believe it's at all necessary and as a woman, I will remain un-moved looking at clothes on the body of a 14 year old. All I will be thinking is 'will someone please send this kid back to bloody school?' and 'where is your parent/guardian?'. That's another point: the parent/guardian has had to give permission to Henson, and to any photographer in fact, to take the photographs society than finds so questionable. So does that not mean that the supposed 'fault' lies solely with the adult who has given permission and placed their child in this position? This is another good article on the art/pornography dilemma.

"Taste of Arsenic" photographed by Sean Ellis and styled by Isabella Blow, for The Face, Ocotober 1996.

This is the editorial I've always wondered about with regards to this particular art argument. It has previously been posted here and here. The models were all aged 7-14 at the time of the shoot. Susie Bubble was of the opinion that the editorial would not have 'worked' with older models.... that the use of children was vital to creating the Victorian-esque 'Lord of the Flies' theme. I think that the use of underage models in fashion shows and fashion shoots, adds another level to the debate, because in this context they aren't just in a photograph - they are also a part of commodity culture.

I'm going to refrain from sharing my decisions on both Henson and this editorial, because I'm more interested in learning what you all think about this particularly interesting and necessary art discussion.

How many, how many

Forgot how much I used to love M.I.A, until I stumbled out of bed this morning, dying of flu, and needed to get my life together quick smart for an audition later today. Coffee, loads of makeup and this really loudly, and I'm a new doll. Happy days folks! xoxo

Esme and The Lane Way

The lovely Esme and The Lane Way made my blog a beautiful post, so I made her this collage in thanks.

Sometimes I’m terrified of my heart; of its constant hunger for whatever it is it wants.

The way it stops and starts.     

(Edgar Allan Poe)

They wore blouses with buttons down the front that suggested the possibilities of the word undone. These women could be undone; or not. They seemed to be able to choose.

(Margaret Atwood)

No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality.

(Shirley Jackson)

All human beings search for either reasons to be good, or excuses to be bad.

(Chuck Palahniuk)

Like the generations of leaves, the lives of mortal men. Now the wind scatters the old leaves across the earth, now the living timber bursts with the new buds and spring comes round again. And so with men: as one generation comes to life, another dies away.

(Homer)

He thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.

(Stephen King)

She’s the sort of woman who lives for others—you can tell the others by their hunted expression.

(C.S Lewis)

Hateful to me as the gates of Hades is that man who hides one thing in his heart and speaks another.

(Homer)

He wanted all to lie in an ecstasy of peace; I wanted all to sparkle and dance in a glorious jubilee. I said his heaven would be only half alive; and he said mine would be drunk: I said I should fall asleep in his; and he said he could not breathe in mine.

(Emily Bronte)

Where is it I’ve read that someone condemned to death says or thinks, an hour before his death, that if he had to live on some high rock, on such a narrow ledge that he’d only room to stand, and the ocean, everlasting darkness, everlasting solitude, everlasting tempest around him, if he had to remain standing on a square yard of space all his life, a thousand years, eternity, it were better to live so than to die at once! Only to live, to live and live! Life, whatever it may be!

(Raskolnikov)

Images via Blood Milk,  Into The Mystic,  Sighs and Whispers.