Bill Henson Photos: Child Pornography or Art?

[BillyJoe]

For the record, those photographed were not professional models and at least some (and their mothers) were approached by Henson at exhibitions.

Parents attending Bill Henson's exhibitions with their children would, I think, be well disposed towards Bill Henson and his photographs. Don't you agree? So it would not be such a surprise that some of his models come from amongst those who attend his exhibitions. Certainly, from Bill Henson's point of view, this would be a better way find his models than...what...advertise in the newspapers?

The children of family friends have also been his models.

I am still concerned about how a 12 or 13 year old could give consent to these photographs.

Perhaps it's because they are interested in his artistic photographs and are therefore also interested in being subjects for his artistic photographs. They see a young girl artistically presented in his photograph and therefore they wish to see them selves artistically presented as well. Just like when they see a friend putting on makeup and they want to put some on too. Do they need consent to do that, do you think?

I do not believe that parents have the right to make decisions like this on behalf of their children.

I don't think it is a matter of the parents making the decision. It's more that the children make the decision and the parents give their approval. I think if the parents have to persuade or even encourage the children to participate that would not be acceptable.

If that makes me "small-minded", so be it.

Maybe you need to think why exactly it is that you are small minded.
(actually I sort of mean that a bit)

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[BillyJoe]

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.

This is a generalisation and, as such, you are probably correct. But we are talking about a subset of "adolescent children". Specifically those who are interested in posing for a nude photgraph taken by a photographic artist with a reputation for his artistic depictions of nude adolescent children.

Apart from that I'm not sure what you mean by a parent giving away the childs sexuality. In any case, it's the child deciding to do this and the parent acquiescing.

IMO nekid pictures of kids that have entered puberty until their 18th b'day are a no no.

That is you personal view.
I hope those adolescent children do not have to lose their liberty because of your personal view.

(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!

Notwithstanding.

 

[Mobyseven]

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.

I somewhat agree with this sentiment (I feel that the problem of informed consent is a very real problem in this situation, and am not sure how one would get around it), and would also like to point out that this issue has not arisen merely because the children were naked - it has arisen because some of the photos appear to sexualise the child.

I cannot personally comment on this, as the only photo I've actually seen is the blurred and blacked out one linked to in the OP - an image search on google for me has only yielded photos from some of his previous works (he is, for the record, an incredible artist) and so I can't comment on how valid the concerns that the children have been sexualised in some of the photographs are.

It is an important distinction to make, however. 'Nude' does not equal 'sexual', but 'sexual' does, and it is sexualisation, not nudity, that has caused this stink.

 

[Nogbad]

Had a look at some of Henson's work for the first time today and have to say that he is a very impressive photographer. I would not describe his work as provocative or sexual though. Dark, brooding and fragile spring to mind.

I find it hard to believe that those interested in getting off on pictures of kids would bother to be honest. I don't think the mood and lighting he uses would appeal. Quite why Mr Rudd described them as revolting is beyond me. I can only assume he either hasn't seen them or doesn't much care for art.

With regards consent I am not sure where we are with that one. If the parents and child are in agreement and the art work is legal who is to gainsay? The State?

On a separate note and a point already raised, I had never heard of this artist until the advocacy group protested. Which does call into question their strategy somewhat. Prior to protest these pictures would have been seen only by the gallery going art crowd in one town. Now the pictures are international and judging by what I have seen of his work, exhibitions in far flung places beckon.

 

[luchog]

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!

See, that's the key problem here. There are some people who simply refuse to seperate nudity from sexuality. They are not the same thing, and are linked only by tenuous cultural ties. There is nothing inherently sexual about nudity. If there were, naturist resorts would be hotbeds of sex; but they're quite obviously not (if anything, they tend to be even more puritanical).

Regarding the other photographers mentioned, David Hamilton's work doesn't really appeal to me, and I can't stand Maplethorpe (personally, I think he's a second-rate hack); but I am very much a fan of Jock Sturges' work, and consider him to be one of the greatest living artists. I'm a photographer myself, and was active in the local art scene when Sturges had his run-ins with the US government authorities, and Sally Mann was also under fire for her work. Sturges made a comment that I thought was quite apropos regarding the mentality of people who were labling him a paedophile and child pornographer.

If somebody's pointing a trembling finger at your pants and saying you shouldn't be doing that, follow that finger back, go up the arm and look at the head that's behind it, because there's almost always something fairly woolly in there.

He's also said that the US is the only place that he's ever had problems with this. No European country that he's worked in has ever had a problem with his work. There's a great interview with him online:
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/03.19.98/cover/sturges1-9811.html

The problem with America right now is that our culture has a truly warped and distorted attitude and approach to adolescent sexuality. On the one hand, we make huge boegeymen out of paedophiles and child-molesters, to the point where a simple accusation, devoid of any evidence, is enough to ruin someone's life. Guardians of moral decency come down like lightning on any depiction of children that can have the slightest possibility of being interpreted sexually.

Yet at the same time, our advertising and entertainment and fashion industries are replete with depictions of adolescents and young teens in highly sexualized contexts. Anyone over 20 should remember the big blow-up about the Calvin Klein ad campaign featuring young teens in their underwear. And that was hardly unique. Teen, and even childrens, fashions are geared toward overt and explicit sexuality; and their entertainment is similarly portrayed, with many pushing the "underage and sexually active" image to extremes.

Our culture also seems to have an extremely and unrealistically idealized vision of childhood as some sort of paradisical period free of trouble and complex concerns. Few things could be farther from the truth. No one who actually remembers their childhood in any detail could possibly see it this way. Yet culturally, we still insist that this is true, creating a false image of childhood that never actually existes, and getting all up in arms when that image is violated. Part of that is the false ideal of "lost innocence". The problem is that this attitude falsely equates innocence with ignorance; and equates the ideal of childhood with knowing absolutely nothing about the world around them. It's not about keeping children innocent, it's about keeping them ignorant and dependent as long as possible.

 

[leonAzul]

If we can accept obscene as a synonym for pornographic, the following could serve as a working definition:

Under the test in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 , as elaborated in subsequent cases, each of three elements must independently be satisfied before a book can be held obscene: (a) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex; (b) the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; and (c) the material is utterly without redeeming social value

MEMOIRS v. MASSACHUSETTS, 383 U.S. 413 (1966)

 

[lionking]

This is a generalisation and, as such, you are probably correct. But we are talking about a subset of "adolescent children". Specifically those who are interested in posing for a nude photgraph taken by a photographic artist with a reputation for his artistic depictions of nude adolescent children.

Apart from that I'm not sure what you mean by a parent giving away the childs sexuality. In any case, it's the child deciding to do this and the parent acquiescing.




That is you personal view.
I hope those adolescent children do not have to lose their liberty because of your personal view.




Notwithstanding.

Well here's the problem. Some adolescent children can probably use alcohol responsibly, or take drugs, or drive cars but laws are made to protect the totality of children from harm or exploitation. It is not possible for children or their parents to give consent to these activities, and I would add nude photographs to the list of things children need protection from, notwithstanding your claim that a "sub-set" can make an informed decision - a claim that I do not believe that you can validate.

And I have not said that the photographs are pornographic, just exploitative of children too young to make a proper decision.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Well here's the problem. Some adolescent children can probably use alcohol responsibly, or take drugs, or drive cars but laws are made to protect the totality of children from harm or exploitation. It is not possible for children or their parents to give consent to these activities

Alcohol kills around five million people per year worldwide. Tobacco kills around two million. Traffic deaths I think kill just over a million.

I don't have hard data on the number of people killed every year by having their photograph taken but I'd venture a guess that the number closely resembles zero.

and I would add nude photographs to the list of things children need protection from, notwithstanding your claim that a "sub-set" can make an informed decision - a claim that I do not believe that you can validate.

Comparing nude photography to drinking or driving is wildly disanalogous. I don't think there's even a remotely compelling argument there.

A more appropriate comparison would be between nude photography and age of consent laws but even then the disanalogies are very serious. Having your photograph taken cannot give you venereal disease, make you pregnant or expose you to the risk of date rape.

In our culture women between one and eighteen are expected to keep their bikini-bits covered in much the same way that women in some Middle Eastern societies are expected to wear a burkha. There's no sensible reason for it, but it's so tangled up with inarticulate cultural values about sexuality, purity, men being driven to rape and whatnot that people get terribly exited if anyone takes their burkha off.

And I have not said that the photographs are pornographic, just exploitative of children too young to make a proper decision.

"Exploitation" is the kind of word that you should define very specifically before you base a philosophical or legal argument on it, because it's a dangerously fuzzy and loaded term. It's often used by people who are against something on an irrational, gut level but who can't state their problem clearly. ("Inappropriate" is another such cop-out word).

 

[lionking]

Whether deliberately or not, you are misrepresenting me. The point I was clearly making was that there are some important decisions which cannot be properly made by children and ought not be made on their behalf by parents. I find it interesting that former Supreme Court Judge Hampel, hardly a right-winger, makes exactly the same point, as does the editorial in the "Age", easily the most liberal of the major newspapers.

 

[Mobyseven]

Had a look at some of Henson's work for the first time today and have to say that he is a very impressive photographer. I would not describe his work as provocative or sexual though. Dark, brooding and fragile spring to mind.

I agree with that, but as I said I have not been able to find any examples from this exhibition - only past exhibitions.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Whether deliberately or not, you are misrepresenting me. The point I was clearly making was that there are some important decisions which cannot be properly made by children and ought not be made on their behalf by parents. I find it interesting that former Supreme Court Judge Hampel, hardly a right-winger, makes exactly the same point, as does the editorial in the "Age", easily the most liberal of the major newspapers.

I think you're just shifting your ground and then trying the same argument by bad analogy.

Yes, some decisions should not be made by parents or children. That's a trivially true claim. Children should not be allowed to sell themselves into slavery, or sell their organs, or get a job as a lumberjack, nor should their parents be allowed to decide that they can do so.

The real question is, is the decision to have nude photographs taken one of those decisions that neither parents nor children should be allowed to make? I can't for the life of me see why it should be, and you have presented no argument to persuade us that this kind of photography is one of the set of important decisions that neither parents nor children should make.

I guess you're just hoping that we won't notice that disconnect in your argument.

ETA: Argument by authority doesn't get you far around here.

 

[lionking]

I know it's an argument from authority. This is one so-called fallacy I have never understood. Why not cite an authority in the subject in question, in this case the law of childhood consent? This happens every day in every walk of life and does not weaken any argument.

And to answer your question, I do not believe that it is valid to make a decision to pose nude on behalf of a child, particularly as the resulting photos can be shown in 20 or 30 years time, at the whim of the photographer. Nothing you have raised alters this opinion.

 

[gdnp]

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. ..

Should the parents have the right to decide whether their adolescent daughter can go to a topless beach? A nude beach? Should nudist/naturist parents be forced to leave their adolescent children at home when they go on vacation?

Unfortunately, society has no "set in stone" position about what is and what is not obscene. And I don't just mean that differing groups have differing opinions, the same group has different opinions depending on the circumstances.

I don't think that most of us find magazine underwear ads obscene, but if a man walked into a school wearing only his briefs he would likely be arrested. Even if he was more covered than his son on the swim team.

If the 13 year old nude model showed up at the exhibition nude she would likely also be arrested. And I suspect most people would find it appropriate to do so.

As others have stated, pornography is in the mind of the beholder. Teenage boys have been masturbating to Victoria's Secret catalogs since there have been Victoria's secret catalogs, and that doesn't mean they should be banned any more than a shoe catalog should be banned because a foot fetishist finds it erotic.

I will go out on a limb here and state that I find some of these pictures erotic. Not pornographic, erotic. I suspect I am not the only one. The conflict between the sexuality and innocence of the models provides a tension that a similarly posed photo of a 10 year old would not.

No, I have no intention of hitting on teenage girls (I have 13 and 15 year old daughters). But these photos are far from asexual.

 

[Texas]

I wonder if any of the subjects are his kids?

 

[BillyJoe]

I know it's an argument from authority. This is one so-called fallacy I have never understood. Why not cite an authority in the subject in question, in this case the law of childhood consent? This happens every day in every walk of life and does not weaken any argument.

You can cite an authority on the subject if you wish but....
The thing about "argument from authority" is that quoting from an authroity cannot serve to prove the validity of your case.

Consider the following two opposing opinions by two experts:

Professor Hampel said it might not be legally possible for a 13-year-old girl to consent to such photographs and there was doubt about whether her parents could consent on her behalf. He was uneasy about such a young child being used in this way. "She is abused in this sense: she is not capable of understanding (consequences) and therefore not capable of giving real consent because she is … immature."

But barrister Brian Walters, SC, said he did not believe the photos were pornographic or breached the law. He did not see consent as an issue.
"A girl can't consent to sexual acts against her, but I don't think that is what this is, so she and her parents together probably can consent. This is a legal opinion — I can't say whether it was wise (to give consent)."

And to answer your question, I do not believe that it is valid to make a decision to pose nude on behalf of a child, particularly as the resulting photos can be shown in 20 or 30 years time, at the whim of the photographer. Nothing you have raised alters this opinion.

How about: child wants to pose nude for Bill Henson after attending an art gallery exhibiting his works. Parent agrees with childs decision.

I think you are little hung up on this nudity business. I think you are reacting to this, as most people do, at a gut level. I think you need to clearly formulate why you feel this way.



On a brighter note, here is the first politician, unfortunately ex-politician, with the guts to say something supportive of Bill Henson:

Former Victorian arts minister Mary Delahunty said that, in the controversy surrounding Henson, she was disappointed by the lack of public support by federal and state arts ministers "for the creative endeavour principle".

 

[BillyJoe]

But these photos are far from asexual.

...for you.

And that says something about you, not the photographs.

 

[The Fool]

State Police have just raided another art gallery....what is this country coming to? Many similar images are published all the time in art books, works by Australian and international artists....maybe a good old fashioned book burning next?

 

[Mobyseven]

Question: Does anyone have a link to the photos in question? Because I've not been able to find them on the interwebs, and everyone else here seems to be able to.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I know it's an argument from authority. This is one so-called fallacy I have never understood. Why not cite an authority in the subject in question, in this case the law of childhood consent? This happens every day in every walk of life and does not weaken any argument.

In rhetoric, an appeal to an authority is a powerful argument.

In logic, an appeal to authority is utterly meaningless. Only the argument matters, not the person who states the argument,whether Adolf Hitler said it or Bozo the clown said it or Einstein said it.

So in this case merely stating that a couple of people agreed with you is logically empty. You could have stated the argument they gave, of course, and if the argument was any good we might have been persuaded by it.

And to answer your question, I do not believe that it is valid to make a decision to pose nude on behalf of a child, particularly as the resulting photos can be shown in 20 or 30 years time, at the whim of the photographer. Nothing you have raised alters this opinion.

You "don't believe it's valid". What is that supposed to mean? That too is logically meaningless.

Since we have already seen quotes in this thread from former child models of Henson's who have no regrets of that nature about participating in his work, on what Earthly basis do you assume that it is a terrible thing that the resulting photos might be seen in 20 or 30 years time (if anybody cares by then)?

By the by, my goal is not altering your opinion. I'm just interested in seeing you try to justify your opinion.

 

[BillyJoe]

I feel that the problem of informed consent is a very real problem in this situation, and am not sure how one would get around it...

The solution 1s to go from the general to the specific.

Bill Henson has been on the art scene now for thirty years. He is well respected and admired by all those around him, especially in art circles. He has had many exhibitions locally and internationally. Parents come with their children to view his photographs. They talk with the artist and are impressed by his depth, understanding and his respect for the children he photgraphs. They are moved to pose for his camera.

I think the problem of informed consent evapourates in this situation.

...and would also like to point out that this issue has not arisen merely because the children were naked - it has arisen because some of the photos appear to sexualise the child.

That is definitely not the intent of the artist, and he certainly cannot be held responsible for what goes on inside the head of the viewer.

Question: Does anyone have a link to the photos in question? Because I've not been able to find them on the interwebs, and everyone else here seems to be able to.

The thought police have removed them all.
(ABC1 has rerun of a 2001 documentary about the artist at 10pm tonight if you are interested.)