Art and Censorship- The Bill Henson Photos

[Mujer Libre]

This topic treads a line between discrimination and art, but anyway- I think since it deals mainly with a photographic exhibition, it belongs here.

Basically, photographer Bill Henson's work was taken off the walls at a Sydney gallery this week in a police raid because it featured nude photos of a 13 year old girl. Of course the photos were taken with the full consent of the girl and her parents, but since then there has been a huge shitstorm in the mainstream media, with conservative politicians (including the PM) saying that the pictures are pornographic and "disgusting," and are a threat to family values and an incitement to "perverts."

Surely it's these people, with their puritanism and scaremongering that are perverting things here- misconstruing art as pornography, and the human body as disgusting?

And the way this has been bought wholesale by the media is so disgustig- especially considering that 13 year old girls are subjected to far worse from the mainstream media, that demands their attention as consumers, as objects for men's amusement and as vapid dolls.

In case you can't tell, I'm angry. :P

Here's an editorial from The Age (http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/smallminded-attitudes-cloud-responses-to-art/2008/05/25/1211653847046.html) newspaper. It's not too bad for The Age.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

Yes I agree. Where do we draw the line with what is child pornography and what is art? The question is difficult because we really don't have a definitive definition of what is art and what is child pornography and they can *sometimes* be blurred. However, like you ML, I think the distinction here is pretty clear cut - and it being blurred for only the wrong reasons.

On one hand, we don't see a picture of a naked baby as child pornography. Otherwise all parents would be child pornographers! Of course, it's the context which counts - something which is made for purely artistic purposes, is typically going to be art. We can't *control*, for example, how someone is going to respond to seeing a four year old naked - but merely because someone may potentially see it as 'child pornography' doesn't make it child pornography! It has more to do with the person who views it as such.

When it comes to photos of pubescent females, society generally sees it as 'indecent', particularly where the female is sexualized. Five years later they are legally allowed to be in pornography.

I think there is *somewhat* of a double standard in that we aren't allowed to find a naked female pubescent's body beautiful, yet its socially acceptable, like the article said to impersonate a 21 year old and thereby be 'safe' to be 'ogled' at.

However, I think there is a difference between a four year old being naked and a thirteen year old. It's socially embarrassing for a thirteen year old, going through puberty, to be photographed. Yet that shouldn't preclude someone whom is comfortable with wanting to be photographed naked, clearly for artistic purposes, from doing so.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike this art, just like there are plenty of reasons to dislike other pieces of art, but labeling it child pornography is an slur, and trivialities what child pornography actually is, which is what we should be fighting, and probably has the underpinnings of a socially conservative viewpoint.

All I know is that Bill Henson should not be facing any criminal charges (or even the threat of them).

Edit: Relevant article: Lawyers doubt Henson can be prosecuted. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/24/2254653.htm?section=entertainment)

[phasmid]

Is there any denying that pedophiles seek to view children naked? And here is an exhibiton that provides them with what they want, under the guise of being "art" How do you think you would react if the report had said that a previously convicted pedophile had taken these photos? We can not fall into the trap of being so "liberal" we allow anything as long as the per-portrayor has the title of "artist". Another artist took naked photos of an 11 year old boy in "protest". Is this art or just more sexual exploitation of children? I say its the latter. And once that road has been "justified" and "cultured" there's no knowing where we'll end up.

[Mujer Libre]

Is there any denying that pedophiles seek to view children naked? And here is an exhibiton that provides them with what they want, under the guise of being "art" How do you think you would react if the report had said that a previously convicted pedophile had taken these photos? We can not fall into the trap of being so "liberal" we allow anything as long as the per-portrayor has the title of "artist". Another artist took naked photos of an 11 year old boy in "protest". Is this art or just more sexual exploitation of children? I say its the latter. And once that road has been "justified" and "cultured" there's no knowing where we'll end up.
But these photos were not taken with the intention of providing sexual pleasure. Furthermore they were taken with the consent of the adolescents and their parents.

Also, why on earth would a paedophile go to an art gallery to get off when they can simply go on the internet at home. It's basically a "moral panic" over nothing.

I was watching a Led Zeppelin DVD yesterday (The Song Remains the Same) and one scene featured Robert Plant's kids frolicking naked in a stream. Should things like that be banned too?

[phasmid]

But these photos were not taken with the intention of providing sexual pleasure. Furthermore they were taken with the consent of the adolescents and their parents.

Also, why on earth would a paedophile go to an art gallery to get off when they can simply go on the internet at home. It's basically a "moral panic" over nothing.

I was watching a Led Zeppelin DVD yesterday (The Song Remains the Same) and one scene featured Robert Plant's kids frolicking naked in a stream. Should things like that be banned too?

Firstly, you dont know that the "artist" doesn't get sexual pleasure from the photos, and an 11 year old is not an adolescent. Parents can consent to quite a few things involving their children, that doesn't mean it's right.

And since the pedophile industry is constantly increasing, I think all images of naked children should just stop. Why provide them with anything? Do you think you'd feel the same if it was some regular guy on your street and you heard he took photos of naked young girls?

[Mersault]

I don't know why artists bother anymore. I mean in any case taking photos of naked 13 year olds is hardly very original. The police should have arrested him for being so trite. What's the point of being an artist if you can't be bothered to think of something knew. It would be more original to NOT take photos of 13 year old girls but then you'd be left with blank photos of nothing and that wouldn't be particularly original either.

[Bilan]

Is there any denying that pedophiles seek to view children naked? And here is an exhibiton that provides them with what they want, under the guise of being "art"


That is alarmist shit.


How do you think you would react if the report had said that a previously convicted pedophile had taken these photos?um...Well, obviously differenet because they would've been a paedophile, and its likely their intentions were completely different.
The photographs are not erotic at all. The depiction of the naked body, whether photographic or not, does not equate to pornography. That's conservative moralist nonsense.


We can not fall into the trap of being so "liberal" we allow anything as long as the per-portrayor has the title of "artist"Bill Henson is a world renowned artist with works exhibited all over the world, not just some "artist".
Have you even seen the photographs?

http://images.theage.com.au/ftage/ffximage/2008/05/24/svHENSON_narrowweb__300x443,0.jpg

That's hardly pornography, or even close to sexual exploitation.



Another artist took naked photos of an 11 year old boy in "protest". Is this art or just more sexual exploitation of children? I say its the latter. And once that road has been "justified" and "cultured" there's no knowing where we'll end up.Thats fucking ridiculous, alarmist and insulting.
First, they're not degrading art or children, you're degrading free expression under the guise of a conversative morality, which treats the human body as a taboo, and even more so, that of children.
Excepting that non-sexual art work, which involves the consent of child, parent, and other guardians of whatever nature, does not legitimise paedophilia in the least bit, nor does it "sexually exploit children".
You sexually demonise human beings by treating them with such disgust.


Firstly, you dont know that the "artist" doesn't get sexual pleasure from the photos, and an 11 year old is not an adolescent. Parents can consent to quite a few things involving their children, that doesn't mean it's right.[quote]

Other models Bill Henson has used stated that he has no sexual interest in it what so ever: it is art, not pornography. Get a grip of reality.


[quote]
And since the pedophile industry is constantly increasing, I think all images of naked children should just stop. Why provide them with anything? Do you think you'd feel the same if it was some regular guy on your street and you heard he took photos of naked young girls?

He didn't provide them with anything. He provided the world with art, as he has done for the past 30 odd years. Nothing more.
People like you, however, have provided the conservative media and the pigs with an excuse to tighten censorship, and beat up a story about art and turn into a legitimisation of paedophilia. That was created by the media, not the artist.
Your logic equates to that; Women walking down the street provides rapists with a target, so they should be kept in doors.

As I said, you're being an absolute alarmist.

[Bilan]

I don't know why artists bother anymore. I mean in any case taking photos of naked 13 year olds is hardly very original. The police should have arrested him for being so trite. What's the point of being an artist if you can't be bothered to think of something knew. It would be more original to NOT take photos of 13 year old girls but then you'd be left with blank photos of nothing and that wouldn't be particularly original either.

Art is such a pain in the ass. :lol: