Hi guys, just wrote up a lang. analysis over the holidays tell me what you guys think,
strong criticism welcome, there are a few typos, haven't read over it very thoroughly
cheers
SS aim 40+
Art is an intrinsic aspect to our contemporary society as it has the important role in being a vehicle for creativity and free expression. However, through recent events involving controversial photographer Bill Henson a more sinister side to art has been revealed. Steve Biddulph’s article, “Art or not it’s still exploitation – The Age, 28 May 2008,” purports that art must no longer be excluded from moral and social paradigms, rather, it should be considered as just another form of media. In a mixture of alarmed, anxious and considered voices, Biddulph’s view is in opposition with Helen Highwater who claims that these photographs give a “voice to youngsters” and promotes self-esteem. Highwater’s opinion piece, published in the “Melbourne Gale Newspaper – 30 May 2008” conveys “dismay” at the notion of exploitation under the semblance of art, dismissing such sentiments as “knee jerk” responses. Bill Leak’s cartoon, published in “The Australian” combines both caricature and satire in response to this issue.
Helen Highwater establishes her opposing views to Biddulph through an appropriate graduation of tone. She alternates between being disappointed, alarmed and critical whilst also injecting paragraphs in a more considered voice as to avoid an over emotive approach. This is evidenced in the transition we observe in her initial paragraphs where she shifts from phrases and words such as “completely missed the point,” “denounce” and “the mind boggles” to later retracting some of her emotions: “However I digress” and “I do not deny.” For the audience this lends a certain degree of sensibility to the piece and removes any sense of sensationalism. Furthermore, the order in which this tone change occurs is significant, for both the introductory and the concluding paragraphs mark a return to a more dynamic mood whereby Highwater reduces those opposing her beliefs to seem naïve and hasty in their critiques. Through the effective use of tonal change, Highwater ensures her audience isn’t alienated by an over emotive opinion piece and that her prose conveys a more measured sense.
The use of the image, allows Highwater’s audience to associate a picture to her arguments, lending further support and creating or re-establishing the “evocative” and “beautiful” nature of Henson’s photographs. Highwater perhaps includes such an image to dismiss prejudiced sentiments by revealing the true beauty of the art. This is apparent through the sheer scale of the image, which immediately captures the reader’s attention before having read the opinion piece. By having an image of this size, the audience’s predisposed thoughts are dismissed and they are rendered impressionable by Highwater’s article. For concerned parent’s in particular, the child is pictured in a graceful pose not exploited in an “absolutely revolting” way as other articles may suggest. This image remains essential in re-assuring the audience of the artful nature of Bill Henson’s photograph.
Biddulph uses the negative connotations of paedophiles in order to denigrate art as a whole. The audience is inclined to associate the “narcissistic and self justifying” paedophiles who use children as “depersonalized objects for gratification” with art, a result Biddulph achieves, rather explicitly, with the use of the word paedophile. Whilst continuing with the use of figures in society that have negative connotations, Biddulph uses the hypothetical situation of the murderer to emphasize the magnitude of the problem. The situation described serves to alarm and instils fear within the audience through the blunt and crude sentences used. Biddulph describes “were an artist to shoot those art patrons in the head…he would still be a murderer.” Through such bare language, Biddulph confronts the reader with the reality that exploitation remains exploitation even under the guise of art .
In Biddulph’s article there is an evident shift in tone from the first paragraphs ; Biddulph now excercises a less balanced tone, instead adopting a more concerned and enforcing voice. This change of tone is used by Biddolph to raise concern amongst the parents of his audience appealing to their paternal or maternal conscience. This is evidenced in a greater division of paragraphs each of which focus on one element which is of direct concern to the parent, seemingly bombarding the readers with information. The word “predation” is of particular significance, it positions the audience against the art society through the use of imagery. For the audience the art world is seen as the predator preying upon their vulnerable children. This achieves what is perhaps the intended response, fear. Throughout these paragraphs, Biddulph portrays children as being “developmentally fragile.” “vulnerable” and at risk of “child sex abuse.” Constant references to the weakness of a child are an attempt by Biddulph to cause concern amongst his audience, and through this he effectively positions the audience against the un restricted domain of art.
Just as a progression of tone asserts a level of calm upon his article, the picture of Biddulph himself is used in much the same way. The neutral lighting, the image of nature and most importantly the friendly and reasonable traits that the audience associate with the picture, serve an important purpose: they lend credibility and authority to the voice of Biddulph. Though the article itself is heavily emotive, the image mellows what could be perceived as an over emotive piece. This positions the audience from the beginning to read this article with the image in mind. Similarly, by establishing Biddulph as a psychologist, his opinions are considered expert and his words are weighted by his position.
Bill Leak’s cartoon comments on Rudd’s response to the issue of exploitation, insinuating that Rudd’s negativity is perhaps a sign of his lack of understanding of art. Leak’s caricature of Rudd portrays him as a diminutive figure, angered even before entering the gallery. For the audience, this communicates a sense of prejudice, positioning them against Rudd. By belittling Rudd, Leak perhaps intends to comment on his insignificant and seemingly out of place opinion. From the outset, the audience is positioned to view Rudd as somewhat of an intruder upon the gallery. Furthermore, his facial expression and body stance emanate annoyance, which together are used by Leak to show Rudd’s hastiness, a trait which the audience associates his comments upon the issue. The hair style too bears significance; it is perhaps designed to by Leak to show Rudd’s failed attempt at being seen in a youthful fashion. The reader, in particular those concerned about art’s ability for exploitation, observe Rudd’s failed integration as a sign of his outdated philosophies.
As the reader we observe a variety of different approached from all three articles. Biddulph’s article appeals to the concerned parent in particular on an emotional level, whilst Highwater’s opinion piece seeks to use a progression of tonal change to address the uneducated section of community about the hastiness and often ignorant beliefs held by art critics. In contrast to both, the cartoon offers the reader a humorous image of our former prime minister. The written pieces in particular attempt to balance emotional techniques through measured prose in order to maintain a level of calm upon the reader. All three texts introduce to the audience a myriad of propositions, asking them to contemplate the importance of art to society.
Home
Help
Search
Login
