• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bill Henson Photos: Child Pornography or Art?

fromdownunder said:
<snip>
The point I was making (and I may have not made it clearly) is that a 13 year old cannot make a legal contract (and I will repeat "right or wrong") It is, at that age the parents responsibility to agree to the contract.

The difference would have been (when my kids were 13) I would have discussed the matter fully with them first. If they said "no, I don't want to do it", I would not have signed the contract. If they said "yes" I would have signed. Nudity for publication? I do not think I would have. But that's me.

Norm
Click to expand...

In other words as long as consent from the parents (after they have discussed with their children) have been obtained it is OK to take pictures of 13 year olds? It does not matter what if anything they are wearing?
 
rjh01 said:
In other words as long as consent from the parents (after they have discussed with their children) have been obtained it is OK to take pictures of 13 year olds? It does not matter what if anything they are wearing?
Click to expand...

My first paragraph described legal obligations, and legal responsibility. Nothing more.

In my second paragraph, I was responding with what I would personally have done in those times and given the circumstances you outlined. It also depends on what is contained in the contract of course (for me). And I did respond to the "if anything".

Norm
 
rjh01 said:
In other words as long as consent from the parents (after they have discussed with their children) have been obtained it is OK to take pictures of 13 year olds? It does not matter what if anything they are wearing?
Click to expand...

I think a more interesting question is "What exactly is the problem with such photographs?".

With regard to overtly sexualised images of underage people (real or fake) there is at least an argument to be made that they might encourage real child molesters to hurt actual children somehow. No evidence that I am aware of supports the hypothesis, but at least it's a hypothesis.

What's the argument that asexual, arty pictures of naked underage people are going to cause harm to any human being, ever?
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
With regard to overtly sexualised images of underage people (real or fake) there is at least an argument to be made that they might encourage real child molesters to hurt actual children somehow. No evidence that I am aware of supports the hypothesis, but at least it's a hypothesis.

What's the argument that asexual, arty pictures of naked underage people are going to cause harm to any human being, ever?
Click to expand...

I suspect that 99% of people who viewed these sort of photos as sexual would just masturbate to them, and then go to sleep, or something. So, no physical harm done to anybody.

But internet stalking certainly has at least some real evidence that there are people out there who will chase up underage people, based on pictures (real fake, or even non-provocative) on Mypage or Youtube.

And (don't ask for a link - it may have been somewhere on IMDb, or a link from a FSTDT quote) there is at least anecdotal evidence that some kids get a bit grossed out when they realise that people may be jerking off over their on-line pictures, whether the pictures are sexual or otherwise.

In this latter case, this is probably only a knee jerk 5 minute reaction, and there will be no long term effects (or even short term after the 5 minute "OOOHHH!, that's gross!" reaction) but mental harm could be caused in extreme circumstances because of this.

Norm
 
Last edited:
Art. Because any man with real teen-porn intentions would never go public with those intentions by exhibiting them in a gallery. Hello.

It's the viewers who were insulted who brought porn into it. That tells you how dirty THEY are.

None of these images are pornographic to me. "Porn" to me is, you know, the hard core stuff. These teens weren't doing any of that, they were just nude. Plus I believe they all had parental permission to model and had signed modeling releases. The photos aren't dirty, they're dark and mysterious and intense, just as he intended; and a pretty acurate portrayal of adolescent life, if you ask me.

Where the artist went wrong with it, was posting images on the internet and including one on the invitation. You can't do that with any nude, however they are posed and whatever the age, because people and their filthy minds will misinterpret or manipulate. That's what happened to a high school teacher in Texas not too long ago. The problem to me, isn't that she posed nude, it's that the irresponsible photographer then posted them on her Flickr portfolio. A student got ahold of it and then showed it to another teacher, who was already in a row with her and reported her for spite. She presented nudes as indecent and ruined her academic career just to get even with her for a fight that had nothing to do with it. Filthy.

It's great to be all over that freedom of expression thing, or the human-body-is-beautiful thing, but rights come with responsibility. You have to use discression (not the same as censorship) with nude art because it can and will be misinterpreted by someone. I mean look at this guy's show now. It's ruined. They took out a lot of photos. The criminal charges will serve as publicity, mainly, because he's not engaging in child porn and they'll figure that out. But if he hadn't posted images on the internet and in public outside the gallery, would this have happened?
 
Last edited:
Chupacabras said:
Because I am mad at the issue and I lack the eloquence to put it in words. Because the linked photo is of a nude girl with her legs spread and her genitalia exposed, and yet has a solid story of social/international interest behind it. Because this picture fits the simplistic description I have gotten from from stupid people and a populist judge. "They are children". And yet, here is this powerful photo, fitting their criteria, to make them swallow their preconceptions.
Click to expand...


I understand the message you were conveying with that photograph.
It's not the picture, which is all that the protestors are seeing, it's the context and the intent.

I think the protestors have problems of their own which they are foisting upon the public at large. And shame on the politicians for playing the game.
 
fromdownunder,

I don't see much to disagree with in your subsequent posts.
Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying.
 
Michelle Lyon said:
Art. Because any man with real teen-porn intentions would never go public with those intentions by exhibiting them in a gallery. Hello.

It's the viewers who were insulted who brought porn into it. That tells you how dirty THEY are.
Click to expand...


Good points.

Bill Henson has actually had a couple of previous exhibitions of his art, including plenty of nudes of children, which raised not a whisker of protest. It seems that some person or persons took exception on this occasion and we all going to have to deal with his or her hand-ups for some time to come.

Latest news is that the curator of the gallery has received a death threat and there has been a threat to burn down the building. All in the name of the children no doubt.
And the government has announced that they will come out with guidelines by the end of the year to cover this sort of thing.

None of these images are pornographic to me. "Porn" to me is, you know, the hard core stuff. These teens weren't doing any of that, they were just nude. Plus I believe they all had parental permission to model and had signed modeling releases. The photos aren't dirty, they're dark and mysterious and intense, just as he intended; and a pretty acurate portrayal of adolescent life, if you ask me.
Click to expand...


And it seems that is the basis of the protest: the children were NUDE!
Imagine that, nude children!

It's great to be all over that freedom of expression thing, or the human-body-is-beautiful thing, but rights come with responsibility. You have to use discression (not the same as censorship) with nude art because it can and will be misinterpreted by someone. I mean look at this guy's show now. It's ruined. They took out a lot of photos. The criminal charges will serve as publicity, mainly, because he's not engaging in child porn and they'll figure that out. But if he hadn't posted images on the internet and in public outside the gallery, would this have happened?
Click to expand...


Perhaps you have a point there.
However, remember that this is not his first exhibition, and there have been no problems before. As for the internet photos, I don't know who posted them. But, again, even photos of fully clothed children can be misused by people on the internet.
 
Last edited:
BillyJoe said:
fromdownunder,

I don't see much to disagree with in your subsequent posts.
Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying.
Click to expand...

No problem. I think we've all done it, and probably more than once. I may have not expressed myself too well, but we've all done that before also.

Norm
 
I have moved this thread to Social Issues where it will get better attention.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady
 
fromdownunder said:
I suspect that 99% of people who viewed these sort of photos as sexual would just masturbate to them, and then go to sleep, or something. So, no physical harm done to anybody.

But internet stalking certainly has at least some real evidence that there are people out there who will chase up underage people, based on pictures (real fake, or even non-provocative) on Mypage or Youtube.
Click to expand...

Even if we grant that this is a real issue, it's certainly not one inextricably linked to arty nudes of kids, and so any legislative or police response should be directed at whatever kind of pictures might encourage such stalking. If indeed you think it's a good idea to criminalise artistic expression on the off-chance it inspires some nut to commit a crime.

And (don't ask for a link - it may have been somewhere on IMDb, or a link from a FSTDT quote) there is at least anecdotal evidence that some kids get a bit grossed out when they realise that people may be jerking off over their on-line pictures, whether the pictures are sexual or otherwise.

In this latter case, this is probably only a knee jerk 5 minute reaction, and there will be no long term effects (or even short term after the 5 minute "OOOHHH!, that's gross!" reaction) but mental harm could be caused in extreme circumstances because of this.

Norm
Click to expand...

That's obviously not an outcome to be desired, but it doesn't seem worth getting police and courts involved over it.
 
Is anyone familiar with a recent case here in the US? A couple of guys were going to high school water polo games and taking pictures of the male students in their skimpy bathing attire, then posting them on an internet site devoted to such a fetish. Since it was high school students, some were above the "age of consent" and some were not. Some were physically adult, others were not. None were advised that their photos would be used for such a purpose, but since it was a public venue and a public event lots of people were taking photos as was completely permitted, and indeed at a sporting event, expected.

The prosecution failed to establish child pornography had occurred because the photographs were of non-nude, non-sexual activity conducted in a public place with a large audience. That the photographers and their audience might view those photos in a sexual way didn't make it child pornography.
 
I think I'm convinced that Bill Henson is the "RL" equivalent of a troll; and the child-advocacy groups, the news media covering this ridiculousness, and of course those of us here who've been lured into a serious discussion of this matter, can all consider ourselves as having been successfully trolled.
 
Go to your local park and shoot a few pictures of others' children. Then come back and troll with us.
 
From what I've been able to see of his work online I find it very haunting and beautiful. I would gladly display it in my home. That also goes for most photography that is considered erotic. The human body is a beautiful thing as evidenced by artists that have sculpted nudes in stone and painted them in all mediums for thousands of years.


Pornography is in the eye of the beholder and like any other form of censorship should not be tolerated. If you object then don't read the book, watch the movie or look at the pictures. Telling others what they are allowed to read, watch or look at is an attempt of small minded people trying to make themselves important. One can only presume they do this out of spite or envy of talent they lack or because it makes them uncomfortable in ways they dare not acknowledge or explore.


Hang the pictures, open the doors and tell the small minded bigots to go home.



Boo
 
Checkmite said:
I think I'm convinced that Bill Henson is the "RL" equivalent of a troll; and the child-advocacy groups, the news media covering this ridiculousness, and of course those of us here who've been lured into a serious discussion of this matter, can all consider ourselves as having been successfully trolled.
Click to expand...


You are either an idiot or a troll yourself.

Checkmate!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom