THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER

The lefties at Larvatus Prodeo were not long ago outraged at Australian retailers who were supposedly peddling "inappropriately sexualised clothing for young children" in an ongoing act of "corporate paedophilia". The controversial Bill Henson photographs of scantily and unclad adolescents are, on the other hand, deemed to be "art":

Henson’s artistic interest is in adolescence as a time of metamorphosis which exposes the tensions and strains of living in a body, of being embodied, and of a certain relation of the psyche to the body. He eschews statements of political or sociological intent, though he’s aware that audiences may read such statements into his work. He invites reflection on times of transition, and what it feels like to undergo change. His images are classical and painterly, and ethereal.

And if you don't see the Hanson photos as art there's something wrong with you:

Anyone who views those images as sexual fodder is a sicko.

Now I haven't really paid much attention to the Henson photographs brouhaha and have no idea what was included in the proposed exhibition but do know that at least some of his works are sexually provocative.

Lefties are also worried that action against Henson will have far reaching consequences not only for "arts and culture" but for out "civil liberties" what with "NSW police officers rampaging through galleries".

So on the one hand lefties are aghast that "raunch-for-kids fashion" is "all that is available at the cheapest chain stores" and that this will inevitably result in a whole generation of Australian girls being turned into little Britneys, Parises and JonBenets (and we all know what happened to her...). A photograph of two unclad youngsters apparently dragging off a young unclad girl to do who knows what with her is, on the other hand, art. Hmm.