Bill Henson Photos: Child Pornography or Art?

[Pardalis]

So if I take a pic of a nude child, I've magically transported that kid from innocence to puberty. Of course.

It reminds me of the Islamic extremists who black out everything they dislike on pictures.

Like any trace of skin on a woman (more examples here: http://jturn.qem.se/2006/more-pictures-of-iranian-censorship/)

and even cartoon drawings of dogs for crying out loud, because apparently dogs are "dirty".

In Henson's pictures, the genitals are not exposed, there's no expression of lust on the face of the models and they don't have poses that are lascivious. There's no sexual context. This is simply not pornography, but particularly well crafted photography.

 

[BillyJoe]

The Blind Faith album is still availible I assume?

http://www.angelfire.com/wi/blindfaith/vvcov69.html

I thought I'd seen everythiing by Eric Clapton, but I have never seen that album. By the way, that link contains an interesting summary of the events that led to the photograph going on the front cover of the album.

Here is a response form the "Parental Advisory" site;
http://www.ericnuzum.com/banned/incidents/60s.html

Controversy over the cover of Blind Faith's debut album prompts their label to issue the record with two different covers. The original cover, released in February, features a photograph of a naked 11-year old girl, holding a metallic, rather phallic-looking model airplane. The airplane points toward her lower abdomen. Atco Records eventually drops the benign second cover because it doesn't sell as well as the original.

I am reminded of Bill Henson's quote:

"It's your road, not my road"

There is also the cover of Led Zeppelin's "Houses of the Holy" album:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ec/LedZeppelinHousesOfTheHolycover.jpg

The current hysteria over child pornography is causesing a number of problems. Particularly in releation to historic works.

So is there as fight back or do we just let the special interest groups and politicians set the agenda?

 

[BillyJoe]

This is not difficult - pornography is by definition depiction of sexual acts, Nudes are not pornography no matter what age the individual.

That is not correct.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

OMG child porn!!!

 

[BillyJoe]

In Henson's pictures, the genitals are not exposed, there's no expression of lust on the face of the models and they don't have poses that are lascivious. There's no sexual context. This is simply not pornography, but particularly well crafted photography.

The bolded part is not correct.
(Google "Bill Henson" under google images)

Exposed genitals does not, of course, equal pornography.

 

[Rufo]

One of them, however, struck me as disturbing, as it's clearly a portrayal of a sexual assault, and I don't know how old the models are. I've removed the pic since I suddenly remembered seeing (or at least I think I did) a rule against posting nudity here. I'll look up the rules and then perhaps post the pic again.

Hm. I only saw the picture linked to in the OP, and assumed they were all like it. I'll reserve my final judgement of this whole event until we know more.

As for the rules, they clearly state that "content that depicts or describes sexual or excretory organs or activities in an offensive manner" is not to be posted outside the members only area, so it all depends on what the picture shows. Ironically, content which "is considered pornographic, obscene, or contains excessive reference to violence and/or explicit sexual acts" is not allowed anywhere - so the question of whether it can be here posted or not is, in extension, what we are discussing.

 

[BillyJoe]

I agree with the Law Society President that the definition of pornography is not simple. The definition I use when talking about regular pornography is "media which is intended to produce sexual excitement", meaning that the difference between pornography and non-pornography is 100 % in the intent of the creator. If I take photographs of a shoe to provide sexually charged material for shoe fetishists, then that is pornography. If I take photographs of two peolpe enganging in sexual intercourse purely for informative use, then that is not pornography. Of course, this also means that anything can serve as pornography to someone with the proper sexual preferences, for which - obviously - the originator can not be held responsible.

However, when it comes to child pornography and to legal matters in general, the priorities are different. While there is a wish to uphold a taboo - which is great - the primary objective is to ensure that no children are harmed or taken advantage of. So the questions we should be asking ourselves are whether these children have been harmed by the process, and whether the artist has taken advantage of their inability to understand the situation.

In this case, I think it's relatively safe to say that no such thing has happened. I also do not think sexual excitement was in the authors intent, so I would not call this pornography in the first place.

(I have highlighted some bits)
Thank you for your thoughtful post - I cannot agree more.

By the way, why is this in the Religion and Philosophy section?

It was a toss up.
There is a Art forum, but I am unsure how popular it is.
And I'm pretty sure there is a far bit of religion and at least some philosophy in there.

 

[Nogbad]

That is not correct.

It depends on whether one wants to call anything that offends the sensibilities of any particular person pornography or not. I was really only pointing out what it originally meant. As word today it seems to be an increasingly moveable feast.

 

[fuelair]

"Nude" should not automatically equal "sexual."

It doesn't to rational people.

 

[Stellafane]

While I'm sure pedophiles would be stimulated by such pictures, I don't consider them pornographic...

This pretty much sums up my reaction as well.

 

[slingblade]

It doesn't to rational people.

Thank you. I am having some rational tea. Would you bring the rational biscuits?

This is, of course, nothing new. I have no pictures of my children in their bath, or in any other state in which they are undressed. We didn't dare. There was too much "OMG, kiddie porn perverts are sending their film to regular grocery-store developers!! All your pics, from now on, will be carefully scrutinized, and if we don't like what we see, you're a pedo!!!!1!!"

IIRC, a couple or three families wore this label for a while, back in the '80s, because of harmelss "baby in the bath" type pictures, reported as porn to the cops.

 

[Rufo]

Thank you. I am having some rational tea. Would you bring the rational biscuits?

This is, of course, nothing new. I have no pictures of my children in their bath, or in any other state in which they are undressed. We didn't dare. There was too much "OMG, kiddie porn perverts are sending their film to regular grocery-store developers!! All your pics, from now on, will be carefully scrutinized, and if we don't like what we see, you're a pedo!!!!1!!"

IIRC, a couple or three families wore this label for a while, back in the '80s, because of harmelss "baby in the bath" type pictures, reported as porn to the cops.

I don't know which I find more revolting - that people can't see a naked child for what it is, or that they justify their vile reactions with that "children should be allowed to have their childhood". That's exactly what this is about, dammit! It's bad enough that we have developed such a twisted culture that the naked body is automatically considered as something lewd without having to extend that to individuals who are not even concerned with sexuality.

If we keep treating children as sexual objects who have to be covered up so not to tempt the lusts of perverts, we will be designing our society after the perverts. What kind of message does that send?

 

[geni]

http://www.angelfire.com/wi/blindfaith/vvcov69.html

I thought I'd seen everythiing by Eric Clapton, but I have never seen that album. By the way, that link contains an interesting summary of the events that led to the photograph going on the front cover of the album.

Interesting but not true. Girl claims she never got the horse. (sourceL 100 Best Album Covers: The Stories Behind the Sleeves)

So is there as fight back or do we just let the special interest groups and politicians set the agenda?

A fight back? A fight in favour of nude pics of kids? I mean yes the ACLU would probably be interested to an extent but for anyone else that would be social suicide.

There appears to be oposition yes but it tends to be very careful and picks indivual cases rather than fights on principle (see the long running jokes over this event http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/901723.stm ) . Where it attempts to fight on principle it tends to run into problems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_Eye#2001_paedophilia_special ).

 

[Pardalis]

The bolded part is not correct.(Google "Bill Henson" under google images)

I said exposed. It's barely visible in only one that I've seen, that means it's not the focus of the picture, and nowhere is it its intent.

Exposed genitals does not, of course, equal pornography.

It may not be sine qua non, but it's one dead give-away when it is done suggestively in order to arouse. Pornography is about exhibition.

 

[Chupacabras]

The next time someone says naked children is pedo, I will rub their face with this picture:

WARNING: LINK TO GROSS PHOTO JOURNALISTIC IMAGE:

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0806/x-delano17.html

 

[lionking]

Another, ignored but very important, concern is that of informed consent.
Not the consent of the parents of the children, but the consent of the children themselves.

This is exactly the point I was going to raise, which curiously nobdy else has discussed. If not pornographic, which is arguable, these photos can be seen as exploiting young people.

 

[fromdownunder]

This is exactly the point I was going to raise, which curiously nobdy else has discussed. If not pornographic, which is arguable, these photos can be seen as exploiting young people.

This is also the issue I wished to raise. The pictures don't concern me personally, and I would not bother clicking on links that displayed any of them. Not all that interested.

But the informed consent issue is relevant. 13 year olds cannot consent to anything much at all. They are deemed by law (right or wrong) not to be aware enough to judge the effects of their actions. They cannot vote, drive a car, enter into a contract, leaave home legally, marry without parental consent (and a court of law in many jurisdictions), have sex, and hundreds of other things.

Now, was the girl in question told what could happen when her pictures were made public? If she was just told that they are artistic photos, and people will see them as art, she was not informed correctly (but cannot consent either way regardless).

If she was also told the flip of the coin side: "There is 100% chance that your pictures will turn up on the internet, and (some) dirty old men in raincoats will sit at the screen, looking at your picture and masturbating over it while thinking about you", would she have consented? (still not relevant - she cannot legally consent, but food for thought)

Norm

 

[RandFan]

America had a dust up with the artist Mapplethorp a decade or so ago. Nude children are not pornographic so long as there is no sexual activity.

FWIW, some don't bother me but many do.

 

[RandFan]

The next time someone says naked children is pedo, I will rub their face with this picture:

WARNING: LINK TO GROSS PHOTO JOURNALISTIC IMAGE:

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0806/x-delano17.html

Why?

 

[BillyJoe]

It depends on whether one wants to call anything that offends the sensibilities of any particular person pornography or not.

That would make everything pornographic because somewhere someone will be offended by anything.

I was really only pointing out what it originally meant.

Okay, sorry about that.

As word today it seems to be an increasingly moveable feast.

I think we need something practical.
What do you think of rufo's definition?