• 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?

Boo said:
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
Click to expand...
Thanks Boo.

While I absolutely think the human body is the single greatest art form I don't at all care to see pictures of children's genitalia. I concede that my perception (sentiments) shouldn't at all be the deciding factor on what should and should not be legal and I have and would fight for the rights of artists to have such freedom of expression.

If I did take the opposite view it wouldn't be out of spite, envy or lack of talent it would be because I think there are children that are in fact exploited and that many of those who exploit children are among those producing and consuming these images.

I just don't see anyway around the idea that freedom of expression is more important and that there needs to be clear evidence of exploitation before we can act. Banning all images of nude children would be a broad and vague law that would clearly violate rights in an attempt to swat a gnat with an atom bomb.
 
Last edited:
Boo said:
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.
Click to expand...


I assume you would exclude child photography from the "erotic" category.

Boo said:
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.
Click to expand...


Yes, and I still think there is a religious element here, despite the thread being moved out of that forum.
(See my signature.)

Boo said:
Hang the pictures, open the doors and tell the small minded bigots to go home.
Click to expand...


I agree that we need to push back at least in this small way.
But sometimes more is needed. For example, someone in Australia needs to take on the prime minister on this issue. But I doubt it will happen. The opposition from the bigots is too scary.
 
As a mild derail there is almost certainly an interesting sociological phenomenon worth considering here. In the 16th and 17th centuries one merely had to be accused of witchcraft to face an almost impossible uphill task to prove innocence. In subsequent generations other crimes have taken witchcraft's place. In the 50s it was being a communist (or counter-revolutionary if in a communist country). Today the accusation of paedophile would seem to serve a similar purpose.

Now there is no doubt that actual abuse of children is a dreadful thing and is rightly a crime but it seems to me that down through the ages such accusations served more purposes than simply dealing with perceived crimes. Political, social and at times economic interests were served by judicious cries of witch or communist. It seems to me that under the surface many of the more vocal advocacy groups have a much broader agenda regarding social control and are not adverse to calling "witch" when it suits their purposes.

The pictures are certainly not pornography nor are they obscene which I think is perhaps a more accurate legal term.
 
Rand,

I'm not sure how the children are being exploited. If they are professional models then one presumes they had a contract and were compensated for their time. As minors then their legal representatives had to agree and sign the contract. If they are not professionals then as minors their parents or legal guardians would have had to sign a release allowing the images to be used or displayed. How are they being taken advantage of by Mr Henson?

Of the images I viewed on line I saw only one that displayed what might be considered genitalia. It was a 3/4 frontal photograph of a female nude with obvious pubic hair and developed breasts. She did appear to be a minor although it would be impossible to say if she is truly under the age of 18. There are many young people that retain an immaturely developed appearance as there are some that appear to be much more maturely developed then their biological age. You certainly have the right to not view those images if you find them disturbing but you cannot equivocally state that the model is being exploited unless you are familiar with the artist's business practices and relationships with his models and their legal guardians or parents.

If it is their age that bothers you consider how many elite 'high fashion' models start as adolescents. I would argue that these models are often exploited to a much greater degree.


BillyJoe,

Indeed, I do exclude pictures of children from the erotic category. I chose that phrase as an example to highlight their controversial status. I would say that I find them very sensual in that they appeal to my visual and aesthetic sense of beauty.



Boo
 
Last edited:
For the record, those photographed were not professional models and at least some (and their mothers) were approached by Henson at exhibitions. I am still concerned about how a 12 or 13 year old could give consent to these photographs. I do not believe that parents have the right to make decisions like this on behalf of their children. If that makes me "small-minded", so be it.
 
Boo said:
I'm not sure how the children are being exploited.
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine) I don't know who you are talking about when you say "the children". I'm not sure why you state it that way. I think we have some miscommunication. I don't make any specific claims about any specific children. Perhaps you should have said "I'm not sure how children are being exploited". Is that what you meant?

Children are in fact sexually exploited, there is ample evidence for this. I hope you are not denying such a thing. Pedophiles like and acquire photos of nude children that range from legal images to sexually explicit images. It is this fact that photos of naked children attract pedophiles.

That said, I have zero evidence of any specific case.

If they are professional models then one presumes they had a contract and were compensated for their time. As minors then their legal representatives had to agree and sign the contract. If they are not professionals then as minors their parents or legal guardians would have had to sign a release allowing the images to be used or displayed. How are they being taken advantage of by Mr Henson?
Click to expand...
I think an argument can be made that there are limits to which a parent can sign away the rights of a child. Given that the activity is not illegal I would say that the parents have the right to make the decision in this case.

Of the images I viewed on line I saw only one that displayed what might be considered genitalia. It was a 3/4 frontal photograph of a female nude with obvious pubic hair and developed breasts. She did appear to be a minor although it would be impossible to say if she is truly under the age of 18. There are many young people that retain an immaturely developed appearance as there are some that appear to be much more maturely developed then their biological age. You certainly have the right to not view those images if you find them disturbing but you cannot equivocally state that the model is being exploited unless you are familiar with the artist's business practices and relationships with his models and their legal guardians or parents.
Click to expand...
I've by no means made any equivocal claim. If I had made any such claim my position would be different.

If it is their age that bothers you consider how many elite 'high fashion' models start as adolescents. I would argue that these models are often exploited to a much greater degree.
Click to expand...
I don't think that is a good argument at all. One wrong doesn't right another.

My point, my only point, is that being uncomfortable with nude photography doesn't necessarily equate to envy or lack of talent. I think that accusation is a bit broad and unfair. One could have legitimate concerns.
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
For the record, those photographed were not professional models and at least some (and their mothers) were approached by Henson at exhibitions. I am still concerned about how a 12 or 13 year old could give consent to these photographs. I do not believe that parents have the right to make decisions like this on behalf of their children. If that makes me "small-minded", so be it.
Click to expand...

What about say medical decisions - should parents or doctors have the right to make those on behalf of children? I am only curious like. Who picks and chooses what decisions they get to make and if so what are the guidelines?
 
Medical decisions are made in the interests of the child. I am struggling to see the comparison with a decision to allow a child to pose nude.
 
lionking said:
You obviously see no difference. I do.
Click to expand...

I have a daughter that has been in and out of hospital and will be on medication for life. The decision to pose for a photo or not if she wanted to is a piece of piss by comparison imho. I see a big difference whereas it seems to me you do not.
 
Last edited:
Nogbad said:
What about say medical decisions - should parents or doctors have the right to make those on behalf of children? I am only curious like. Who picks and chooses what decisions they get to make and if so what are the guidelines?
Click to expand...
I would be loathe to dictate to a parent what he or she can do on behalf of a child. I would think that decisions should be limited to that which is legal and or doesn't cause harm.

Sadly, in America, it's legal to neglect your child to the point of death so long as it is in the name of religion.
 
RandFan said:
I would be loathe to dictate to a parent what he or she can do on behalf of a child. I would think that decisions should be limited to that which is legal and or doesn't cause harm.

Sadly, in America, it's legal to neglect your child to the point of death so long as it is in the name of religion.
Click to expand...

I agree - it is minefield and all things being equal parents want the best for the children. Having well meaning officials or self appointed guardians dictating generally does little for anyone. However, it is a fact that there are instances where some parents for whatever reason (religion, substance abuse etc) do place their children in harm's way. I wouldn't count posing for a serious photographer in that category though.

I also apologise to LionKing if my last sounded a tetchy. It is late here and although tomorrow is a holiday I think I should call it a day.
 
Apology not required, but I think you do misinterpret me. Of course medical decisions can be serious and far-reaching, but my point is that they are always made in the best interests of the child and are usually necessary. Making a decision to pose for a photographer is clearly not necessary and may lead to exploitation or have a negative impact on the child, who, I repeat, cannot give fully informed consent.
 
lionking said:
For the record, those photographed were not professional models and at least some (and their mothers) were approached by Henson at exhibitions. I am still concerned about how a 12 or 13 year old could give consent to these photographs. I do not believe that parents have the right to make decisions like this on behalf of their children. If that makes me "small-minded", so be it.
Click to expand...

What lionking said. The childs sexuality belongs to that child. It is not for a parent or guardian to give away and an adolescent child does not have the wherewithal to make that decision. IMO nekid pictures of kids that have entered puberty until their 18th b'day are a no no. (This from the father of a 13 year old who just started her period and has been interested in her own sexuality since the age of 2). I have got .357 and shovel so back off!
 
I agree that children are exploited daily. I was speaking of the children specifically in the pictures by Mr. Henson. It does indeed appear we have been mis communicating, I apologize. I respect your concern but think it is perhaps misplaced.


Plainly speaking, I see nothing wrong with the pictures. Given full disclosure by the photographer, my daughter (I have two) understanding the exact nature of the pictures and wanting to participate I would have no problem with this. She and I would also reserve the right at anytime to stop and withdraw if she felt uncomfortable or if agreed boundaries were pushed. This was exactly what occurred when a professional photographer I was acquainted with asked to have my daughter pose for him. Her comfort level was his primary concern and while I signed control over the images to him I was allowed to review the shots and reject anything I was uncomfortable with and he agreed not to use them.


It seems only a few weeks ago similar concerns were raised by others on the forum about the suggestive nature of a photo shoot done by another well known photographer involving a 15 year old female, her father and the pose that was chosen for the cover of a magazine.


I don't understand the fuss made regarding these pictures or those of Mr. Henson. This is all above board with full disclosure and agreement by all parties involved.


I have no issue with anyone who doesn't like them or finds them offensive, etc. I simply don't see why it is so upsetting.




Boo
 
Boo said:
I agree that children are exploited daily. I was speaking of the children specifically in the pictures by Mr. Henson. It does indeed appear we have been mis communicating, I apologize. I respect your concern but think it is perhaps misplaced.
Click to expand...
Specifically? I'll concede that. Generally? No, I don't think so but at the risk of a tautology, it is what it is.

Thanks.
 
BillyJoe said:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/arts/nude-show--charges-loom/2008/05/23/1211183065535.html





The link below contains one of the photographs, as well as a video containing more photographs of the nudes:
(All the photgraphs are censored, but it will give you a good idea of the short of photographs in the Bill Henson collection)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/24/2254653.htm?section=entertainment

If also contains a legal opinion:





For what it is worth, the first link above also contains an audio of our Prime Minister Mr. Rudd's view of the photographs:




I'm just wondering what the effect is on the children depicted in the photographs when they hear their Prime Minister say that he thinks the pictures of their naked bodies are "revolting".



Her is another view about whether this is pornography or art:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/henson-a-whipping-boy/2008/05/23/1211183060448.html
Click to expand...


I don't see how the images are pornographic or even sexual. It'll be interesting to see whether the DPP will proceed with the charges. I think the PM's response was ill-advised - it would have been better if he had declined to comment.

Today's SMH has some comments from one of Henson's previous models:

Zahava Elenberg was 12 when she posed for a series of dark and evocative photographs taken by Bill Henson.

More than 20 years later she still has vivid memories of working with the artist, but "absolutely no regrets".

"Bill asked my mother at an exhibition opening if I would like to pose for him and we talked about it and decided to do it," says Ms Elenberg, now a 34-year-old mother. "We went to this old building in Melbourne. It was quite dark but I never felt uncomfortable. Bill made you feel incredibly safe and calm. I was involved in the artistic process and I never felt that I wasn't in control.

"I absolutely support Bill Henson. I'm a parent myself and I abhor child pornography, but this is not child pornography. It's artistic and creative."

Ms Elenberg did not pose nude - she and her mother had decided that "under no circumstances" would she take her clothes off, even though they said Henson did not directly ask her.

All the women who have spoken to the Herald about posing for Henson tell a similar story. They paint a picture of a Melbourne artistic community where it is common for artists and photographers to approach parents to ask if their children will be part of their next project.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom