Anyone for Art versus Pornography ?

I personally do not want to get into the debate. It is too taxing. Here is a link to the Australian debate?
"ARTIST Bill Henson’s controversial photographs would be considered “in the realm of pornography” if they were displayed in Victoria, according to a leading criminal lawyer.

But NSW Police have not yet asked their Victorian counterparts to help in the investigation, despite the fact that Henson lives in Melbourne."

What always amazes me is when the people involved- in this case the gallery owners - say they did not expect such an outcry. What world do they live in?! I only heard of Miley Cyrus when the outcry came about naked photos of her. I live in a country of this -The Sunday Herald Sun yesterday reported that even nappy commercials showing semi-naked babies could encourage pedophiles.

The pictures in question are of 12 and 13 year old kids naked. It doesn’t matter if it is porn or not, he shouldn’t be allowed to take pictures of naked 13 year old girls.

The article in the OP troubles me.

The problem is not censoring art, the problem is allowing an old man to take pictures of a naked 13 year old girl. There is no way to stop this other than to censor those pictures.

Regulating the photo sessions is an option, but even then it would be too open for abuse.

People are troubled by artistic images all the time. I don’t care if it troubles you. If it doesn’t hurt anyone during creation, you don’t have the right to censor it just because it gives you the heebie jeebies.

Do you think this 13 year old girl realised what she was doing? Possibly millions of people have now seen her photo- it has been published in the main Melbourne newspaper. I have never seen a photo of a naked 13 year old girl before.

Why is it different when she’s 13 than when she’s 1? “Naked” doesn’t mean “sexual abuse”, and it’s kind of disturbing that it’s the first conclusion people jump to in this situation.

I think these photos (from the blurred out images available online) are very much art and not porn. I base this on the belief that porn exploits, titillates and sexualises, whereas art is more about form and beauty. One art critic interviewed described the 13 year old girl in the main photo of interest as “demure” and I’d have to agree. The setting is abstract and the overall effect is certainly not titillation.

As for the girl knowing what she’s doing, I would hope so, to the extent that a 13 year old can be expected to comprehend such a course of action. I expect that the artist has taken the precaution of obtaining the consent of her parents or guardians. If it was me, I’d want to have the girl’s mother, aunt, older sister or some other responsible female on hand at all times while working with the girl. I would be very concerned if that isn’t the case but seeing as Henson has been taking photos of young people for a long time, he’d almost certainly have an ethically sound approach to procuring photographic models.

This photo controversy has sparked a lot of debate about art and pornography and also about the sexualisation of children. While those are interesting and worthy topics, I don’t think they are really all that closely connected. A long bow is being drawn here by a bunch of (well meaning but ill informed) artistic philistine wowsers. I guess the police had to act once someone complained. I hope they investigate Henson’s activities thoroughly. I expect them to find nothing untoward.

I’ll bet you dollars to doughnuts that the PM has never seen the pictures, but he sure knows a lot about knee jerk soundbites. If anyone thinks that the pictures themselves are “eroticized”, then they’d better steer well clear of any mainstream teen-girl magazine as their heads would literally explode.

Naked ≠ Naughty

In Australia at least you definitely cannot take these pictures without the parents consent, how about putting the parents on trial rather than the artist, gallery or the film lab.

The Wiki article has a sound blurb from one of his models, who had her nude pictures done when she was young… like 12. 20 years later, she describes it as a wonderful experience, and supports the artist completely. She also says that she is a parent, and abhores child porn, but that this artist does not do that.

I tend to agree. The reaction to this in the US would drive the guy out of the country, which makes me sad.

I’ll take 50 bucks on pornography.

I like a safe bet.

I mean, this is like Lindsey Lohan versus Mike Tyson.

The photographs in Pavement Magazine don’t strike me as pornographic.

You want adolescent porn, how about Abercrombie & Fitch? Seems like they’ve probably put several skeevy operatives out of business.

It’s frustrating b/c children do exemplify beauty. Their posture is stunning, the way they move their bodies is utterly graceful, completely unlike adults. Some adults are deliberately beautiful, but children are unconsciously so.

I would love to document my kids in the buff, to celebrate them, but in our society that would be walking a dangerous line.

Why not, though? What’s wrong with nudity?And what about 13 year old boys?

Would it be OK if it was an 18 year old woman taking the photos? Why?

IMO, it’s art. Good art, too. This is just stupid.

The situation has potential to be abused. Henson might have done a good job here, but what if it was a pornographer posing as an artist and the parents didn’t know any better?

Do you really want to risk placing children in these kinds of situations?

I actually shouldn’t come out too strong against this. I don’t know how well the Australian government regulates this stuff. Maybe if this was really well regulated I would be more OK with it.

It doesn’t matter who is taking the pictures.

This one is like boilerplate erotic, but not really anything more lacivious than we see out of 14 year old fashion models every day.

http://www.pavementmagazine.com/henson_boygirl2.jpg

I’m not entirely certain what this means. How would this work, exactly? What sort of specific scenario are you envisioning? Like, the photographer is going to take a bunch of tasteful, artistic nudes, and a bunch of hard core child porn, and just tell the parents about the nudes? Wouldn’t “I want to take pictures of your daughter with all her clothes on,” be a better cover story for a child porn operation? Or is your concern that there are parents out there who are so stupid that they’d agree to let their daughter participate in a pornographic shoot, just because the photographer tells them he’s “really an artist?” “I felt a little wierd about my little girl sucking off a Clydesdale, but the guy said he wasn’t a pornographer, so it must be okay.”

So do lots of situations. Hell, a lot more 13 year olds are making amateur cellphone porn themselves than being preyed upon by pervs with a greasy mac and a camera, I’ll bet. You going to call for kids to be banned from cellphone use, too?

But it’s not a what-if situation - it’s a specific example that’s being discussed. Henson isn’t a pornographer and didn’t abuse the kids. So what-ifs aren’t really pertinent.

I don’t see any risk whatever. As a parent, I’d vet any person who had that kind of contact with my daughter, but I’m not averse to her being in similar photographs when she’s that age (or any age). I see nothing wrong with any of the Henson photos I’ve seen so far. They’re certainly not in the David Hamilton erotica league, even.

I think it’s the parent’s responsibility to do the vetting, backed up by the State, yeah. But this kind of after-the-fact finger-wagging where it’s not warranted doesn’t save any kids from being preyed on by real pervs.

I think the only regulating that should happen is that no sexual contact should happen, and leave it at that. IMO, simple nudity is not pornography. Sure, gynaecological lips-stretched-open Hustler-style shots could be porn (or medical textbooks) but we’re definitely not talking about that here.

Then why did you seem to be emphasising the Dirty Old Man stereotype there. It wouldn’t be the fallacy of an Appeal To Emotion, would it?

Question, for my own edification,Lakai, do you have kids?

No, but I would ban websites from publishing those pictures.

The point is how do you allow nice guys like Henson to take nude photos and no else? If you can write a law to accomplish that, then I wouldn’t be against it.

I don’t like the fact that people are responding to the questionable art, and not on the dangers of letting children get naked in front of photographers.

Nude photos aren’t simple. If they aren’t tasteful, and are distributed among porn sites, they can really damage a persons reputation. The decision shouldn’t be up to a minor or their parents. We can live without this kind of free expression as long as it protects children from being exploited.

I probably could have written something more dry and logical, but that isn’t as much fun.

No I don’t.

We already have laws about who can and can’t work with children. Anyone involved with schools, childcare, community groups, and so forth, has to undergo a background and record check by the police. I’d have no problems with that being extended to artists who want to portray nudes.

We don’t know for a fact that Henson is a ‘nice guy’. We assume he is, based on his work and artistic reputation. In effect we trust him, and most abuser of children do so from a position of trust. He’s not in the clear yet and the investigation is ongoing. He could be the biggest purvey creep ever, but his work isn’t showing that, isn’t porn. If the objections are to the work, they’re ill informed and baseless. If they’re to the man, well, we’ll see.

BWAHAHAHAHAH :smiley: