Art ..... or child porn!

[base_nz 0]

Bill Henson recently had photos pulled from a Australian Gallery. There have been a large amount of people speaking out condemning the puling of the pictures.
Last week a female photographer displayed naked photos of her pre teen daughter in protest?????????

What is going on





Is it art or pornography to exhibit photographs of naked 12- and 13- year-old girls? That perennial debate was reignited in Australia yesterday, where police swooped on a Sydney gallery displaying works by the internationally renowned artist Bill Henson.

Police confiscated 20 of the 41 images in the exhibition, hours before it was due to open on Thursday night. Well-heeled art lovers and critics arrived at the Roslyn Oxley9 gallery in the fashionable suburb of Paddington to find a police car outside and a sign saying the opening had been cancelled.

The Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, condemned the photographs as "absolutely revolting", and New South Wales police said they expected to lay charges.

But respected figures in the art world defended the moody photographs, with their dark backgrounds, claiming they were neither "sexualised" nor pornographic. Judy Annear, the senior photography curator at the Art Gallery of New South Wales, said: "They're beautiful. They're very, very still. They're very formal, they're very classical. They're a bit like looking at an Ancient Greek Attic vase."

Others noted that Henson – whose photographs are in the collections of all the major public galleries in Australia, as well as New York's Guggenheim Museum, the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art and the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris – has been producing similar work for decades.

However, police, who were alerted by local newspapers, said they had identified "items depicting a child under the age of 16 years of age in a sexual context". A 13-year-old girl, who has not been identified, is believed to be the subject of all the images seized.

The local police commander, Allan Sicard, said: "Police are investigating this matter, and it is likely that we will proceed to prosecution on the offence of publishing an indecent article under the Crimes Act."

It was not clear whether charges might be laid against Henson, or the gallery, or both.

The gallery owners agreed to suspend the exhibition, but plan to re- open it, minus the offending images. Police are also investigating Roslyn Oxley9's website, where the photographs were on display.

Hetty Johnston, a child protection campaigner, denounced the pictures. "It's child exploitation, it's criminal activity, and it should be prosecuted," she said. "These are clearly illegal child pornography images. It's not about art at all."

In media interviews before the exhibition, Henson said that he photographed adolescents because of their humanity and vulnerability. He added: "You can't control the way individuals respond to the work."

Mr Rudd's response was unequivocal. "Kids deserve to have the innocence of their childhood protected," he said. "Whatever the artistic view of the merits of that sort of stuff – frankly I don't think there are any – just allow kids to be kids."

Police plan to speak to the parents of the 13-year-old. Hugh Macken, the president of the New South Wales Law Society, said a prosecution would only be successful if it could be proved that the photographs were designed for sexual gratification, rather than artistic purposes.

The police action was denounced as censorship in some quarters.

Michael Reid, an art dealer, said: "The naked body, whatever age, has been a subject [for artists] for thousands of years. The question is, was there consent, which I can't answer. And has the image been sexualised? In my opinion, it wasn't."

John McDonald, the art critic for the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper, said: "To me, the big shame is that the only time that we start ... talking about art in the mainstream media is when it's banned, when it's supposedly pornographic."

.....And you thought Kiwis couldn't fly!!!!

[billvon 2,400]

Good thing Michaelangelo isn't still alive; he'd be in jail for life.

Having a nude picture of someone is not pornography. Having a nude picture of a child is not child pornography. We need a little more common sense and a little less in the way of knees jerking.

[base_nz 0]

Quote

Good thing Michaelangelo isn't still alive; he'd be in jail for life.

Having a nude picture of someone is not pornography. Having a nude picture of a child is not child pornography. We need a little more common sense and a little less in the way of knees jerking.

I guess.... But if Michaelangelo was alive to day i think he would be doing something other than taking photos of naked children?

Its just i saw a few of the photos and they where pretty full on....( granted im not an expert on art)...If they where paintings then there would be a difference in my mind.

Surely you can capture the innocence of a 13 year old without having to see her vagina?

.....And you thought Kiwis couldn't fly!!!!

[billvon 2,400]

>But if Michaelangelo was alive to day i think he would be doing
>something other than taking photos of naked children?

More likely painting and sculpting using nude models - some of whom were children, as was common during the Renaissance. But who knows? He might have used photography as a medium if it was available (which it wasn't during his time.)

> Surely you can capture the innocence of a 13 year old without having to
> see her vagina?

You could say the same about Michaelangelo's David. Did his penis need to be so detailed? The sculptor thought yes, and he got to make the call (fortunately.)

[Squeak 17]

The Courts determined Bill Hensons pics were not pornography.


The only reason the Nation Gallery pulled his pics was because a NEWS, paper complained about them AFTER some other pics were put in question. The orignial pics were found by the courts to be fine.
the "NEWS" company was having a slow day and decided to CREATE there own news

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[lawrocket 3]

Google Imaged for "Blind Faith album cover." This controversy has been going since, at a minimum, 1969.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Nightingale 0]

Next thing you know, parents are going to get in trouble for emailing cute photos of their babies in the bath or on a bearskin rug.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Next thing you know, parents are going to get in trouble for emailing cute photos of their babies in the bath or on a bearskin rug.

Similar thing has been already called a "HUGE RED HERRING" right here:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2793653;search_string=grandmother;#2793653

Yet another thing for law enforcement and stupidity groups to "protect our children" - after all, the artist is here, easy to catch, and - unlike real criminals - won't use /armed/ violence against a police officer looking for retirement. Very similar to "fight drugs" by arresting pot smokers.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[base_nz 0]

Fair play.....

Just wanted to find out the general feel of what you all thought about them...

Can understand organizations going to far too, A lot of schools have banned all photographs by parents at there events over here.....

Guess i cant get my head around a parent letting there kid pose for some of these photos.... Im guessing judging by the responses no-one here would mind there daughter doing this if she was 12?

.....And you thought Kiwis couldn't fly!!!!

[Royd 0]

Quote

Surely you can capture the innocence of a 13 year old without having to see her vagina?

They could call it sex education, put it in a grade school, and not get a raised eyebrow.

[pirana 0]

Quote

Next thing you know, parents are going to get in trouble for emailing cute photos of their babies in the bath or on a bearskin rug.

I think it has already happened a few times. I recall at least one prominent story a while back. Can't remember details other than some columnist or commentator giving that same warning.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[AWL71 0]

Quote

Quote

Good thing Michaelangelo isn't still alive; he'd be in jail for life.

Having a nude picture of someone is not pornography. Having a nude picture of a child is not child pornography. We need a little more common sense and a little less in the way of knees jerking.

I guess.... But if Michaelangelo was alive to day i think he would be doing something other than taking photos of naked children?

Its just i saw a few of the photos and they where pretty full on....( granted im not an expert on art)...If they where paintings then there would be a difference in my mind.

Surely you can capture the innocence of a 13 year old without having to see her vagina?

I couldn't agree more and I can't imagine why someone would want to look at this type of "art." The responses so far are suprising to me. Children should be protected. Pass the Ansel Adams please.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Fair play.....

Just wanted to find out the general feel of what you all thought about them...

Can understand organizations going to far too, A lot of schools have banned all photographs by parents at there events over here.....

Guess i cant get my head around a parent letting there kid pose for some of these photos.... Im guessing judging by the responses no-one here would mind there daughter doing this if she was 12?

I don't see the problem. It's not like they were firing guns.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[ianmdrennan 2]

I think, unfortunately, that people are unable to disconnect nudity, and sexual context. The naked human form, no matter the age, does NOT (IMO) necessarily equal pornography.

If the poses are obviously provocative (once again a subjective term), then you could make a strong case they were.

In a country where the act of a mother simply feeding her child has become some sort of sexual thing, I don't find the 'OMG nude people' mentality all that surprising. Just sad.

My honest opinion is that those who are so offended by innocent nudity, are projecting their own sexual reactions onto the majority and trying to regulate themselves into feeling better about what lies within them.

Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[base_nz 0]

Ok..... My next question.....

Who buys these photos and where do they hang them? Living room, Bedroom?.... Maybe dining Room???

.....And you thought Kiwis couldn't fly!!!!

[AWL71 0]

Quote

I think, unfortunately, that people are unable to disconnect nudity, and sexual context. The naked human form, no matter the age, does NOT (IMO) necessarily equal pornography.

If the poses are obviously provocative (once again a subjective term), then you could make a strong case they were.

In a country where the act of a mother simply feeding her child has become some sort of sexual thing, I don't find the 'OMG nude people' mentality all that surprising. Just sad.

My honest opinion is that those who are so offended by innocent nudity, are projecting their own sexual reactions onto the majority and trying to regulate themselves into feeling better about what lies within them.

Ian

I understand the difference between nudity and sexual content but what I don't understand is how society is OK with pictures of naked kids. I don't get the draw. I just feel kids should not be in these types of pictures. Adults can do as they please.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[billvon 2,400]

>I understand the difference between nudity and sexual content but
>what I don't understand is how society is OK with pictures of naked kids.

That's OK; you don't have to. Some good friends of mine have a great black-and-white shot of their (nude) six month old girl that hangs in their living room. It's a very well done picture, and certainly qualifies as art for them. It may not for you, and that's fine.

> I just feel kids should not be in these types of pictures.

Again, that's fine. It's only when you try to impose your morals on others that we have a problem.

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

I don't understand is how society is OK with pictures of naked kids.

What's not to understand about a naked picture without sexual context?

It's not like we're born with clothes on - the idea that nudity = dirty is created by our social structure which, at present, equates nudity with 'dirty'. To me, that shows a problem with our society, not the picture.

Maybe it's the European in me, but nudity doesnt phase me in the least, nor do I consider it sexual in the least.

Example: some of my favorite sexual 'stimulia' has nothing at all to do with nudity, and actually relies on being clothed (and the naughty bits) covered. So, to me, a child dressed in that provocative manner is far more of a concern than a regular nude picture. I guess herein lies the problem - one persons art is another persons pornography. It's a very grey area, I recognize that.

I will heartily admit, that since I haven't seen these pictures I have no idea on how graphic they may, or may not, be. Since the court found them non-pornographic I have to assume they're not graphic or sexual at all.

Blues,
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[Shotgun 1]

Having looked at a lot of his photos, I'd say that most of them are not at all sexual, and I don't see any problem with them. But I did see a few that I would categorize as erotica (not porn), that contained young-looking girls (~12-13 years old?), and no, I wouldn't want my teenage daughter (if I had one) posing for such photos. And those few photos I would say are on the fuzzy line of what is OK (I certainly didn't want to save them to my computer, because they might be construed as child porn here in the US), but most of his photos are not like that.

[ianmdrennan 2]

Side note: I'm impressed at how people on both sides are expressing themselves. I find this unusual, and refreshing, in the Speakers Corner
I'm enjoying the discussion.

Performance Designs Factory Team

[base_nz 0]

Quote

Having looked at a lot of his photos, I'd say that most of them are not at all sexual, and I don't see any problem with them. But I did see a few that I would categorize as erotica (not porn), that contained young-looking girls (~12-13 years old?), and no, I wouldn't want my teenage daughter (if I had one) posing for such photos. And those few photos I would say are on the fuzzy line of what is OK (I certainly didn't want to save them to my computer, because they might be construed as child porn here in the US), but most of his photos are not like that.

I think thats why they didnt shut down the whole thing and only took the worst of them...

You know there is some thing wrong with a photo though, when as soon as it comes up on your screen,you want it as far away from your computer as quickly as possible....



.......and no trace on the hard drive


BUT HERE IS THE KICK IN THE NUTS!!!!


.... Taxpayers money hard at work!!!!!!

A PROVOCATIVE picture of a naked six-year-old girl has been used on the cover of a taxpayer-funded magazine in protest over the treatment of artist Bill Henson.

Art Monthly Australia magazine sparked fresh controversy over naked images of children by publishing an image of a six-year-old girl on its cover to protest against the recent furore over similar pictures by artist Bill Henson.

NSW police seized a number of Mr Henson's photographs featuring near-naked or naked children in recent months, but were returned to a Sydney art gallery without charges being laid.

The July edition of Art Monthly Australia published the cover image in protest at the "hysteria" over Mr Henson's work.

It also includes several provocative photos of children posing naked in adult jewellery as well as naked teenage girls.
n the editorial, Maurice O'Riordan said he chose the 2003 picture of the young girl in the "hope of restoring some dignity to the debate" and to "validate nudity and childhood as subjects for art".

The image, taken by Melbourne-based Polixeni Papapetrou, is believed to be her own daughter.

Mr O'Riordan, who does not have children of his own, told The Sunday Telegraph he did not care if it stirred community complaint.

"I believe the image is of a six-year-old girl," he said.

"Maybe this is bold, but I don't see the need to give in to that sort of hysteria or the prospect of complaint.

"I couldn't really understand the furore."

The artist, Ms Papapetrou, said she supports the use of her work for the magazine's cover.

"We need to be clever enough to distinguish art from other types of images, otherwise we live in danger of eradicating any image of childhood in this culture for future generations to see."

Art Monthly Australia receives more than $50,000 in funding from the Federal Government's Council for the Arts and lists the New South Wales Ministry for the Arts under sponsors and partner. The State Government has issued grants to the magazine in previous years.


But this might be a little more accurate .......


"We need to be clever enough to distinguish art from other types of images, otherwise we live in danger of eradicating any image of NAKED childhood in this culture for future generations to see."

?

.....And you thought Kiwis couldn't fly!!!!

[AWL71 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't understand is how society is OK with pictures of naked kids.

What's not to understand about a naked picture without sexual context?

It's not like we're born with clothes on - the idea that nudity = dirty is created by our social structure which, at present, equates nudity with 'dirty'. To me, that shows a problem with our society, not the picture.

Maybe it's the European in me, but nudity doesnt phase me in the least, nor do I consider it sexual in the least.

Example: some of my favorite sexual 'stimulia' has nothing at all to do with nudity, and actually relies on being clothed (and the naughty bits) covered. So, to me, a child dressed in that provocative manner is far more of a concern than a regular nude picture. I guess herein lies the problem - one persons art is another persons pornography. It's a very grey area, I recognize that.

I will heartily admit, that since I haven't seen these pictures I have no idea on how graphic they may, or may not, be. Since the court found them non-pornographic I have to assume they're not graphic or sexual at all.

Blues,
Ian

I have no problem with nudity either and I am not the moral police. To each his own. I just think kids should not be in these types of pictures. Why does anyone want to look at a 13 year old girl that is naked? Why? I'm not saying you don't have the right to do it. Just trying to understand why. So my concern is about the kids. Putting kids in these types of pictures is a slippery slope. Adults can do as they wish. I have a 6 year old daughter and I can't imagine how any parent would allow a "child" in these type of pictures. But that's just me. Other parents can do as they wish.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[Conundrum 1]

What I don't get the most is how a baby's BUTT will be blurred out on a TV show. omg a naked baby!

Get. The fuck. Over it.

[AWL71 0]

Quote

What I don't get the most is how a baby's BUTT will be blurred out on a TV show. omg a naked baby!

Get. The fuck. Over it.

Have you read the thread? Where did I say I had a problem with a naked baby's butt? A naked babies butt is cute, a naked picture of a 13 year old girl...not so cute. By the way, I'm already over it. Thanks for your words of wisdom.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[Conundrum 1]

Where did I say YOU had a problem with a naked baby's butt? I said I can't believe it has to be blurred out on TV. You just happened to be the last person to post.