Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Sexuality


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 05-28-2008, 01:44 AM   #1 (permalink)
Psycho
 
MrFriendly's Avatar
 
Location: Australia
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
__________________
You are not a slave
MrFriendly is offline  
Old 05-28-2008, 04:17 AM   #2 (permalink)
Asshole
 
The_Jazz's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
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.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
The_Jazz is offline  
Old 05-28-2008, 04:54 AM   #3 (permalink)
Leaning against the -Sun-
 
little_tippler's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: on the other side
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:



Quote:
WE live in a society that revels in spectacles, and no spectacle is more animating than a drama hinging on the issue of the protection of children. Reading about the Bill Henson case from overseas, it has been impossible not to notice an element of kitsch as people - politicians, in particular - congratulate themselves on the vehemence of their response. After all, they seem to tell themselves, no one could be accused of being too vehement when it comes to the protection of children.

Of course, vehemence is detectable in the art world, too, where many have reached for a patronising and high-handed tone. Behind all that they say is the assumption that merely categorising something as art is enough to exempt it from the need to defend itself, which is nothing if not naive.

I know Henson - I see him in Melbourne regularly - and have admired his photographs since I was a teenager (it's an observable phenomenon that teenagers are among his work's biggest fans). I do not know the girl who modelled for his recent photographs, but I feel deeply for her at the moment: it can't be fun to have the Prime Minister describe images of you as "absolutely revolting".

The unctuous Kevin Rudd might have taken a moment to think of the effect of his comments on her before he spoke, but that would be asking too much. Of course, many believe the harm was done earlier, and that the photographs should never have been taken. I respect their opinion. There is, of course, a long history of images of naked children and teenagers in art, but there are many reasons why the taboo around such images has become so strong in recent decades. The main one is simple: sexual abuse of children has become rampant.

The evidence is undeniable and the damage inflicted by those in positions of trust and responsibility is very real. We know that abusers of children often peddle in photographic imagery, and the thought, naturally, disgusts us. We want to stop the circulation of such imagery and to stop the abuse.

The situation is perfectly comprehensible and it needs to be acknowledged by Henson's defenders. The issue is not as simple as an old-fashioned clash between philistines and cultured libertarians. There is more at stake: more feeling, more legitimate grievance and more fear.

But we are being extremely short-sighted if we respond to our fears by insisting that any image of a naked 12 or 13-year-old - no matter what the context - must, ipso facto, be sordid and depraved, or have been made in sordid and depraved circumstances.

I saw the images that were removed by the police from Henson's gallery in his studio several months ago. I found them powerful. I was surprised by them - they seemed like something of a departure for Henson - but I was moved. Everyone reacts differently to different imagery. But despite the girl's nakedness, I did not find them sexualised in the least. Undoubtedly I was influenced by my familiarity with Henson's previous work, but I found them respectful, poignant, moving.

The girl was not "made available"; quite the opposite. I felt instead a combination of intimacy (how could such an image not be intimate?) and something else to do with an awareness of what cannot be known, touched, recovered. Henson has used the word inviolate. To me it seems apt.

Certainly, when I saw these images (along with similarly sized still lifes and landscapes shrouded in shadow, each intended to be shown with the others, to amplify and deepen them), it did not occur to me that they would be grabbed by police from the walls of Australia's most prestigious commercial gallery as if they were smut.

Perhaps the real lesson of the past few days is that the language that usually surrounds art - the language of emotions, psychology, historical inheritance, beauty - is ill-equipped to answer accusations levelled at art in the moral and political sphere.

There is just nothing one can say in defence that does not, in a climate coarsened by fear (many of these fears legitimate, as I have said), sound like sophistry or, worse, naivety.

And yet Henson's art is worth defending, because he is a great artist and his themes - solitude; intimacy; transitional, incommunicable states; desecration; what the critic Dennis Cooper called "moments of intense self-mourning", and so on - are addressed with profound sensitivity and understanding. They have found expression over the years not only in images of the faces and bodies of teenagers and young adults, but in a whole array of other imagery, including landscapes, still lifes and urban crowds. Of course, there is a kind of artist (one sees more and more of them these days) who finds a taboo and breaks it, hoping thereby to create a sensation. Henson is not that kind of artist. He is well aware that his work has the potential to stir up controversy. (He has sensible and sensitive things to say about this, but he is acutely aware that one cannot ultimately control the reception of one's images.) But his vision is authentic and original. And it is highly sensitive to emotional ambiguity, as great art should be (and politics never is).

We live in a society that has less and less time for ambiguity. It is a society of maximum visibility. And yet the values of brightness and transparency that are so emphasised in the media are often little more than a veneer for various kinds of bullying. Just look at the way advertising - always so nerve-rackingly upbeat - incessantly cajoles and manipulates children into an awareness of sexuality that is always attached to emotional blackmail and commercial gain.

As an art critic, every month I see imagery that is revolting, cynical and exploitative in a way that puts Henson's work into perspective. I have been subjected to video footage from a probe inserted into the artist's anus (Mona Hatoum), I have seen mannequins of children with penises and vaginas attached to their face (the brothers Jake and Dinos Chapman) and, yes, I have seen images of naked pubescent and prepubescent children by the likes of Jock Sturges and Larry Clark that I find, for the most part, unredeemed by artistic merit.

Henson, who was first given a show at the National Gallery of Victoria when he was 19 and was later chosen to represent Australia at the Venice Biennale, has earned the right, I believe, to have his images seen in a context of dignity and contemplation. Or, I should say, the images themselves have earned that right.

Besides, how strange it would be if there were no context at all in which to contemplate imagery of what is perhaps the most poignant and moving phase of human life without it being seen as sordid or depraved.

"You can't control the way in which individuals respond to the work," Henson has said. And he is right, of course. But, as it turns out, it's not so much individuals he has to worry about; it is groups, and individuals claiming to represent groups: people, in other words, who have given themselves the task of speaking on behalf of others.

We need such people, I suppose, but they are always the ones to watch. Such people have no time for private experience, unless it is the kind of private experience they deem dirty.

Sebastian Smee is the former national art critic for The Australian. He now writes for The Boston Globe.
Source
__________________
Whether we write or speak or do but look
We are ever unapparent. What we are
Cannot be transfused into word or book.
Our soul from us is infinitely far.
However much we give our thoughts the will
To be our soul and gesture it abroad,
Our hearts are incommunicable still.
In what we show ourselves we are ignored.
The abyss from soul to soul cannot be bridged
By any skill of thought or trick of seeming.
Unto our very selves we are abridged
When we would utter to our thought our being.
We are our dreams of ourselves, souls by gleams,
And each to each other dreams of others' dreams.


Fernando Pessoa, 1918
little_tippler is offline  
Old 05-28-2008, 05:45 AM   #4 (permalink)
Upright
 
lotsofmagnets's Avatar
 
Location: reykjavík, iceland
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.
__________________
mother nature made the aeroplane, and the submarine sandwich, with the steady hands and dead eye of a remarkable sculptor.
she shed her mountain turning training wheels, for the convenience of the moving sidewalk, that delivers the magnetic monkey children through the mouth of impossible calendar clock, into the devil's manhole cauldron.
physics of a bicycle, isn't it remarkable?
lotsofmagnets is offline  
Old 05-28-2008, 06:52 AM   #5 (permalink)
Eponymous
 
jewels's Avatar
 
Location: Central Central Florida
I'll skip my opinion because it's irrelevant.

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

Quote:
# If a picture has someone under 18 in it, you can choose to blur them to the point that even you can't recognize them, put a big solid block over them, or not post the picture.
__________________
We are always more anxious to be distinguished for a talent which we do not possess, than to be praised for the fifteen which we do possess.
Mark Twain

Last edited by jewels; 05-28-2008 at 06:54 AM..
jewels is offline  
Old 05-28-2008, 07:17 AM   #6 (permalink)
Asshole
 
The_Jazz's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by jewels
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.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
The_Jazz is offline  
Old 05-28-2008, 07:42 AM   #7 (permalink)
The Worst Influence
 
cadre's Avatar
 
Location: Arizona
- 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.
__________________
My life is one of those 'you had to be there' jokes.
cadre is offline  
Old 05-28-2008, 11:52 AM   #8 (permalink)
Minion of Joss
 
levite's Avatar
 
Location: The Windy City
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.
__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)
levite is offline  
Old 05-28-2008, 12:24 PM   #9 (permalink)
eats puppies and shits rainbows
 
RetroGunslinger's Avatar
 
Location: An Area of Space Occupied by a Population, SC, USA
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.
__________________
It's a rare pleasure in this world to get your mind fucked. Usually it's just foreplay.

M.B. Keene
RetroGunslinger is offline  
Old 05-28-2008, 12:26 PM   #10 (permalink)
Upright
 
lotsofmagnets's Avatar
 
Location: reykjavík, iceland
edit: re-read....

still seem tp be on my own here though
__________________
mother nature made the aeroplane, and the submarine sandwich, with the steady hands and dead eye of a remarkable sculptor.
she shed her mountain turning training wheels, for the convenience of the moving sidewalk, that delivers the magnetic monkey children through the mouth of impossible calendar clock, into the devil's manhole cauldron.
physics of a bicycle, isn't it remarkable?
lotsofmagnets is offline  
Old 05-28-2008, 02:18 PM   #11 (permalink)
The Worst Influence
 
cadre's Avatar
 
Location: Arizona
Quote:
Originally Posted by levite
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.
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.
__________________
My life is one of those 'you had to be there' jokes.
cadre is offline  
Old 05-28-2008, 03:11 PM   #12 (permalink)
Addict
 
Location: under a rock
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.
__________________
There's no justice. There's just us.
Acetylene is offline  
Old 05-28-2008, 03:23 PM   #13 (permalink)
The Reverend Side Boob
 
Bear Cub's Avatar
 
Location: Nofe Curolina
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.
__________________
Living in the United Socialist States of America.
Bear Cub is offline  
Old 05-28-2008, 03:41 PM   #14 (permalink)
eats puppies and shits rainbows
 
RetroGunslinger's Avatar
 
Location: An Area of Space Occupied by a Population, SC, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acetylene
Someone out there is jerking off to them as we speak, I am certain of it.
*With tongue firmly embedded in cheek* Shall I direct you over to the auto-erotica thread?
__________________
It's a rare pleasure in this world to get your mind fucked. Usually it's just foreplay.

M.B. Keene
RetroGunslinger is offline  
Old 05-28-2008, 04:04 PM   #15 (permalink)
Minion of Joss
 
levite's Avatar
 
Location: The Windy City
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.
__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)

Last edited by levite; 05-28-2008 at 04:11 PM..
levite is offline  
Old 05-28-2008, 04:15 PM   #16 (permalink)
immoral minority
 
ASU2003's Avatar
 
Location: Back in Ohio
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.)
ASU2003 is offline  
Old 05-28-2008, 05:02 PM   #17 (permalink)
Mine is an evil laugh
 
spindles's Avatar
 
Location: Sydney, Australia
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.
__________________
who hid my keyboard's PANIC button?
spindles is offline  
Old 05-28-2008, 05:12 PM   #18 (permalink)
Eponymous
 
jewels's Avatar
 
Location: Central Central Florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
I'd say that your opinion is the only thing that's relevant.
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.
__________________
We are always more anxious to be distinguished for a talent which we do not possess, than to be praised for the fifteen which we do possess.
Mark Twain
jewels is offline  
Old 05-29-2008, 03:14 PM   #19 (permalink)
Junkie
 
james t kirk's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto
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.
james t kirk is offline  
Old 05-29-2008, 03:22 PM   #20 (permalink)
Upright
 
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?
868686 is offline  
Old 05-29-2008, 05:35 PM   #21 (permalink)
Upright
 
lotsofmagnets's Avatar
 
Location: reykjavík, iceland
Quote:
Originally Posted by 868686
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.
__________________
mother nature made the aeroplane, and the submarine sandwich, with the steady hands and dead eye of a remarkable sculptor.
she shed her mountain turning training wheels, for the convenience of the moving sidewalk, that delivers the magnetic monkey children through the mouth of impossible calendar clock, into the devil's manhole cauldron.
physics of a bicycle, isn't it remarkable?
lotsofmagnets is offline  
Old 05-29-2008, 05:37 PM   #22 (permalink)
has all her shots.
 
mixedmedia's Avatar
 
Location: Florida
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.
__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce
mixedmedia is offline  
Old 05-30-2008, 06:30 AM   #23 (permalink)
Psycho
 
MrFriendly's Avatar
 
Location: Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by james t kirk
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.
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.
__________________
You are not a slave
MrFriendly is offline  
Old 05-31-2008, 05:03 AM   #24 (permalink)
Upright
 
Location: Aiken, SC, USA
Yeh, these images sexualize, or at least, sensualize the children. They are innappropriate.
TH12 is offline  
Old 06-01-2008, 06:02 AM   #25 (permalink)
immoral minority
 
ASU2003's Avatar
 
Location: Back in Ohio
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.)
ASU2003 is offline  
Old 06-08-2008, 01:25 AM   #26 (permalink)
Psycho
 
MrFriendly's Avatar
 
Location: Australia
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.
__________________
You are not a slave
MrFriendly is offline  
Old 06-08-2008, 02:00 AM   #27 (permalink)
Young Crumudgeon
 
Martian's Avatar
 
Location: Canada
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 wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame
Martian is offline  
Old 06-08-2008, 05:28 AM   #28 (permalink)
Fancy
 
shesus's Avatar
 
Location: Chicago
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.
__________________
Whatever did happen to your soul?
I heard you sold it


Choose Heaven for the weather and Hell for the company

Last edited by shesus; 06-08-2008 at 05:31 AM..
shesus is offline  
Old 06-08-2008, 05:59 AM   #29 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
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.
ratbastid is offline  
Old 06-08-2008, 06:48 AM   #30 (permalink)
Young Crumudgeon
 
Martian's Avatar
 
Location: Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
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.
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.
__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame
Martian is offline  
Old 06-08-2008, 07:12 AM   #31 (permalink)
Upright
 
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"
Blasphemy is offline  
Old 06-08-2008, 10:32 PM   #32 (permalink)
Psycho
 
MrFriendly's Avatar
 
Location: Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blasphemy
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.
__________________
You are not a slave
MrFriendly is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 05:30 AM   #33 (permalink)
Delicious
 
Reese's Avatar
 
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.
__________________
“It is better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick” - Dave Barry
Reese is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 02:18 PM   #34 (permalink)
Banned
 
nothing to say

Last edited by pocon1; 07-06-2008 at 10:43 AM..
pocon1 is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 05:59 PM   #35 (permalink)
The Worst Influence
 
cadre's Avatar
 
Location: Arizona
Quote:
Originally Posted by pocon1
This "artist" needs a kick in the crotch. When you push the envelope and play games under the guise of freedom of expression then you get what you deserve. This isn't about freedom of expression, there is nothing to express. This is studio shots of a young girl and they are inappropriate. The Vietnamese girl running from the firebombing was mentioned. That was appropriate, given the context of the shot. Illustrating the horrors of war. This guy has not thus far demonstrated why this is anything other than naked shots of a young girl. I know many of you want to protect "ideals", and freedoms, but society also needs people to be adults and say "this is wrong, children do not need to be exploited so some dumbass "artist" can make a "statement" about nothing. So fuck him, and grow up people. Your freedoms are not under assault. His dumb ass is.
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.
__________________
My life is one of those 'you had to be there' jokes.
cadre is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 06:08 PM   #36 (permalink)
Banned
 
nothing to say

Last edited by pocon1; 07-06-2008 at 10:43 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
pocon1 is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 06:31 PM   #37 (permalink)
has all her shots.
 
mixedmedia's Avatar
 
Location: Florida
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.
__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce
mixedmedia is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 08:37 PM   #38 (permalink)
Upright
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFriendly
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.
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.
Blasphemy is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 01:42 AM   #39 (permalink)
Psycho
 
MrFriendly's Avatar
 
Location: Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blasphemy
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.
__________________
You are not a slave
MrFriendly is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 04:37 AM   #40 (permalink)
Banned
 
nothing to say

Last edited by pocon1; 07-06-2008 at 10:44 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
pocon1 is offline  
 

Tags
art, porn

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:09 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360