Kid Stuff: Eleven-Year-Old Olympia Nelson Is Offended By Australian Prime Minister’s Criticism Of Her Nude Photos
8 July 2008, 3:10 PM. By Daniel Mauser
Australia’s Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has become part of a controversy surrounding a nude magazine cover for Art Monthly featuring a then six-year-old Olympia Nelson. The photograph was taken by the girl’s mother, Polixeni Papapetrou (yes), both of whom maintain they are quite fond of the image. Rudd, on the other hand, doesn’t quite care for photos of little naked girls against terribly kitsch landscapes:
Mr Rudd had reacted strongly to the front cover image, saying: “Frankly, I can’t stand this stuff.”
He added: “We’re talking about the innocence of little children here. A little child cannot answer for themselves about whether they wish to be depicted in this way.”
The question, of course, is not whether the photograph was in bad taste (because, come on, we’ve seen velvet Jesus paintings executed with greater artistic sensibility), but whether the it constitutes an actual crime. Olympia, now eleven, aired her side of the story in a press conference:
“I’m really, really offended by what Kevin Rudd had to say about this picture,” she told reporters.
“I love the photo so much,” she added. “I think that the picture my mum took of me had nothing to do with being abused and I think nudity can be a part of art.”
The Australian Childhood Foundation said that parents had no ethical right to consent to nude photographs being taken of their children, as it could have psychological effects in later years.
Which is sweet and all only, you know. Eleven-year-olds can’t quite decide what does or does not equal abuse. We don’t personally find the photograph explicitly sexual, nor do we feel we’re in the position to judge whether or not the nudity therein constitutes as “artistic.” But, then again, neither can Olympia Nelson.
We wouldn’t fret over this were the photo of someone who was not minor because they could consent, with full understanding, to the use of their body as a platform for ideas and aesthetic interpretation with the ability to take responsibility for their decision and consequent actions. Or, then again. Maybe not.
(2) 
Post Your Comment
Did you know you can now share a link, image or video?
Click to submit your own notas.
I recently read somewhere (this site?) where someone said that any pervert can use basically anything as stroke material.
I think that eleven year olds are damn good at knowing what does and doesn’t feel right. I remember what felt right in my gut and what didn’t. Furthermore, if parents taking nude pictures of their kids can be called offensive and worse, then my mom should be worried. Cause she has a whole catalog of porn in my baby books.
By Rudd’s own words, she’s stolen my innocence.
Everyone has good reason to be protective of children. Kiddie porn exists, and is not defined by nudity. It’s not something to be taken lightly. But it must be argued that it is the viewer who imposes a sexualized view of the child. So lets be honest.
Photos of naked children cannot in and of themselves be sexual. They haven’t yet developed sexual characteristics.
It’s the viewer who imposes a sexualized view .
So…now I must ask…what’s up with that, Mr. Rudd?
>>…Rudd: She’s stolen my innocence
Quite the opposite. Olympia Nelson has stolen Ruud’s adulthood. Actually, he just gave it up.