Forgive them, for they don't know what they're doing?

WWJD?

Keeping with last week’s notion, MediaDawg has been searching for controversial stories around the world and landed on Denver, USA’s KDVR-TV (now known as FOX31). 


So what kind of news stories have been revolting the republican Midwest?

Recently, the city of Loveland, Colorado (population 2000) has been playing host to an exhibition portraying Jesus Christ well outside the usual. 


Interestingly titled “The Misadventures of Romantic Cannibals” by Enrique Chaagoya, the series of 12 lithographs pictures a wide array of curious sexual acts, in one of them the Saviour receiving oral sex (viewer discretion and questionable artistic taste is advised!).

The resulting outrage manifested in many ways, from protesters outside the Loveland museum, to angry 9/11 blogs desperately trying to find a Muslim scapegoat. Most stories were short and subjective, save this one from 9news.com (equivalent of our ninemsn) that provided some background and much needed objectivity.


This is certainly a hot topic if you live in that part of the US or if you are a dedicated Christian, or both. It brings me back to the Bill Henson debate and the reasons behind controversial art. But when this kind of artwork gets people to question its purpose and artistic value vs. good taste, is it really actually achieving what it set out to do or has it gone too far to cause a stir?

Bill Henson may not be a paedophile, but sure acts like it

What?!

Last week, the Herald Sun published this story of controversial photographer Bill Henson rising yet again to defend his infamous photographs of nude children.

Readers will remember the outrage over a set of photographs two years ago that catapulted Henson into the public spotlight. It questioned where to draw the line between art and pornography and whether employing children for such means was fine as long as the outcome was not in the interest of self-gratification.

What is interesting about this particular story, however, is that the author carefully paints Henson’s media image into that of a possible paedophile, not unlike the hum around Michael Jackson, making the reader wonder what kind of a person Henson is.

Wouldn’t it be peachy if Henson was indeed pursuing his passion for self-gratification? In other words, if Henson was revealed to be a paedophiliac, wouldn’t all who accused him experience a self-satisfying feeling of ‘I told you so’ righteousness?

The media is like a poacher, setting a snare that does not guarantee a catch but the temptation is too big to pass up.

The story also made an interesting selection of Henson’s quotes to keep the reader guessing:

The comment that “children consent to all kinds of significant things” is perhaps not unlike those of convicted child molesters who claim that their act was done by consent.

Furthermore, Henson’s argument that children posing nude for artistic photography has no “documented results of physical or psychological damage” and "to say that children can't consent to a thing like that is sheer nonsense" lacks credibility and is rudely dismissive of his critics.

The supplied video has Henson admit that controversial art exists to challenge social norms and that art does not play by the rules – “that’s not how imagination works”. The story thus permits Henson to bend certain rules to allow him to survive this confrontation and set him up for the next.