PerthNorg

It always irks me that people comment on things they haven’t seen. Point in case; Brumby.

This is a great alternate view and one I’m finding myself siding with. It’s a piece by Richard Neville on the Homepage Daily, here’s a quote:

But why pick on an art, when trainer bras and sexy lingerie for 6 years olds are hot items, when 5 years olds go to beauty parlours and have makeovers to celebrate their birthdays, when the advertising industrys’ use of very young “models” is morally questionable at so many levels, when ads for jeans are shot like pornography, when ads for lipstick are shot like pornography, when  ads for cars are shot like pornography, and when 75% of the internet is pornography.

Of what I have seen of the pictures, they provoke a very innocent view of children - there is nothing “sexualised” about them.

I think it says a lot about the minds of those who see art as pornography. The only thing “sexualised” is the minds of the people complaining. I have to say I agree with your view, Bronwen.