New Zealand artist Gerald Moonen appears on our radar because of his fight with New Zealand authorities regarding civil rights and standards of decency. I think all readers will agree that censors went way too far in this case. A critic wrote that the image below would have been acceptable if the subjects were boys! Besides being understandably insulted by this notion (the image is of his own daughters), it happens to be the girls’ own grandmother’s favorite picture of them. It supposedly appeared in a book called Image Dei but I cannot confirm this with internet sources.
Gerald Moonen – From the book Image Dei (c2000)
Moonen wrote a wonderful credo to the Government Administration Committee regarding the interpretation of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act of 1993. It strikes me that this case has the same flavor as that of Graham Ovenden’s.
All this hysteria is so tiring… For the most part, it seems to be a way of trying to squelch one’s feelings, whatever they are.
About photography, it’s very cute.
Yes, people tend to be in denial because they are afraid of the implications. I always remember something Joseph Campbell used to say in his lectures, “Don’t be afraid to embrace your Shadow; it’s not as dangerous as you might think.” That’s not an exact quote; I’m just paraphrasing. But I have taken that advise to heart and I am living a richer life because of it. -Ron
Perfect, Ron!
In most instances, I believe, there’s nothing really dark about it. It’s just labeling it as such.
How right you are about that point!
I remember reading a piece by a woman who had written an entire book about “the limits of non-sexist child-rearing”. She was talking about a birthday party for 5-year-olds at which the girls were comparing outfits while the boys were throwing hot dogs at each other.
When I first came upon this picture, the person critiquing the nudity said, “It’s okay for the boy but is unacceptable for the girl.” One of the girls was indignant about being called a boy.
It is so true that because a little girl is exactly the same above the waist as a little boy, toplessness in a girl is no more “indecent” than toplessness in a little boy. It is only a silly tradition that a girl’s chest must be covered because she WILL BE a woman.
In many comments in the past, you have made much of the fact that the torsos of little girls are indistinguishable from that of boys but I don’t want readers to come to the mistaken conclusion that there are no differences at all at that age. The major differences are psychological and informed partly by hormonal differences between boys and girls. -Ron