Her photographs, in which she poses naked with food strategically positioned, are being used to promote this year’s Paris Design Week.
Mr Key said he knew his daughter was working on the self portraits, and said he was not surprised by the images.
One of the images shows Ms Key naked with sushi on her breasts and an octopus over her groin.
In another she poses with burger buns covering her breasts.
“I told her to eat her food not play with it. But oh well she’s got sushi all over her,” he joked.
Mr Key said his daughter was “doing incredibly well”, and that the images were part of the brief for the work that she was doing at school in Paris.
He told TV ONE’s Breakfast that he and his family were “really proud of her”.
International media have labelled the pictures “provocative”, “a bit strange”, and the UK’s Daily Mail said they were “raunchy” and a “bizarre erotic photoshoot”.
Mr Key brushed off the comments, saying “that’s the Daily Mail for you”.
I really approve of New Zealand Prime Minister John Key’s reaction to his Daughter’s photoshoot. He sent her to one of the best art schools in the world, the Paris College of Art, and is then thrilled to see that she is using her tuition to create the art she wants to create. His comments were not those of a politician, carefully primed and written, heading off a crisis or a threat to his career as some sources have implied, his words are those of a proud dad. not an embarrassed dad, but an encouraging and supportive one.
well done sir!
I am saddened, however, by some of the vitriol I’ve read from artists about Stephanie Key and her nude works. many of them are along the lines of why her and not me? just because her dad can afford to send her to a fancy college, my work is so much better, I’ve seen high school students do better.. for shame! support your fellow artists. it takes courage to have photographs of yourself nude online. it takes courage to create art, especially if you are already in the public eye and you don’t know what the reaction will be. it takes courage and fortitude to be an artist. whether you like their work or not, don’t condemn them – especially publicly. it doesn’t make your artwork look better, it makes you look petty and mean.
I like this piece, there is something arrestingly beautiful and sad about her face and pose. I find it compelling. and before you ask, I couldn’t find an uncensored version. if you know where one is I’ll link to it instead. I’m really impressed that she has been chosen to represent her school, and that she has worked so hard creating something she wanted to make probably knowing it would be controversial, and that her father has supported her in her work.
Not all artists are concerned with the pursuit of art. not all artists toil away nobly trying to get the world to see the beauty around them. some artists are in it for the money, or for the fame or sometimes, thankfully rarely, for the nekkid people. and some artists are just scumbags.
“one of the world’s greatest painters” (self proclaimed) has fallen from his lofty perch. Graham Ovenden has faced legal prosecution on a number of occasions but has now been convicted of six charges of indecency with a child and one of indecent assault. The different news stories on this subject are very disparate. in my research I’ve seen everything from vitriol against the art world to Victim blaming. it’s hard to separate the facts from the spin in this case but we do know that the victims were former models from between 1972 and 1985. Some articles are questioning their taking time to come forward which is reprehensible. it takes courage to come forward about abuse, it can take a very long time to come to the point where abuse can be admitted. I applaud them for confronting their abuser (who was not there for the conviction). he was also accused of having child pornographic images on his computer, images he accused the police of falsifying.
Much of Ovenden’s work from the time was inspired by the controversial novel Lolita. Some contain titles like “Lolita Seductive” or “Maxwell’s Angel Whores”. His work has also been found in the collections of noted paedophiles. The Tate gallery has removed his images from their walls and website following the jury’s verdict. His partially clad photographs in particular are incredibly hard to view.
Ovenden has yet to be sentenced.
The online campaign began on Monday after a national news program covered the marble penis of David by Michelangelo, one of Italy’s most famous artists, with a mosaic.
The mosaic had been removed by the time the program was rerun the following day but not before the cover-up had caused some anger online. “The statue of David is a well-known masterpiece of art but the TV station treated it like some vulgar adult movie” was one comment on Weibo.com.
“Apparently the TV station doesn’t believe that its audience would treat art properly” was another comment on the microblog.
An online poll by t.qq.com showed only 4.2 percent of those who took part believed it was necessary to put on the mosaic while 93.3 percent said it was totally unnecessary.
The Italian Embassy in China responded to Chinese media enquiries by saying that the TV station had put the mosaic probably to protect its sensitive audience.
It is not the first time that Chinese web users have drawn clothes on famous paintings.
In February 2009, there was anger when a set of Renaissance artworks had been deleted from an album on Douban.com because of their nudity.
They immediately drew clothes on the nude figures in the paintings and put them back online.
The attitude towards the nude in china is fascinating, There appears to be a cultural shift happening as some of the younger generations gain power. The internet breaks down barriers and grants power to everyone and a voice to all. There have been nude protests led by famous Chinese artist AiWeiWei and this online protest is the latest in a culture that is trying to change their historic attitudes.
The online movement, mainly on Weibo.com, has the slogan “Dress the nude rather than add mosaic,” I think it is interesting, however, what does putting clothes on the nudes actually say? what is this movement trying to accomplish? it seems a little counter intuitive to me. are the protesters showing how less attractive the works are with clothing? or are they trying to show more creative ways of covering up than a mosaic? this seems to me to be the wrong way to go about de-sensitizing people to the nude. I understand nude protests. I understand the creativity involved in clothing these works and some of them sound interesting (I have had a very hard time tracking any down), but I don’t understand the movement itself.
For a fascinating look into the history of the attitude towards the nude in china read Fleshing out Morality; an editorial on this event by Raymond Zhou. I was particularly interested in the concept that nudty was associated with poverty and circumstance. his line “As life gets better, circumstance-induced public nudity gets rarer” has given me a great deal to think about.
Bill Henson is in the news again, this time for his controversial thoughts on the risks associated with Arts, Sports and the Church. In a recent interview with the Australian, Henson stated that when searching for high risk areas to children that “The last place you would start with would be the arts.” and that the highest risk areas were the church and sports.
I am amazed that this is even a question. of course sports are higher risk! ask any teen where their injuries came from and they will proudly tell you which sport and what they were doing. I had my nose broken while playing hockey. and let us not forget that massive den of Injuries, women’s netball.
Of course an archbishop of the catholic church has officially gone on record saying that “I don’t think we did anything wrong.”, and naturally we are going to believe him.
Robert Nelson, Art Critic and Father of Olympia Nelson Has commented on this article.
He said risk should be calculated by the severity of the injury multiplied by the chance of it occurring.
”When your kid goes off onto the sports field, it’s a very competitive and actually kind of nasty situation where one kid is really trying to push the other out of the way,” he said.
”And it’s a pretty high chance that something nasty will happen sooner or later.”
Robert Nelson said there was a risk of paralysis associated with sport, and while there were also risks that needed to be considered with art, they were tiny in comparison.
”There is some risk always that the kid will not be happy with the image. You can’t really guarantee that the kid will be, but there’s a very high chance the kid will be proud of it,” he said.
”How we know that, we kind of just don’t see examples of kids or adults complaining about having been traumatised by their picture.
”With risk, you can never completely eliminate it, that’s for sure. But it’s a tiny, tiny risk. And the chances meanwhile of something wonderful happening are quite high.”
As they say, there are risks to everything, and everything needs to be taken into account, but I would feel less concerned about my child experimenting with art than with priests or hockey sticks!
No doubt some bright spark is going to form the argument that Sports are very important for a child’s development. yes, they are fantastic for building coordination, fitness, team spirit and all that. I think everyone should have some sport in their lives. and everyone should have some art in their lives. art is critical for building creativity, free thought, cognitive thinking, hand eye coordination, lateral thinking and so much more. and it is something that keeps giving, long after you’ve blown your knee playing football.
The Model in question, Zoe West, was arrested on August 30, just after she removed her thong for the final part of the process. The models always leave their thongs on until the end and the painting process is very fast so that it’s minutes if not seconds of exposure.
“The New York State Legislature has granted local authorities the right to pass local laws to further restrict public nudity, but the City of New York has passed no such laws,” the complaint states. “Indeed, the City of New York regularly authorizes film companies to engage in nude film shoots in public spaces in the city. Hence, plaintiff was arrested for a crime that does not exist.”
West says three unidentified officers cuffed her anyway without giving her a chance to cover up.
The complaint continues: “Photographers and onlookers snapped her picture as Ms. West, clad only in colorful paint and metallic cuffs, was escorted through Times Square and into a police vehicle by Does 1-3.
“She was transported to the Midtown South Precinct, where she was forced to stand in front of a desk in the lobby of the precinct, still unclothed, for approximately fifteen minutes. Several officers gawked at her as she stood there, humiliated.
“At some point, a female police officer returned Ms. West’s clothing and brought her to a room where she was permitted to dress. As soon as Ms. West was dressed, the female officer searched her, patting her down.
“Ms. West had been at the precinct for approximately two hours when Sgt. Fusaro came into the juvenile delinquents’ room, where Ms. West was being held, and told her she was free to leave. Without apology or an explanation, Fusaro removed the handcuffs from Ms. West and she was released. No charges were filed against her.
Zoe West is now sueing for false arrest and municipal liability.
I wonder, as the Nudity appears the issue, why Sgt. Fusaro or one of the 3 John Doe officers did not provide a blanket or a jacket. continuing to maintain the model in her “offensive state” shows a lack of sensitivity but also a lack of understanding about the issues. if he had covered her up it would have reinforced his message and arrest, by leaving her nude he created more of a martyred figure, tragic and sympathetic. I don’t understand his behavior in this as it seems to run counter to his purpose. I understand Sgt. Fusaro probably did not apologize because an apology would constitute a legal admission of guilt, but I think his behavior was appalling throughout and I hope she is successful in her suit.
I haven’t heard if Golub intends to sue as well, I do know he has continued and will continue to create art on live canvasses throughout New York and I hope that his work is untroubled in the future.
This woman has buttocks, but no dividing line.
You can see where the heal tool was used, and you know that even with some shapes there is no way that this woman was born without a buttcrack.
In Japan, anime with nude breasts can be shown on any channel at anytime- providing the nipples are removed.
In many countries the tiniest bikini (an inch covering the butt and nipples) is enough to satisfy propriety while nudity or g-strings aren’t.
The details, it seems, must be covered or removed.
This makes me wonder. Is it the breast that’s “offensive” or is it the nipple? Are buttocks a problem or just the crack? Why are they offensive? Is it because the are the functional part of that zone? Or because they are the defining characteristics of those dodgy areas? If nipples are the offender then why are men’s acceptable?
Consider this an open forum, I want to hear your thoughts on these questions!
Part one and part two have already been published. This is the third and final part of my 10 minute speech for Sydney University’s Tuesday Talks program. Frequent readers may recognize some passages here, I couldn’t improve on them!
When I initially wrote about the Bill Henson scandal a number of people told me that I would feel differently once I was a parent. As if that would change who I am. I am proud to say that i am now the mother of a little girl and my views have not changed. I believe, as I did then, that if she were approached by an artist to be a model I would support her. That isn’t to say that I wouldn’t do my due diligence on the artist to ensure they were on the level, and I would be there with her. But the decision is not mine, it would be hers.
One thing that struck me about the model known as N, the adolescent in the image seen on the invitations that caused much of the furor, is that when interviewed she discussed all the considerations she made before modeling. She considered how she felt about her body, how she may feel about school mates seeing her in the nude and how she might feel about it years later.
The most important thing to realize is that what you take away from viewing an artwork is not just what the artist puts in, it’s what you bring to it as well.
Your past affects it as much or even more than the artist’s intentions.
Everyone sees art differently which is why it is difficult to judge, and why it should never be stifled.
artistic merit should not become a goto excuse for pornographers, that harms us artists more than anyone – but it must be allowed. we cannot create under a blanket of censorship and we cannot be the artists we need to be without freedom to create. art has the power to challenge our views, to make us think and and to change the world. I believe that the arts are one of the most powerful forces of humanity and should never be denied.
There is a difference, too, between sexual and sensual. There are as many shades of gray as there are stages of undress. Art can be arousing. It should be arousing. It should inspire passion. Not just sexually, but in all things. Arousal and passion are not just the pervue of sexuality, but of life. And art is life
Part one is here..
These days the nude appears to have become more controversial as the line between nudity and sexuality has been blurred. The prevalence of porn and sexualized images In the media have led to an automatic association between nudity and sex. A belief that nudity is dirty, wrong, and disgraceful. All of this has led to nude art being pushed to the back corner, far from being the classic and honored subject of artists everywhere.
There is no image of vulnerability more powerful than that of a naked child. Take for example the iconic Vietnam Napalm photograph. Would this picture have as much impact if she was an adult? If she was clothed? The image of her running down the street, naked and screaming, is real, it’s powerful and it’s become a symbol for the horrors of war everywhere. This photograph won the Pulitzer and world press photo of the year.
A nude child is the image of vulnerability, of change. It automatically triggers protective instincts. Good art has the power to move us. It inspires emotion.
Would Bill Henson’s works be as emotive if the children were clothed? if they were small breasted adults? His works capture a moment in time. A fragile period in a teen’s life. These works make us empathize with the subject, I have heard abuse sufferers consider them both triggering works and uplifting and encouraging. Other see a coming of age, loss of innocence. fragile, strong. Whatever you see in this work you cannot deny that it has an emotional impact and that is the purpose of art.
The scandal with Brook Shields and the Gary Gross/Richard prince photographs is another good example. Gary Gross took photographs of a pre-teen Brook Shields for a magazine. These works were highly sexualized, with brook painted with oil and makeup. They were exceptionally adult, and in very poor taste. Brook shields did not get a say in modeling for these works, nor how they were used later on. Many years later Richard Prince took a photograph of the original Gary Gross, then changed it. The final work was seedier and turned the original on it’s ear. Where the first seemed to celebrate child pornography, the Prince version used the same image to condemn it. It still uses a sexualized image of an adolescent, but by using that image to make the viewers uncomfortable it made an excellent point about not turning a blind eye to child pornography.
Bravehearts executive director Hetty Johnston has written to the Baillieu Government asking it to crack down on images such as those created by controversial artist Bill Henson.
But artists say they should not be censored and current guidelines for art are adequate.
A Senate committee has recommended classifications be applied to all media, including art in galleries.
It also called for a review of child pornography laws and for the “artistic merit” defence to be axed from child pornography offences.
Ms Johnston said her group did not oppose art or photographs showing children in real life, but set-up shots of naked children for “artistic purposes” should be outlawed.
“It crosses moral boundaries, and we believe it puts children at risk and it could exploit children,” she said.
Australia’s classification laws are under review and under attack once more.
Hetty Johnston and her band of fanatical cohorts are still not satisfied after Bill Henson’s confiscated works were reviewed by the clssifications board and deemed to be no more hazardous than PG. clearly it isn’t their views that are at fault, but the classifications board itself. when you don’t like the results- change the law. Clearly the problem with child pornography in Australia stems from artists. absolutely without a doubt.
I do believe, however, that the classifications rules do need to be reviewed and repaired. they are exceptionally ambiguous and are not helping us artists in our defences any more than they are helping Hetty. if anything they are already heavily on the Hetty side, but are so ambiguous that it comes down to the preferences and opinions of the board. characteristics such as breast size should not be a factor – breasts do not make a woman. they may as well choose testicle size as an indicator.
While a ban on the sexual depiction of minors will have strong community support, there’s a much greyer area involving adults or even animated characters who look young. Most adult movies (online or DVD) come from America and carry official government statements guaranteeing that all participants are over 18. These cut no ice in Australia. Furthermore, Hentai Manga (Japanese sexual comics) are so popular in Japan that they are freely available for browsing in 7-11 convenience stores and read openly on trains. But they are RC in Australia – potentially a rude shock for Japanese tourists visiting with such comics in their luggage.
Note too, that over the past year, the Classification Board has started using breast size as a criterion in defining child pornography: a less than precise indicator
I also believe that, more than the classifications system, the constitution of Australia needs to be reviewed, amended and honored. how many Australians even know there is a constitution here? who knows what’s in it? The US Constitution is one of the most powerful pieces of writing in the world. freedom of speech is one of the most honored of the freedoms and is celebrated. yes, occasionally it is abused, but it is such a sacred right that it cannot be denied. it seems to me that Australia needs some inalienable rights of it’s own.
artistic merit should not become a goto excuse for pornographers, that harms us more than it harms Hetty- but it must be allowed. we cannot create under a blanket of censorship and we cannot be the artists we need to be without freedom to create. art has the power to challenge our views, to make us think and and to change the world. I believe that the arts are one of the most powerful forces of humanity and should never be denied.
There is talk in Australia, once again, of limiting artists rights. I am likely to offend people with these statements and I don’t care. Ratings classifications don’t belong in the arts. Frankly they barely belong in movies. Most people fail to notice them with regards to tv and movies and still they complain.
Bill Henson is once again exhibiting. This time in Melbourne. I was waiting to discuss the exhibition until after I had seen it In Person but this latest wave of protests have brought me out of my studio and indignant once more about the treatment of artists in this country.
After the press tried and failed to get people riled up about the latest exhibition the right wing nut jobs have taken a stand saying that thhe only thing that will protect the fair and delicate citizenry of Australia from the tyranny of artists is to force artists to undergo the same classifications procedures that movies and tv shows do. Here are some of the reasons this won’t work.
1. Classifications are expensive. Production houses can afford it, individual artists can’t.
2. When the classifications board reviewed henson’s work and came back with a PG rating the protesters were enraged. Even though this was something they requested. They won’t be happy regardless.
3. The ratings system in Australia is fundamentally flawed. Ask any gamer. It isn’t flexible enough to cover art.
4. How do you classify something as subjective as art any way?
5. By increasing the costs for artists you will be raising the price of art for all. In this economy this will probably drive the market further down and for ce more galleries to close.
6. This will fundamentally shift the way australian artists create. It will engender self censorship, make artists less likely to create for fear of the process, the costs and the issues. They may not create their best work, stick to safe things and in the end this may hurt the arts industry more.
I am not unreasonable. By all means make the classification board accessible to all artists to help in disputes, or even to prevent them for the artists that can afford it. But making it compulsory for all artists is irresponsible and despotic to say the least. In the States a bill like this would never reach the floor, here, well I only hope more sensible heads prevail.