Art and not porn?
 

I'm not sure if this has make the US media or if anyone has posted this else where on the forums. But I feel it's worthy of debate in the sexuality thread. Mods, if you have any problem with what I've linked to please let me know.

In the last week or so the Australian media and the community in general has been up in arms over a photo exhibition by a well known Australian photographer and artist Bill Henson.

The exhibition has a number of photos featuring young teenage boys and girls posing nude. To make it very clear, the photos were taken with the consent of both the children in the photos and their parents. Henson has been doing similar work for almost 30 years, and children who have been in previous photos and are now adults have come out in defense of the artist saying they have absolutely no regrets and felt completely safe during the photo shoots.

This however, did not stop the New South Wales police from pressing charges against Henson, and taking down not just the new exhibition, but any other photos around the country featuring similar works by Henson.

The media, of course, has jumped all over this, and has cause sharp divide in the community.

People on one side say that this is nothing more than child pornography, others say that this is valid art. One major problem is the actual definition of child pornography under Australian federal law, and New South Wales state law. However, this will be a matter for the Australian courts to decide, and I personally believe that Henson's name will be cleared.

I will post a link to some of the pictures which have been censored. But I would like to ask the wider TFP on their thoughts. Some questions I'd like to ask are:

- Do nude photos, even if they are of underage persons, constitute pornography when the artists intention was NOT to depict the subject in a sexual manner?

- Do the young teenagers in these photos have the right to consent, and for that matter, to the parents have the right to give consent on their behalf?

- Do you feel that this exploiting the young teenagers in the photos?

- Should the community at large, be mature enough to appreciate the human form, even of young teenagers? Or is this simply a line we shouldn't cross?

- Is it right that this can be considered pornography, yet underage models are constantly used in the media in sexually suggestive poses clothed?

This will be a fiery debate I'm sure, but I would ask that people try to debate the issue in an intelligent and objective manner.

Here is a selection of photos here

I'm at work, so I'm not about to open that link. So my disclosure is that I'm making assumptions about the pictures from the descriptions.

Yes, I think that it's entirely possible to have nude pictures not be erotic, even of children. I offer as an example the Vietnam War-era photograph of the young naked Vietnamese girl running down a road with a crowd after being bombed with napalm. There is nothing erotic about that picture. It was widely published and may have won the Pulitzer Prize that year. It is certainly iconic.

There are also Nazi-era photos of nude concentration camp survivors that represent the polar opposite of erotic.

Nude bodies do not necessarily mean "sex". Often they do, and I do acknowledge that in Western Society in the early 21st Century that is the default assumption. Despite that, the artist and the viewer ultimately decide what is and isn't erotic, and onus is on them to make sure that pictures of children does not cross the line.

I went and read up about this a little, and saw the photos. I think it is art, but it would be naive to not understand where peoples' fears are stemming from.

That being said, I read this article which I thought clarified things well for me, at least with regards to the background on the works and the artist, which I think is relevant:



Source

obviously this is going to be highly subjective. to me i see another example of the rampant political correctness in australia. i looked through the photos given in the link and thought that while most of them seemed to be focussed on youthful beauty one did strike me as being at least a bit sexual, mainly from the expression on the girl´s face. i think i lean slightly towards the view that he shouldn´t have put up the exhibit rather than the police take it away. i alos notice that all of the pictures seem to be only of young girls. i really do wonder what his intention was.

I'll skip my opinion because it's irrelevant.

Pics of minors, clothed or not, are not permitted on TFP.

Relevancy of this? No pictures are shown. Links to hosts outside TFP have always been ok.

I'd say that your opinion is the only thing that's relevant.

- Do nude photos, even if they are of underage persons, constitute pornography when the artists intention was NOT to depict the subject in a sexual manner?
It is entirely possible to shoot nude photography without sex being a factor, but it is also entirely possible for the nudes to be misinterpreted which is what I believe is happening here.

- Do the young teenagers in these photos have the right to consent, and for that matter, to the parents have the right to give consent on their behalf?
If both the parents and the teenagers are consenting then I believe that should be enough. Though, at the same time, how often do children consent to be photographed for child porn and not realize what they're doing?

- Do you feel that this exploiting the young teenagers in the photos?
No. By that token, any models used to make a statement are being exploited.

- Should the community at large, be mature enough to appreciate the human form, even of young teenagers? Or is this simply a line we shouldn't cross?
I don't think this is about appreciating the human form but yes people should be mature enough to handle it.

- Is it right that this can be considered pornography, yet underage models are constantly used in the media in sexually suggestive poses clothed?
I would be disappointed if I opened something that was labeled as porn but looked like this. It's clear that pornography was not the intent.

As a photographer I have to comment on this because I think it matters. In the photographs, it's clear that it's not meant to be pornography. It's also a moving set of photos that seem to be technically sound. In short this is a good photographer, not some creep who picked up a camera.

I think that photographers should have the right to express their ideas, and that governments are doing too much censoring these days. As a photographer, I would be mad if I tried to show something like this and it was shut down. And as a photographer, I would definitely try to, it's about making a statement and showing something that hasn't been seen before.

At the same time, the photographer should not be surprised that his photos are being censored. Anyone mature enough to take photographs like those should be able to understand the consequences it can bring.

This is just ridiculous. Those pictures are clearly not pornographic. They're art. An artist shot them, and put them up in an art gallery. I sure wasn't turned on by them. Granted, I'm also not a perv, but then, I would imagine most people aren't, either. Frankly, I liked the photos. I thought they spoke very well of the vulnerability and tentativeness of that stage in life. I mean, I probably wouldn't buy one and hang it in my living room, but if I saw them at a museum, I would enjoy the work.

The kids are young, sure, but not too young to understand what someone is asking of them by asking them to pose for artistic photographs in the nude. If they weren't interested, they would say no. If their parents had a problem with it, they would say no. Nobody was coerced or deceived.

If the kids don't have a problem with it, their parents don't have a problem with it, the artist and the art gallery patrons don't have a problem with it, why is it the government's business?

This whole thing is just out of control. Sure, of course nobody wants to condone or encourage pedophilia. But for God's sake, sometimes being naked isn't about sex! As far as I can tell, this whole incident seems designed to teach kids to be ashamed of their bodies, and to associate being naked with being exploited. This is so radically unhealthy that it is disturbing as hell.

At first I thought I would have a mixed opinion on this, but upon viewing the photos, I can't see anything wrong with the exhibit. They're in no way pornographic, and I think that anyone who feels differently is being what some scientists call a "conservative ninny."

The situation, however, is not at all surprising.

edit: re-read....

still seem tp be on my own here though

I agree, this seems to be another example of ultra conservative people controlling the population. It's common in the US, and I think it's part of the reason there are so many prude and repressed people here. When I was in the Modern Art Museum in Vienna I saw an exhibit similar to this and no one was trying to take it down.

Personally?

Image 2 and 5 are eloquent examples of youthful beauty. If that was my child, I would be proud.

Image 1, 3, 6, and 7 look like soft porn, like what you might find in an arty set on suicide girls. Image 6, especially, with the sweaty hair, parted lips, forward posture and impression of movement looks like a still-frame out of some ameteur porn. If that was my child I would be horrified.

I'm not arrogant enough to say "yes we can" or "no we can't" about naked kids, but I do know how I would feel if the girl in that photograph was my 13-year-old neice, and my reactions would be extremely mixed.

I think it's possible, maybe, for both the parents and the child to be mature enough to give consent to appear nude, but I am certain that my neice is not capable of understanding the full implications of her acts. For one thing, that girl almost certainly did not consider the possibility that her photos would appear here, in an internet forum designated "Sexuality", nor do I think she expected her images to appear in a news website next to such articles as "Deadly snake bites man's penis", as it does here.

It's easy to spout one opinion or the other, but whether you're saying all children are precious snowflakes who don't have genitals or saying that the f***ing MAN is breathing down our NECKS, dude, we need to acknowlege that there are no absolutes in this world. We can't even absolutely declare that any one of those images is, or is not, porn.

Someone out there is jerking off to them as we speak, I am certain of it.

I think acetylene kind of hit it here. SOMEONE thinks its porn, regardless of whether it was intended to be or not.

Personally, I think interpreting it as porn is absurd. I see these photos in the same light as I see an Anne Geddes calendar depicting naked babies. Yes, its entirely possible to have a naked body depicted with no sexual intention, but where that distinction is drawn is entirely one's own opinion.

Regardless, I'm sure the photographer is loving the uproar. Any publicity is good publicity in the art world.

*With tongue firmly embedded in cheek* Shall I direct you over to the auto-erotica thread?

Yeah, I'm sure someone sees it as porn. But that's not the issue, I think. We can't go around making the rules of society based on the fact that someone out there might get a stiffy. There's people out there trying to shag everything from kids to the family dog-- to say nothing of the neighbors' BMW. You could post photos of an 89-year-old Masai grandmother taking a crap by the side of the road, and someone out there would be jerking off to it. If we start outlawing stuff and sending in the cops and having fits of the screaming mimis every time somebody pops a woody at something nutty or sick, pretty soon, everything's going to be against the law, or declared indecent, or condemned for being lewd.

It is a very bad idea, IMHO, to allow the lowest common denominator-- or worse, the lowest uncommon denominator-- to determine how we act as a society. To do so is-- to borrow some slightly different terminology-- letting the perverts win. I feel quite strongly that it behooves us to take the attitude that art is art, and we will support it and benefit from it as a society-- even the kinds that are not to our individual personal tastes, and if people are going to misuse it and turn it into some kind of fetish, that's their sad problem, and they should do it behind closed doors.

The instant that we turn the police into the inappropriate boner patrol, we are wasting taxpayer money, we are sending kids the wrong message, and we once again show the world our willingness to sacrifice freedom and diversity in support of unwinnable battles against problems that can't be solved with smug posturing by politicians, draconian laws, and sending in the cavalry.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23776064-2,00.html

Here is another article about what both sides think.

The thing I don't understand is what is in it for the kids/teenagers? It's true that they weren't forced and they got permission to do this. But, I can't imagine any teenage girl/boy in Australia or US public school doing this and having it become this public. Although nowadays I guess kids are texting nude pictures of themselves to each other and some of those probably get out there.

I do view this as art, but it isn't as good as it could have been. But just because there are naked people or you wouldn't want your mother to see you looking at it doesn't automatically make it porn. And if society would be more accepting of nudity and not always relating it to sex, they could see the difference.

My GP/family doctor saw me naked and a bunch of other kids too. Maybe they were thinking bad things too. The government can't stop thoughtcrimes. At least not yet. Although it is trying very hard in this area. The quote that I got out of the article I linked to said "It is the people who view our children as sexual objects that must be taken to task."
I wonder why nudist resorts can still have nude children/teenagers around still and there haven't been laws banning kids there and at nude beaches?

Just remember that everyone is naked under their clothes.

(I do wonder if they missed the bottom right picture in #18 of the first link... Although it is kind of blurry and you can't tell how old the people in it are.)

This is another case of Government gone crazy. Sometimes the government should just step back and say 'we don't need to get involved'. The problem is that as soon as someone brings up this kind of thing, politicians *have to* say something and condemning it is probably the more popular option.

That is the problem with democracy - it is a popularity contest :(

FWIW - I would not go to such an exhibition anyway, but as pointed out by someone above, if I came across these in a museum or art gallery, I could see the artistic merit of these pictures. I would be unlikely to hang one up at home.

You're right. I misread and thought he was asking if it was okay to post here.

That said, although some might regard my take as conservative, I say hardly. I have nudes of myself and my girls as babies, but as a parent I can't understand why anyone would ask a prepubescent child to pose nude.

I agree that there's nothing wrong with the human body, but I feel the children in these pictures (I only saw the first 10 or so) are not old enough to know or decide if they're being exploited. The tone of the photos strikes me as pornographic. I feel like I'm viewing kiddie porn. Even those that don't show the body somehow convey something definitely not childlike.

The human body is beautiful. But kids are just beginning to grow their bodies, they are about a spirit and beauty that comes from their naivete. I could see it as art if the focus and lighting felt a little less slimy. Maybe I've been a mommy too long.

And, for the record, I think Americans are wound too tightly when it come to sex and the human body. Go figure.

I'm probably one of the more sexually liberal individuals on this board. (A long story, however, I believe it to be true from what I have read in other posts on here.)

Never the less, I'm going to come down firmly on the NO (as in NO Need for these photos) on this one. (I stopped looking at those photos after about the 5'th or sixth one because it was making me feel sick.)

For one simple reason.

Let children be children for themselves.

They have enough children stuff to deal with, they don't need more.

Kids get 18 years where they shouldn't have to be part of the sex world, or the art world, or whatever world you want to call it. After 18, all bets are off, and I'm good with that. (Why couldn't this photographer take pictures of women aged 18 and over in the exact same poses? Would it not be the same are regardless of the age of the subjects?)

After they are 18, you can photograph them fellating a horse for all I care. But prior to that, no.

We don't need it and it's too slippery of a slope.

Does that mean the sunblock girl mascot is porn? Does that mean the little framed posters of young nude babies playing in the bathtub is porn?

i don´t see the relevance. please explain further.

Personally, I'm not fond of these pictures, but I do not coin them as being 'pornographic.' Something about them being studio shots puts me off, though.

I've always loved the work of photographers like Sally Mann and Jock Sturges (both of whom have been called 'child pornographers' for their work). Sally Mann took pictures of her own children and Jock Sturges the children of nudist families in Europe. A lot of their work is shockingly bold, but the candid nature of the photographs give them more artistic merit, in my opinion. Something about setting children up in a studio with lights for nude photographs is a little off-putting. Granted, that is probably my own hang-up. At any rate, the photos aren't disturbing or particularly troublesome...again, in my opinion.

My own personal opinions on this are mixed and I'm at quite a loss at how to articulate them.

For what it's worth, it was the New South Wales police who decided to ban the exhibit and charge Henson, both state and federal governments commented on it because it became a media frenzy.

I'm angry at the fact that the media has blown this out of proportion. If anyone is guilty of exploitation, it's them. They're making money out of how they spin this, the artist isn't.

James, you asked why he couldn't just use mature age models? Well, the artist is trying to say something about what it is to be a young teenager. That's what he's getting at.

I sometimes feel that artists get rapped up in their own wankery and put themselves above the rest of society, ethics, and the law. But I really don't feel Henson has done that in these photos.

It is a matter of ones own personal opinion. But in a free and democratic society we should be able to voice and express ourselves within an ethical and legal frameworks without the fear of being silenced.

I feel this whole affair has been yet another case of trial by media, where an individual has been demonised by a group who aren't elected, who don't represent common interests, and who only serve to make a commercial gain.

This will now be decided in a court of law, where judges and legal representatives have no choice but to put their personal opinions aside and argue what laws Henson has actually broken.

The world is sick, it's fucked up, and bad things happen. But why is it we jump all over the easy targets, yet switch of to the bad shit that ACTUALLY happens.

I've witnessed some awfully fucked up shit in housing commission flats and outback communities. Funny how the Australian public doesn't really want to know about it when it's happening to poor or indigenous Australians.

We should do our best to protect our children. There is a time and a place for everything. But closing them off from the real world doesn't help them in the long run, people have to get acquainted with the real world sooner or later.

To me, this whole thing is just another example of rampant hypocrisy.

Australia is by no means a 'conservative' society. But if we, as a people, are to progress, we need to be able to discuss ideas in context, and intelligently.

This is a hairy issue, I agree, and there's no absolutes. But people need to be able to step back and think about why they feel what they do. People need to be able to read between the lines of media spin and form an opinion of their own. So far, the only politician to say something half intelligent over the issue was an opposition member, whose political party is very conservative.

If this whole affair does anything, I hope it wakes people up and makes them think.

Yeh, these images sexualize, or at least, sensualize the children. They are innappropriate.

I don't think any of the teenagers were harmed by this, or at least weren't being harmed prior to the media showing everyone who they were and spinning the photographer as a bad guy.

There need to be more cut and dry (and reasonable) laws about CP and the prevention of kids getting hurt. (Although how many are used for sex around the world...and yet nothing is really done for that). IMO, solo nudes are pretty much never porn, especially if nobody was forced or hurt and no money was exchanged. And they aren't obviously sexual (a young girl in bed with her legs spread for instance wouldn't be good, but a girl skinny-dipping in the lake would be.)

Just as a small update.

Most of the works by Henson that were the most controversial were sent to the Classifications Board. This is government body responsible for age and appropriateness classifications for Films and other publications. After reviewing the photos, the board gave them a PG rating. Basically, suitable for viewing by persons of any age provided a parent or guardian can put the content in a context for children. This is the lowest classification in the country.

Because of this, the Director of Public Prosecutions (I think that's the same as a district attorney. They're the people who decided whether a case can go to court or not) advised the New South Wales police that the charges against Henson wont hold up in court and so all charges against Henson have now been dropped.

It's nice that sanity ended up prevailing in the end, and it gives me a bit more confidence that the legal system here actually works.

Yeah, I don't get the fuss.

These images aren't nudes for the sake of nudes. They're not even nudes for the sake of shock value. The nudity is integral to the artistic message being conveyed. If the children had been clothed (or if the same shots were done with adult models) it wouldn't carry the same meaning and impact.

Regardless of the medium, art is about telling a story. Good art should have a message to convey to the viewer/listener, and these photos do that. There is one image in the eight linked that could possibly be construed as sexual, but even then I'd say it's more on the viewer; I didn't see it that way myself until I read the entire thread, and then on a second look I was able to understand how it might be interpreted that way. Frankly, there's a couple of these that I'd be quite happy to have hanging in my living room. I think they're quite powerful and beautiful images.

I do not understand the equation of nudity with sexuality. Compare and contrast this to the photos available on Zivity; many of those are erotic and feature clothed models. Even then, I don't know that I'd go so far as to call them pornographic, but there's a certain sexuality in some (not all) of the photos there that is not in the least bit present in the images linked here.

Regarding the rest of it, levite is my man. I may in the future just have everyone refer to his posts when stating my opinion.

I looked at all of the photos. Like MM, I was put off by how 'studio' they looked. I don't consider those art, but that's my opinion. I don't consider them porn either, although there are always going to be sick people getting off on these types of photos. C'est la vie.

I wasn't going to post on this topic because it's subjective and a moral call. However, when I got to pictures 16 - 18 I wondered what the news spin was on this. The photos behind the photographer (I'm assuming) on the wall look more artful. I don't see any of the 'studio' shots (1-9) on the wall while they may be exhibited somewhere. I just wondered why the news gallery only showed the pictures of the children looking isolated and not the others. Maybe it was to make them appear more as a victim.

We've got our finger right on the nature of art, here. Art challenges. It poses questions. It brings up our prejudices and preconceptions and sacred cows so they can be examined and perhaps slain.

I can't fathom that the artist could have been naive enough to think this work would be uncontroversial. The controversy is the point! On some level, the controversy IS the artwork. This very thread is his actual art piece, not the photographs.

Also (and this may seem like a contradiction against what I just wrote, but it's not), whether or not something is obscene has ZERO to do with the artist's intention, at least as obscenity is defined in the United States. I'm not a scholar on Australian law, but in the US obscenity is defined in terms of community standards.

I disagree. Some art may challenge the viewer or social conventions, but saying that all art does so or that it has to in any way is a bit of a fallacy. Further, I don't see these images as being that way at all.

Mr. Henson may have realized that these images would be controversial, but personally, I'm inclined to believe otherwise. The articles here seem to imply that he has exhibited this sort of work before without this sort of a backlash, which if true would seem to further suggest that he had no reason to believe that there'd be such a furor over this particular set. I think getting caught up on the 'omg nekkid kids' aspect is completely missing the point of the images, which regardless of whether the backlash was expected or not have more to say than just that.

We have photographs of a young girl, nude, in low light with no backdrop. She appears sad and contemplative. These images suggest to me the vulnerability and uncertainty inherent in those years, which adults so often forget. This girl is isolated and alone, and that's what these images are conveying. I see nothing sexual about them and I consider them to be a powerful commentary on the trials of youth which, while often discounted by those of us who have passed them, are not inconsiderable.

I said above that art tells a story, which is true but may be too restrictive. It may be more accurate to say that art carries a message; sometimes that message is controversial, but assuming it has to be closes off a lot of possibilities.

Just because it's shown with the purpose of art, doesn't mean that's the way all are going to take it.

Imagine all the creepy 80 year old man rocking up to the gallery, just for this.



Art or not, they're under aged. You can see this being pedofiles new excuse. "ZOMG IT'S NOT KIDDY PORN, IT'S ART"

This point has been raised.

While I respect that there is an element of genuine concern there, I don't think it holds a huge amount of water.

I can bet you pounds to pennies there are people out in the big bad world fapping over the underwear section of the latest K-Mart catalogue as we speak. Should that mean we don't use live models in K-Mart catalogues because a few people out there get turned on by it?

We shouldn't have to live in a society that's governed by knee jerk and unintelligent fear.

Damn, This is a hard post to reply to..

Personally, I find the photos off-putting. It's been imprinted in me that sexualizing children is bad. I can't help but notice they look eerily similar to photos in my porn folder though. How can you not see these photos as pornography when there's no discernible difference between something you find on a porn site and something taken by an "artist."

However, I have to ask myself, "What harm are these photos causing?" Nobody's life is ruined or really affected in any negative way by them. They have artistic merit to someone and I don't think they should be deemed illegal just because a few people find it pornographic and even fewer people get off to it.

nothing to say

I don't think that you should argue that it's not art just because you don't see the point. It's pretty clear to many of us that there is a statement behind them. If you don't see it then maybe you should stick with mainstream art.


I have a question for those of you that think this looks like porn just because it's shot in a studio. Why does a studio = porn?? Some of the most famous art out there was shot in a studio and some of the most famous porn is shot outdoors.

nothing to say

I never said that shooting it in a studio made it porn. I said that it was more off-putting to me personally. I stated emphatically that I did not think this was porn nor particularly disturbing in any way.

Of course there are people doing that, but actual nudity would be even more tempting to them.

People are jailed for googling kiddy porn, and this guy doesn't get in trouble for taking nude pictures of minors and showing them to the public?



We shouldn't have to, but we do.

Point taken, however, those pictures are illegal because some poor child likely had those pictures taken against their will, or were 'groomed', or taken advantage of in some way.

Again, Henson went to great lengths to make sure no one was taken advantage of. He asked the young teenagers if they'd like to feature in the shots, explaining what was involved. He asked the parents before he asked the young teenagers. The teenagers involved in this incident and in past works have come out in his defense saying they felt completely safe and comfortable the whole time.

nothing to say

So, if I understand you correctly, if a photojournalist takes a photo of a naked child suffering the cruelty of war, it is acceptable, even though the photojournalist was well-paid for the photograph. But if an artist takes a photo of a naked teenager suffering nothing but the usual miseries of adolescence, in a nice safe studio, that constitutes reprehensible commercial exploitation of children.

It sounds to me like you're saying that there is no possible way for anyone under the age of 18 to be nude in a photograph for any reasons but titillation and sexual exploitation. Any artist taking such a photo, it sounds like you're saying, cannot call the picture art, because too many people would find the photo offensive or distasteful-- or, alternatively, sexually stimulating. Which, to me, sounds as though you're saying that in order to be art-- at least, the sort of art that deserves protection and toleration by a free society-- there can be no themes that would offend the mores of the conservative majority of society, or unduly provoke sexual reaction in anyone at all.

This seems not only an unreasonably narrow definition of art, but also historically unrealistic. Much of the greatest art reflects the willingness of artists to push boundaries, to express things that the majority of their society are not expressing, or are not expressing in the same way as the artists in question. Many great paintings and drawings were considered inappropriate-- works by El Greco, Gustave Dore, Paul Gaugin, Paul Rubens, Matthias Grunewald, and Hieronymous Bosch, among others-- many innovations of style or theme considered in poor taste-- surrealism, dadaism, impressionism, expressionism, symbolism, mannerism...even some neoclassicist works. I am by no means saying the photographs in question here are or ever will be masterworks on the scale of the kinds of works I've just mentioned; but my point is that one never knows what will end up being "good" or "real" art.

I said before, and I'm happy saying again, I am not the biggest fan of these photographs, although I do think they are decent work, interesting, and not sexual. But even if I thought them verging on tasteless, I would still wish to err on the side of artistic freedom and tolerance. I just don't believe art should be ruled by the mores of the masses. And I cannot help but note that, as the art in question appears to be decidedly not to your tastes, you feel comfortable comparing the photographer to Hitler. That seems...a bit extreme.

And while the photographer in question seems to have gone to some lengths to ensure that there was no deception or compulsion forcing his young subjects to do anything they do not wish to do, including securing parental approval for all works, you maintain that "a kid at thirteen is not ready to decide if they should be photographed nude." This seems like a fairly gross generalization. Some kids, no doubt are not. Some kids might be or might not be. Some kids would clearly be ready for such a decision. To simply include all the world's adolescents in one wave of the hand seems like an unreasonably rigid definition to me. And you dismiss the parental approval just as universally as "bad parenting." But isn't it more precise to say that it's a parenting choice you don't personally approve of, and that you would not make? You compare it to parents who prefer to let their kids experiment with alcohol or marijuana in controlled situations, rather than on the proverbial streets, which you clearly also consider reprehensible-- and yet many might say otherwise. I myself would consider doing so, and I have known many whose parents did just that for them, and they turned out to be healthy adults, productive members of society with neither addictions nor repressive attitudes about experimentation or pleasure.

Art, like parenting, is done differently by different people, experienced differently, appreciated differently. Different ways can have value. With all due respect, it seems to me that, in general, and within certain parameters, rather than classifying parenting as "good" or "bad," by universalizing the measures of one's own preferences, it is more productive to do for one's own children what one's conscience dictates, and presume that other parents are doing the same with their children. And rather than censoring artistic endeavors we find distasteful, one might simply decide to view and purchase the art that is to one's own tastes, and ignore what is not. In that way, one need not encounter art one finds disagreeable, and yet artists are not subjected to prosecution for pushing the boundaries of art.

I'm sorry if I have spoken firmly-- I don't wish to give offense-- but as an artist, and a supporter of artistic communities, and a friend of many artists, I feel quite strongly that the government has no business deciding what is and is not art, to say nothing of deciding what sort of art can or cannot be shown publicly, or whether unpopular artists deserve imprisonment or not.

I understand he wanted best conditions and did the "right thing" by the children/family. But it's still illegal.

I guess if this is allowed, I'm allowed to go around tagging on people's walls in the name of Art. I'm not doing it for the purpose of destroying people's buildings. But in the name of Art.


I just think this will put a very wrong message to all the pedos out there, he got away with taking pictures of a yongue girl naked, why can't they?


Aslong as there are crazy people who like under age children, we have to be careful.



euhhhh

nothing to say

With respect, I just disagree that this is about shock value.

The first thing that leapt out at me when I saw the photos was the sense of vulnerability, the sense of intermingled nervousness, excitement, and tentativeness, conveyed not just by the expressions on the girl's face, but by her nakedness, by the lighting, the play of shadows. I thought it was really a rather evocative visceral reminder of how it felt to be that age. The same photo of a girl ten years older might have made me remember how it felt to be 23 or 24 or whatever, but that's a different feeling. Plus, a naked 23 or 24 year old girl would be much harder for me not to view with a strong element of sexuality or eroticism. But these photos did not at all strike me as erotic, and it really took me a few moments of looking at them with the mindset of trying to recognize controversial material in order to perceive how they could be viewed as erotic or sexualized.

You say that this is not pushing the boundaries of art, but then you go right on to say that the majority of society has decreed that children "do not need to be photographed nude." But like I was saying before, part of how art pushes the boundaries is to do or portray or show things that the majority of society has decreed that we not talk about or see or acknowledge in some way. Photographs of nude children might not strike us as radical innovation, but it is clearly challenging the accepted viewpoint, and many visual artists would tell you that part of what they seek is to try and shake people out of their normal viewpoints, to see different things.

In all fairness, I think whether the photos are tasteless or not, it is not apt to compare them to a John Waters movie, despite the fact that he himself proudly touts the movies as tasteless. His brand of tasteless is very different from what one might call these photos: his brand is definitely designed intentionally to offend and maybe even shock the sensibilities, but I'm really not sure that shock and offense are what this photographer was going for. There's a big difference between intentional shock and offense and intentionally challenging social viewpoints.

As for parenting, I'm not denying that letting your kids be photographed naked, or allowing them to take a drug, or giving them alcohol, might sometimes be bad parenting. I'm only saying that it depends on the context and situation-- the people involved, the where and the how and the why. Sometimes it might be bad parenting. Sometimes it might just be parenting you don't agree with. One could also say that being universally and inflexibly strict with kids in the matter of nudity, art, sexuality, intoxicants, and so forth might not make them less fucked up, it might just fuck them up in different ways. Sure, I've known people whose parents were too permissive, and they ended up with tons of issues. But I've known just as many whose parents were too rigid and puritanical, and they ended up with just as many issues.

In the end, I'm not suggesting that you raise your kids more permissively. I would never be so presumptuous-- I think you should raise your kids as seems best to you. I'm just suggesting that there might be other ways that work, that involve different philosophies, and have a different resulting trade-off of psychoemotional preparations. Not better, not worse. Just different.

I just think in general, more freedom of expression benefits society, and so does more flexibility about what we will and will not tolerate in the ways people raise their families.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree :)

I will point out, however, that it has now been proven that Henson broke no law in Australia. The intent of the photos played a huge part in that.

And levite, props man, it's not often I come across someone who can argue something with passion, patience, AND respect over something the they feel quite strongly about.

No to mention there is nothing particularly new or groundbreaking about this work.

hence the need for the controversy so it gets coverage

If those were adult female models in the photos, I would find them arousing. This leans me toward thinking that the intent was to cause controversy (I don't think the artist intends to make money off of child porn consumers.) I think that a responsible artist, were the exhibit not intended almost entirely to cause controversy, would have refrained from taking or exhibiting these pictures because without that controversy, they lack anything but the most basic artistic merit.

And again, Henson has been doing similar work for 30 years and no one said a thing. I really do not think that he intended to cause controversy.

perhaps it took 30 years to get the controversy he wanted...

You know on that point, I might just concede. That certainly is a way one could look at it.

The erotic nature of anything is entirely subjective.

I'd say the only people who need to worry about 'erotic' pictures of young people which seem quite unerotic(?) to many are... those who find them erotic or potentially erotic i.e."I can see how that is erotic in this or any context" such as, say... The New South Wales police and those who are hand-wringing over these pictures.

Why is it that they think these pictures are erotic? Is it because they themselves find the images disturbingly erotic on some level?

Nudity !(necessarily)= Erotic

Humanity and its obsessive prurience...

[As a complete and potentially offensive aside, I'd love to see some research with those who are extreme in opposition to 'art' or non-sexual imagery of children (like perhaps indulging in reductio ad Hitlerum) in the same vein as that conducted with vehement anti-homosexuals vis-a-vis gay pornography (demonstrating in many cases that the more strongly anti-homosexual the chap, the more physically aroused he was by the images - to the point of tumescence while professing disgust) ]

It's actually worse than that, I'm afraid. It seems to me (from this and other discussions I've been involved in here) that not only nudity, but also human physical beauty is necessarily erotic, as well.

And I think it belies a real hypocrisy, in that those who are obviously seeing sex everywhere are the first ones to wag the finger...even when they are misunderstanding the intent of what they see.

Look! Naughty bits! Rude! Dirty! Disgusting! SEX!

Oh Noes! Unclean thoughts!

MUST ERADICATE STIMULUS WHICH LEADS ME TO IMPURITY!

nothing to say

No. You haven't effectively described why they are pornography. I think the burden lies with you. I can say they are not porn because I don't find that they promote the children in a sexual way. I would like to hear why seeing a child nude is unequivocally erotic.

I did a bit of digging on the ABC website (Government owned broadcaster). I was trying to find a TV interview/panel I caught bits of about this subject, but came across this instead:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2253908.htm

The journalist comes right to the point of WHY Henson's work (whether pictures of clouds or children) *does* have artistic merit and also discusses it in terms of older art vs current day art.
She also mentions that he has had huge shows at Australia's largest galleries in the past without a whimper.

The entire piece is quoted below.

QFT

What was the definition I heard from the US Supreme Court? Pornography is any act which causes sexual thought without artistic merit. (?)

So, it follows that if the images are said to be pornographic, then they must cause sexual thought in the judge.

I don't find these images causing me sexual thoughts.