I heard the first complaint yesterday and had a look at the site before the photos were taken off because I thought those complaining were exaggerating. It was quite shocking, even taking into consideration that this person’s photography wasn’t all that good.  

The main subject was a young girl in puberty who was allowed to pose naked for this “artist” in the name of Art.  Apparently the photos were blown up to a 2 metre height and could sell for thousands of dollars.  Some of the older works showed very young males in sensuous poses with young girls, but were more discreetly photographed than this current exhibition.

This morning interstate patrons and visitors to this gallery were disgusted at the closure – stating that Australia was backward and regressive in not recognising modern art and if the photos had been of  a young native girl with a loin cloth – this fuss wouldn’t have been made.  

I must be missing something.  Are these people serious?  What parent would allow their child to be used in this way?


The controversial art exhibition by Bill Henson is set to reopen to the public after several of the works of naked young adolescents were withdrawn.

The Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery has released a statement today saying they would remove several of the works which prompted a police raid on the premises last night to investigate claims of child pornography.

"After much consideration we have decided to withdraw a number of works from the current Bill Henson exhibition that have attracted controversy. The current show, without the said works, will be re-opened for viewing in coming days," the statement said.

The gallery will remain closed while the current exhibiton is re-hung.
Bill Henson and the gallery owner Roslyn Oxley, have declined to comment.

Dylan Welch reports: Police returned to the gallery at 11.30am to seize 12 photographs that have at the centre of the controversy.
Uniformed police including detectives from the Rose Bay police command entered the building.

A lawyer, understood to be representing the gallery, also entered the building at lunchtime.

It is not known if officers from the child protection and sex crimes squad are at the gallery, but they are involved in the investigation

http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/nudes-show-to-reopen/2008/05/23/1211183060208.html

i did not see it.
Can't just slap the title "art" on anything to allow it to be passed though.

What were the poses Mantra? Was it just frontal nudity, or was there something more sinister than that? Since you've seen them could you explain?

From what they showed on the news (with the rude bits all fuzzied out) I think the LAW would call it child pronography and exploitation, regardless of what the ARTIST calls it.  

Let's hope the law wins out.

I saw it on the news too. It looked nothing like a porn shot in the style, though some of the poses were similar, but you get that with art. It was black and white, kind of rough.

We rented a house once for a week that had photos of naked children up everywhere, even in the toilet. It was a bit weird but didn't really bother us. I think it's the age of the model that was the problem. Any naked shot of a girl that age is going to be associated with child porn.

I had someone complain about the photos of naked babies I have on the funnies page. Photos of naked children are not porn (legally speaking), even if you can see the genitals. There has to be something 'sexual' about it. I don't think that is the case with this artwork. However, the cop on TV did raise some valid points about the kid being able to give informed consent.

RecFisher wrote on May 24^th, 2008 at 1:23pm:

From what they showed on the news (with the rude bits all fuzzied out) I think the LAW would call it child pronography and exploitation, regardless of what the ARTIST calls it.   Let's hope the law wins out.

I agree that the law needs to win here. Men are twisted, perverted suckers when it comes to pubescent girls. It's not the art at fault, but the perverted men who see in it what is not there.

Sappho wrote on May 24^th, 2008 at 4:30pm:

RecFisher wrote on May 24th, 2008 at 1:23pm: From what they showed on the news (with the rude bits all fuzzied out) I think the LAW would call it child pronography and exploitation, regardless of what the ARTIST calls it.   Let's hope the law wins out. I agree that the law needs to win here. Men are twisted, perverted suckers when it comes to pubescent girls. It's not the art at fault, but the perverted men who see in it what is not there.

Make entry to the Exhibit available only to women, then.  Do you think that would impact the question of whether it is art or porn, Sappho?

Aussie wrote on May 24^th, 2008 at 5:21pm:

Sappho wrote on May 24th, 2008 at 4:30pm: RecFisher wrote on May 24th, 2008 at 1:23pm: From what they showed on the news (with the rude bits all fuzzied out) I think the LAW would call it child pronography and exploitation, regardless of what the ARTIST calls it.   Let's hope the law wins out. I agree that the law needs to win here. Men are twisted, perverted suckers when it comes to pubescent girls. It's not the art at fault, but the perverted men who see in it what is not there. Make entry to the Exhibit available only to women, then.  Do you think that would impact the question of whether it is art or porn, Sappho?

Damn fine hypothetical there Aussie. Hmmm... just imagine that suggestion posed publically...

We've all seen the news now and have some context on this hopefully. Is it Art? Is it Porn? Is it a Metaphor? Why is it dangerous? What is it alluding to in society?

Quote:

Was it just frontal nudity, or was there something more sinister than that? Since you've seen them could you explain?

If the models had been over 18, perhaps you could call it art - but Henson's talents are over-rated in my opinion.  One of the photos of the 12 y.o. girl was full frontal and it appeared too intimate, exploitative and distasteful.  No doubt she would have been paid a large fee.  Her parents are fools to allow their young daughter to appear naked in front of a 53 year old man (and a good proportion of Australia), regardless of what he calls himself.  

What was even more abhorrent was a naked boy about 8 and although he was only photographed from the pelvis up, the distress and misery on his little face was heartbreaking.  It was obvious he didn't want to be there.

These children aren't natives in their natural environment.  They were stripped bare in a clinical studio to be gawked at by those who claim to be artists.  In my view Henson is a pervert who has gone outside  the boundaries and the arrogant pig thought he could get away with it.

Mantra....how do you know that those ages are correct, especially "the 12 y.o. girl?"

Further...


Quote:

What was even more abhorrent was a naked boy about 8 and although he was only photographed from the pelvis up, the distress and misery on his little face was heartbreaking.  It was obvious he didn't want to be there.

You have to be joking.  I have not seen the photo, yet from your description, I can see art at work.........YOU have SEEN all that heartbreaking distress and misery on his little face, and that he did not want to be there.

A great work of art on the part of the kid and the photographer.........

After the shutter did it's bit, all of kid, Mum and Dad, and Henson went to Maccas, laughing.

It was Henson's shout.

sappho and mantra - i agree entirely with you both here.

Unfortunately us men do do the majority of the sex crimes against minors.
Your sentiments are there to assist those who are defenceless against the offenders. I support entirely those efforts.

I actually do think it was Art... I think the uproar is a very sad reflection on our society... because of the uproar... because incest and sexual abuse are upmost in the minds of leading individuals... I don't think it can be shown.

We are not sophisticated enough to appreciate the beauty as beauty only. We have to sully it with sexually perverted inuendo.

Page two of the Australian has one of the photos. It was full frontal, but the pubic area was completely black due to the lighting effect, or maybe the dodgy printing job of the newspaper. That one I would definitely call art, not porn. There is something really strange about it. She looks almost deformed, rather than sexualised. Her rib cage looks too small. The shots they showed on the news looked more like porn, but it's hard to tell from a 1 second shot.

The articles also pointed out the very low rate of success in cases such as this. It may go to a jury to decide whether it is art or porn. If that is the case I think it is unfortunate that the PM and opposition leader have made such strongly worded criticisms of it.

Quote:

After the shutter did it's bit, all of kid, Mum and Dad, and Henson went to Maccas, laughing. It was Henson's shout.

Well I'm sure they would have demanded more than maccas from Henson - and got it - especially after encouraging their minor daughter to bare it all for his camera.


Quote:

actually do think it was Art... I think the uproar is a very sad reflection on our society... because of the uproar... because incest and sexual abuse are upmost in the minds of leading individuals... I don't think it can be shown.

Sappho - these photos should never have happened in the first place. Why do you think we have laws to protect minors?  Why should an artistic clique pronounce that they are above the law because they view these images artistically and righteously - but the rest of society is wrong because they don't recognise this particular sort of art?  Art is for everyone, not just a minority and it should not involve child exploitation.  


Quote:

Page two of the Australian has one of the photos. It was full frontal, but the pubic area was completely black due to the lighting effect, or maybe the dodgy printing job of the newspaper.

I haven't seen the Australian today - the photos I saw had some partial shade, but only enough to emphasise the focus on certain areas.   Here's what Henson had to say - and it's obfuscation at it's best.  He convinces his subjects to work alone with him.

"Kids of this age, they seem to, as all those cliches go, be half in childhood, half in the adult world," Henson says. "They're at a point where there is an exponential change, both psychological and physically, taking place and this all kind of creates a floating world of expectation and uncertainty."

As minors, Henson's subjects make the decision to pose with their families.

The artist, who shot much of his latest work in Europe, works alone with his subjects.

"I say I want you to take a minute to look left, slow down, slow down," he says. "And of course the slower you go, the more you see."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/he-calls-the-shots-and-lets-audiences-decide/2008/05/21/1211182887495.html

Mantra, the laws are there to protect minors from pedophiles, not artists. It is to stop children being sexually abused, because filming and photographing so often forms part of the abuse. But by itself, there is nothing wrong with photographing a naked child and parents do it all the time, though admittedly few do it once their kids hit puberty. Going from a ban on child pornography to a ban on child photography takes things too far.

He is not pronouncing himself above the law. The law is on his side.

Yes FD - the laws are there to protect minors from paedophiles, but anyone can call themself an artist to legitimise their  fantasies.  Regardless of what the Law Society says - I doubt Henson will walk away unscathed.  

Like most parents though - I have photos of my children as toddlers splashing around in water naked - but by the time most kids get to 3 or 4 a natural modesty takes over.  

There is not going to be a ban on child photography, but obviously underage, pubescent nude child photography is unacceptable and new guidelines are going to be discussed.    

Jenny Macklin - the Federal Families Minister today launched a discussion paper aimed at prompting a debate about what the federal government should be doing to better protect children from abuse and neglect. The paper will form the basis for a National Child Protection Framework.

"I think now with the internet, with multi-media, these images that some people see as art can now be displayed all over the world in a flash, and used for purposes for which they certainly were not intended, and I think a lot of parents are very, very worried about these issues," she said.

"This is about making sure we do everything we can to guarantee that children can have a childhood, that they can enjoy the wonders and excitement about being kids, not being forced to confront the things that adults have to confront."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/move-to-protect-children/2008/05/25/1211653837337.html

but anyone can call themself an artist to legitimise their  fantasies

No they can't. Artists are not allowed to have sex with children.

I doubt Henson will walk away unscathed

True. Money can't buy this sort of publicity. He will make a fortune out of it.

but by the time most kids get to 3 or 4 a natural modesty takes over

This modesty is not natural. It is cultural.

but obviously underage, pubescent nude child photography is unacceptable

It isn't obvious to me. What matters is whether the images are sexualised, not whether the child is pubescent. Pre-pubescent children are at just as much risk from pedophiles, which is what this is about. This is not about people who feel uncomfortable with the naked human body. There is nothing fundamentally different between you insisting the law should cover up females of a certain age and a muslim forcing his wife to wear a burqua. No amount of covering up will protect women and children from perverts and telling young girls they must cover their body sends the wrong message.

Quote:

but anyone can call themself an artist to legitimise their  fantasies No they can't. Artists are not allowed to have sex with children

I should have said aesthetic fantasies - but where does this lead?


Quote:

I doubt Henson will walk away unscathed True. Money can't buy this sort of publicity. He will make a fortune out of it.

At the moment it looks like he might get away with it.  People in high places are sticking up for him and some NSW law has an exemplary clause in it especially for people like Henson.

If he does get away with this - no doubt we will see a sudden influx of "artists".


Quote:

but by the time most kids get to 3 or 4 a natural modesty takes over This modesty is not natural. It is cultural.

So does it matter if it is a cultural modesty?  We cover up ourselves and our children, for protection, not only from the weather, but predators.  These laws are supposed to minimise the crime rate so we can call ourselves civilised.


Quote:

but obviously underage, pubescent nude child photography is unacceptable It isn't obvious to me. What matters is whether the images are sexualised, not whether the child is pubescent. No amount of covering up will protect women and children from perverts and telling young girls they must cover their body sends the wrong message.

These images were sexualised in my view and the views of apparently 88% of the population.  Telling young girls they must cover their bodies appropriately (at least over their genitals) is something all mothers should tell their daughters.  

Mantra:


Quote:

There is not going to be a ban on child photography, but obviously underage, pubescent nude child photography is unacceptable and new guidelines are going to be discussed.

What of that infamous photo of a naked young pubescent Vietnamese girl, taken after a napalm attack?  Front page right across the Globe.  

Sad and shocking Aussie!  It wasn't represented as art though for people to gawk at and study her intimate features - it represented the horror of war.  

These images were sexualised in my view and the views of apparently 88% of the population.

This population you refer to, have they seen the images?

mantra wrote on May 26^th, 2008 at 12:03pm:

Sad and shocking Aussie!  It wasn't represented as art though for people to gawk at and study her intimate features - it represented the horror of war.

It represented (i.e. art) the horror of war and was published for people to gawk at.

Think about it mantra - the guy made money by photographing naked children in extreme pain. Nudity alone does not make an image pornographic.

Australian culture is a bit puritanical with regard to nudity compared to mainland Europe and many ohter places. It is important to distinguish between such cultural norms and what truly puts children in danger. I remember when I was in Germany they had one of those teenage magazines - their equivalent to cosmopolitan, and the encouraged teenage readers to send in photos of themselves having sex. No genital were shown of course. This didn't seem to bother anyone, and I doubt that it has put their kids at risk.

Quote:

These images were sexualised in my view and the views of apparently 88% of the population. This population you refer to, have they seen the images?

Yes - but my sentence was very badly worded and not explained.  I heard Hugh someone or other on radio this morning - a renowned lawyer/journalist who gave those figures for people who had rung up various government departments to complain about - or in some cases, laud the photos.  Bear in mind after the initial complaints at midday - the photos remained on the net until late that afternoon until the police took action and had them removed.

FD it's not about being puritannical - both my parents were artists and I dabbled a bit when I was younger and have seen plenty of nudity  throughout my life, but those photos upset me greatly as they did many other people from a variety of backgrounds.  

Perhaps if I had no children, I wouldn't show the same concern as I do now, but Henson has used those children as leverage for his own career.  I didn't say the photos were pornographic, but they were too intimate to be posed for by a pubescent child.


Quote:

It represented (i.e. art) the horror of war and was published for people to gawk at.

Yes you are right Aussie & I am wrong - the photo was for people to gawk at - but it was neither posed for nor sexualised and that's the difference.

Mantra obviously the people who call the government to complain are going to have an issue with it. 88% is surprisingly low - I'd expect over 99% from that source.

These images were sexualised in my view  - Mantra.

Maybe you can help me to understand then. How are they sexualised.

As I've said on Debate and Relate...


Quote:

Actually, I don't understand yet what is morally bankrupt about the picture. I have every understanding of the perverted, morally bankrupt mindset of this forum that would sexualise what has not been sexualised. It's just a girl at the early dawn of womanhood. It reminds me of when I was 12 and the conflict between the ways of a child, that was my only experience and the confusion of adulthood that was forcing itself upon me. I can't see the sexual reference. Empathy causes me to reflect, and sex was not a part of my 12 year old experience. Barbie dolls not being as much fun anymore was my experience. My changing body, against my will, was my experience. The nakedness just reinforces that understanding, as she is stripped of all cultural connectedness. Heck, she could be Muslim for all we know. LOL. The point is.... I don't see the sexuality... All I see is you lot responding to it sexually. What does that say about you lot and your perception of 12 year olds and society? Anyways... is it Art? Encarta says of Art that it is 'the creation of beautiful or thought-provoking works'. The photo's are beautiful and definitely thought provoking, if this thread is anything to go by... therefore it is art.

Sappho perhaps a gentle song might help people to understand these confusing experiences of yours....

http://www.lyrics007.com/Angels%20Lyrics/Dogs%20Are%20Talking%20Lyrics.html

Title: Angels - Dogs Are Talking lyrics

Artist: Angels

(R. Brewster-Neeson-Spencer-Eccles-Hilbun)
There comes a time in a young girl's life
when she first meets a man
there comes a time in a young girl's life
when she becomes a woman
Highway number nineteen
the moon's shining bright
she's been in my dreams
if it's ever gonna happen
it'll happen tonight
Talk to me, talk to me
tell me what you gonna do
come to me, come to me
are we gonna see it through?
so you got a reputation
well I do too!
all across the nation
there are guys hanging out to meet girls like you
The dogs are talking
Heartbreaker, heartbreaker
with a jelly roll skin
lovemaker, lovemaker
aint'cha gonna let me in?
backseat, backseat
you know ya gotta loosen up
body heat, body heat
don't stop now
don't stop...don't stop
The dogs are talking
Cool down, cool down
you don't wanna go home
turn around, turn around
we're gonna scream and moan
talk to me, talk to me
what's you number?
what's your name?
gimme more, gimme more
gotta do it again, and again, and again
The dogs are talking
Let them talk, talk!

That song refers to young women, not girls.

And no, it goes nowhere even close to explain what Mantra and others are seeing that is sexual in a 12 year old girl portrayed in that photo.

Quote:

It's just a girl at the early dawn of womanhood. It reminds me of when I was 12 and the conflict between the ways of a child, that was my only experience and the confusion of adulthood that was forcing itself upon me. I can't see the sexual reference. Empathy causes me to reflect, and sex was not a part of my 12 year old experience. Barbie dolls not being as much fun anymore was my experience. My changing body, against my will, was my experience.

Yes Sappho - the experience was yours - in front of your bedroom mirror alone,  not for the rest of Australia to experience alongside you.  You didn't have to pose alone with a middle aged man while he told you to move this arm there and that leg there - now turn, twist, look up, move your knee etc. etc.  He was alone with these children as most artists are with their models.

Some interesting comments - from Clive Hamilton, Director of the Australia Institute:

Extracts

“In such a cultural environment, the naked body of a child, particularly a girl of 12 showing the first signs of sexual development, can no longer be viewed “innocently”, and cannot but be seen by everyone, other than hermits, in a sexual context”.

The photographs show the girl’s budding breasts, her hips and, in one case, a glimpse of her vagina. Their intention is not to arouse erotic feelings and they are unlikely to do so except in those already inclined to view children in that way. They are imaginative, haunting and beautiful. Although not sexual images, they can be seen as a commentary on the slow, halting and unsettling metamorphosis of child’s body into an adult one.

However, the fact that the pictures cannot be characterised as pornographic is not the end of the ethical story because the social context in which the photographs are presented changes their nature.

If we lived in a society of sophisticated people with mature sexuality, one that respected children and the integrity of their maturation process, then there could be no objection to the Henson exhibition. Alternatively, if the photographs were seen only by the intended audience and in the gallery environment, the exhibition could fulfill its purpose without controversy.

Perhaps some decades ago such a world, or at least a subset of the world, existed; but it doesn’t any more. The exhibition cannot be isolated from a society in which children are increasingly exploited for commercial reasons and used for gratification…

However, the fact that the pictures cannot be characterised as pornographic is not the end of the ethical story because the social context in which the photographs are presented changes their nature.

Crap. That's the logic they use in the middle east to make women cover up from head to toe. There are far more sexualised images of 12 year olds in advertising. Just because some freak is going to get his rocks off is not a good enough reason to ban something, because it would become a reason to ban everything. Pedophilia laws are designed to protect children from pedophiles, not attempt to block everyone's access to anything that could arouse a pedophile.

Perhaps if this weren't such a taboo, this girl wouldn't feel so insecure about what is happening to her body:

12yo girl wins sex change

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1211871068/0#0

Quote:

Perhaps if this weren't such a taboo, this girl wouldn't feel so insecure about what is happening to her body:

I'm sure boys go through a similar experience with just as many insecurities - and I wonder how the general male population would react if a young boy was depicted in a similar way by Henson.  Would pederast be shouted from the rooftops?


Quote:

12yo girl wins sex change

Now that is unbelievable and in Australia as well.  What happens if she turns 16 and suddenly decides she wants to be a girl after all.

I'm sure boys go through a similar experience with just as many insecurities

Yeah, we get pimples and our voices break. I don't think it compares to growing breasts and bleeding, but I guess that depends on how big the pimple gets and how hard you squeeze it.

I wonder how the general male population would react if a young boy was depicted in a similar way by Henson.

We'd probably dismiss it as gay, but I doubt we'd get all wound up. I was not under the impression that it was feminism driving this reaction - I thought the reaction was comparable between the sexes.

Quote:

We'd probably dismiss it as gay, but I doubt we'd get all wound up. I was not under the impression that it was feminism driving this reaction - I thought the reaction was comparable between the sexes.

Now that's interesting FD - you would probably dismiss it as gay, but plenty of males would be furious and certainly wouldn't define a full frontal photo of a pubescent boy as artistic - nor would females for that matter.  There would be an uproar.  

Why is it artistic for a female, but gay for a male?

Feminism isn't driving this reaction at all.  Some of the loudest dissenters appear to be older males.  

I didn't say it wouldn't be artistic for a male. I said the public reaction would differ.

That was my point FD - you said you would probably dismiss a photo of a nude boy as gay (maybe artistic), but because the model was a girl, the photo was only artistic.

What about Michaelangelo's David?

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm194/neferti_photos/david.jpg

OMG! I can see his bits! LOL. Actually, you occasionally here about serious attempts by people to cover up his genitals because some school group is touring the museum. Probably the same people who see pedophiles everywhere.

Mantra, I'm not sure what you're reading into my post, but that's not what I'm saying. Though I'm not really sure what you are saying. I'm not saying the photo was artistic because it was a girl, I'm saying it was artistic because it was artistic.

Neferti - sculptures are a little different to nude photography, which has only really taken off as "art" over the last couple of decades.  To be painted or sculptured nude - the model has to sit or stand immobile during most of the process - which could take months, or longer.  In photography, they have to consistently be moved around.

Sometimes I think nude photography is just a ruse for perverts, although I see the need for this to feed the appetites of some of the adult population.  As long as the model is an adult - the reasons don't matter so much.  

Neferti - sculptures are a little different to nude photography, which has only really taken off as "art" over the last couple of decades.

You mean like, since artists could afford cameras?

I'm not inferring you're gay FD.  You said you would dismiss photos of boys as gay - so why wouldn't you use a negative tag for a girl - maybe exploitative?

Actually, I said we, not I. I was speaking on behalf of the broader male population, referring to the tendency to avoid anything that could be interpretted as homosexual, which is rather strong in Australian culture. I didn't mean to imply that this was an appropraite response, more that people wouldn't care very much. Obviously if "I" thought about it, "I" would not make an equally inappropriate response to a naked girl, but would give the gay art proper consideration.

Perhaps when I said dismiss, you interpretted this to mean 'attack' in the same way the witch hunters have to dismiss the artistic merit of the photo to attack it as porn. That isn't what I meant.

That's OK - I thought that, but it was a good line to use for my argument anyway.

This could be considered art then.

---

And this

---

Nah, that's crap!

Neferti wrote on May 27^th, 2008 at 5:58pm:

What about Michaelangelo's David?

Was he 12 (he certainly wasn't in inches!)?

"It is the statue of the young Israelite king David alone that almost certainly holds the title of the most recognizable stone sculpture in the history of art. It has become regarded as a symbol both of strength and youthful human beauty. The 5.17 meter (17 ft)[1] marble statue portrays the Biblical King David in the nude, at the moment that he decides to battle with Goliath. It came to symbolize the defense of civic liberties embodied in the Florentine Republic, an independent city state threatened on all sides by more powerful rival states and by the hegemony of the Medici themselves. This interpretation was also encouraged by the original setting of the sculpture outside the Palazzo della Signoria, the seat of civic government in Florence. The completed sculpture was unveiled on 8 September 1504."

;)

Yes, yes, but how old was he?

Can I put a different perspective on this debate:

If the Police suspected someone of being a paedophile, raided their computer and found nothing but these so called "artistic" photos, do people think they would be charged?  

What is the legal definition of pornography?

follwing this link will take you to an image of one of the offending pics mantra was referring to..it is not pixelled however so be warned..


http://polanimal.rack111.com/viewtopic.php?t=24

I agree with mantra on this topic..totally inappropriate..

I find nothing offensive regarding sculptures..most are very beautiful.

We can probably blame pedophiles for society's suspicion of art depicting underage subjects. We've lost our innocence as a society because of these monsters. It has become a taboo subject.

There is a different attitude in some cultures. France is one country that has a totally different stance on nudity and developing sexuality. In some ways it's a lot healthier than it is here or in the US.

I guess we've got to draw the line in the sand somewhere, but I think we've gone too far when it comes to artistic images being banned.
 

Henson is now free to continue his art.  The DPP and police can't make a case to charge him.

The Australian poll so far has 42% against the nudes now to be exhibited and 58% for.

muso wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 11:25am:

We can probably blame pedophiles for society's suspicion of art depicting underage subjects. We've lost our innocence as a society because of these monsters. It has become a taboo subject.

Its always been around.
Especially in religious circles.

Now let's not get off topic just because the article also mentions Muslims...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24030640-23375,00.html

FUNDAMENTALIST Muslims are notorious for insisting that women dress in what is supposed to be pervert-proof clothing.

Apparently the female form is so provocative -- so much like an open can of Whiskas -- that exposed males risk instant transformation into one of those noxious tom cats that squirts urine on to antique couch legs, always has a post-fight pus drain hanging out its skull and inseminates everything that moves. Ensuring that women are always attired in a modesty-preserving tarpaulin or one-man tent is therefore the only way to keep them safe.

Hardline anti-pedophile activists have a similar view about the provocative nature of babies' and children's bodies.

Apparently scantily clad kiddies are so intrinsically irresistible -- so much like an open invitation to sex criminals -- that pedophiles who see them will automatically begin committing a whole lot more offences. Ensuring that unclothed or "inappropriately" attired sprogs are banned from nappy ads, clothing catalogues and art is therefore the only way to keep them safe.

Rabid Islamists and fanatical child protectionists are right to accuse humans of being a libidinous and lascivious bunch.

Beneath the tacky, timber veneer of civilisation lies a mess of ragingly inappropriate urges.

We covet our neighbours' asses, make Benny Hill honking noises in our heads and commit an outrageous allsort of fornications.

And yes, sometimes some of us commit sins of the flesh that are so unforgivable we should be locked up forever. Where these two groups of extremists are wrong, however, is in claiming that it's possible to cover up everything that could ever arouse an improper impulse.

Here are just a few of the things that'd have to go if we wanted to make sure nothing in our social landscape turned anyone on:

Footwear, lack of footwear and The Sound of Music. Foot fixations are the common cold of the fetish world. One Australian sex worker has a client who calls from a phone booth in a country town to talk about his difficultly keeping control come summer when ladies get about in racy, open-toed shoes (his equivalent of a plunging neckline, especially if toe cleavage is involved). Another website recommends The Sound of Music for titillating glimpses of underaged female toes;
Sneezing. Common colds are also the common colds of the fetish world. A recent contributor to the Sneeze Fetish Forum says the first time he got aroused by sneezing was watching Monstro the whale achoo in Walt Disney's Pinocchio. This site also contains a section devoted to handkerchief, tissue and nose-blowing fetishes;
High-cut clothing. Straight lacers who think only low-cut clobber is morally problematic will be unsettled to learn that a regular client of a Sydney bondage parlour has an unholy obsession with super-snug collars and neckties. He wears his pyjamas buttoned high and tight, pays dominatrices to chat with him about the different types of unforgiving neckwear he enjoys: Peter Pan collars, polo necks, skivvies, bow ties, scarves, jewelled chokers and so on; and
Balloons. Balloon Buddies was established in 1976 as a pen pal club. It boasts that it is now the No1 place for straight, bi, and gay folk who love the, ahem, "erotic suspense of a simple toy balloon".
Salacious websites also exist for people with a fetish for denim, conservative blouses, boiler suits, washing-up gloves, scuba gear, surgical braces, food fights, dental work, inflatable pool furniture, very large women who accidentally sit on very thin men, people who dress up in fluffy animal costumes (aka furverts) and -- just to give all those Islamists the vapours -- latex burkas.

If all this still hasn't convinced you of the impossibility of expunging everything which has the potential to get punters hot under their freakishly high collars, consider the mysterious world of people with an erotic attraction to invisible women. To you, it's just an empty space. To the invisiphiliac salivating next to you, it's lewd-erific.

So, please. While it's crucial to police unacceptable behaviour and stamp out all forms of child pornography, let's not allow the fetishists to define what's hot and what's not. Otherwise absolutely everything we see, can't see and shoot snot from will have to carry XXX ratings.

RecFisher wrote on May 29^th, 2008 at 10:18pm:

Yes, yes, but how old was he?

The bible did not say how old David was when he slew Goliath. However, it is generally accepted among theologians and scholars that he was between 12-16 years old.

same age as Hopward?

---

What a geek! Who would've known that he would grow up to be a despot.  ;)

Looks like Mr Spock. ;D

Very good news - and about time.  Henson will have to find something "less interesting" to photograph.


The Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, announced yesterday the Government has accepted a recommendation by the former Supreme Court judge James Wood that the leeway given to artists to depict children as the victim of torture, cruelty or physical abuse or children engaged in sexual activity should be removed from the Crimes Act.

He does not want to remove the child protection, scientific, medical or legal defences; just the artistic because it "would seem to overlook the rationale for the offence, which is to protect children against the harm that can flow from being the subject of pornographic images."

But sometime in the next week or so the Australia Council will be revealing more of its plans to demand all artists, galleries and publications sign up to protocols on the depiction of children or lose all federal arts funding.

This isn't good news at all.

Henson has done this sort of work for a long time before someone decided it was somehow wrong.

This is not about protecting children, it is about people enforcing their viewpoint of what is artistic onto others.

Quote:

This isn't good news at all. Henson has done this sort of work for a long time before someone decided it was somehow wrong. This is not about protecting children, it is about people enforcing their viewpoint of what is artistic onto others.

Henson used older teenagers in his previous work and the "photos" could be described as very sensual bordering on mild, mild porn - but the models were old enough to make their own decisions.

These recent photos are different altogether and take on a whole new meaning.  Henson was pushing the boundaries and thought he could get away with it.

This is an extract from a very astute commentator (don't faint Grendel) - Andrew Bolt.  His comments are directed towards another commentator who is pro-Henson.  Bolt sums it up perfectly.


David Marr mocks moves to scrap the “Henson defence” - the legal leeway given to artists to paint children nude:


"David Marr -  What the Henson affair showed was the wide gulf that exists between the law’s idea of pornography as set out in the NSW Crimes Act, and the widespread notion that has been growing over the past decade that just about any image of a child naked or scantily or precociously dressed is pornographic. "


If the law starts changing under that sort of pressure, Caravaggio might be in trouble.

It’s not the first time that Henson’s apologists have likened him to Caravaggio, to defend the photographer’s right to strip 12-year-old girls and portray them in sexualised poses. But they are either deceitful or ignorant.

A challenge: Can Marr nominate a single instance in which Caravaggio stripped and painted a naked pre-teen girl in a sexual context? I think he’ll find even Caravaggio, a murderer, drew the line at that. Painting imaginary male cherubs or a male saint in nude play is the closest he ever got.

And if Renaissance Italy is now to set our moral laws today, what other mores from that era should we adopt?  Vendettas, an openly corrupt papacy, authoritarian government, the subjugation of women?

Find yourself another excuse, David.  

mantra wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 4:01pm:

Henson used older teenagers in his previous work and the "photos" could be described as very sensual bordering on mild, mild porn - but the models were old enough to make their own decisions.

For something to be pornographic, it usually has to be explicitly sexual.  I have yet to see any indication that any of Hensons work is like this.


mantra wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 4:01pm:

These recent photos are different altogether and take on a whole new meaning.  Henson was pushing the boundaries and thought he could get away with it.

Pushing boundaries is not an inherently bad thing.  If the pictures were actually pornographic, Henson would have been prosecuted.  It seems to me that people automatically assume seeing a child naked is somehow wrong, bad or otherwise sexual.  

I agree with Henson's answer - if you see it as sexual, take a look at yourself.

Quote:

If the pictures were actually pornographic, Henson would have been prosecuted.  It seems to me that people automatically assume seeing a child naked is somehow wrong, bad or otherwise sexual.   I agree with Henson's answer - if you see it as sexual, take a look at yourself.

Henson wasn't prosecuted because he was covered by the NSW Crimes Act.  However in the next few months - he will not have the chance to make a repeat performance.

Are you - or have you ever been the parent of a 12 year old girl Kytro?  Did you see the original photos on the Galleries website?  I did.  The photos of this current exhibition were taken off the site in a matter of hours and rightly so.

The Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, announced yesterday the Government has accepted a recommendation by the former Supreme Court judge James Wood that the leeway given to artists to depict children as the victim of torture, cruelty or physical abuse or children engaged in sexual activity should be removed from the Crimes Act.

Maybe the specific change has been misrepresented here. It appears to rule out for example the photo that Time put on it's front page of a young female vietnamese victim of a napalm attack. It would also appear to forbid artists from speaking out against child abuse through art, for example by painting a picture of the face of an 'imaginary' child with a black eye and some slogan that implies his father beat him.

If my suspicions are correct, this has not been thought through.

Quote:

The Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, announced yesterday the Government has accepted a recommendation by the former Supreme Court judge James Wood that the leeway given to artists to depict children as the victim of torture, cruelty or physical abuse or children engaged in sexual activity should be removed from the Crimes Act.

As with most of these matters - it is always up to the magistrate, judge or jury to make the final decision.  If it is a genuine case of torture, cruelty or physical abuse - the photo would hardly be enlarged and placed in an art gallery to be gawked at by "artistic patrons" or "voyeurs" and copies sold for $25,000 a piece.

The photograph of that little Vietnamese girl on fire may have been an excellent photograph but it was taken because it was of international and human significance depicting a current war - hardly in the same category as Henson's predatory work.

mantra wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 4:40pm:

Are you - or have you ever been the parent of a 12 year old girl Kytro?

I am not, but that is completely irrelevant to being able to determine if something is pornographic.


mantra wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 4:40pm:

Did you see the original photos on the Galleries website?  I did.  The photos of this current exhibition were taken off the site in a matter of hours and rightly so.

I did see some of them, but they didn't strike me as overtly sexual.  There are for more things to be concerned about, like actual child porn, rather than art that makes some people uncomfortable.