Bill Henson Photos: Child Pornography or Art?

[BillyJoe]

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 think you have captured him pretty well.
He is exploring the fragility of adolescents caught between childhood and adulthood.

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.

He saw the pictures about a half an hour before he made those two comments, so I guess it's that he has a couple of hang ups he has not yet come to terms with. Yes, and I don't think he would be the first person to go to for an opinion on 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?

That's another way to put it.
Unfortunately, there are always those who take it upon themselves to kick in with steel capped boots. And other floundering about trying to make the specific fit the general. Sometimes you just need to butt out and let a good situation be.

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.

I don't think this publicity is going to suit this particular artist. I think he would be devastated by the present public reaction to his art. He has not made a comment as yet, but fellow artists, including Cate Blanchett, are orgainising a letter to the politicians to rethink their knee-jerk reactions.

 

[BillyJoe]

Here is an interview with Bill Henson done today.

http://www.crikey.com.au/videos.html

Strangely there is no mention of recent events.

 

[BillyJoe]

I don't know if this is a joke but I guess it has to be. Doesn't it?

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]

Hats off to the Daily Telegraph, the one Australian media outlet to grasp the awkward dichotomy-defying complexity of the Bill Henson art/porn affair: we can now safely conclude that 100% of the Tele's readers think the contentious photos in question might well be either.

[/FONT]

 

[BillyJoe]

double post

 

[Mobyseven]

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.

This is an interesting point right here - should an artist ever be held responsible for his art? If the intention of the artist is purely creative or aesthetic, should the artist be allowed to create or do whatever he wishes, without fear of ever being held responsible for how the viewer interprets the piece?

Also, I don't think that the issue of informed consent merely 'evaporates' because the parents like the artist and see no problem with the way the child is treated. The parent is not the child, and I cannot see why they should be allowed to make this particular decision for the child. At the same time, I cannot see a thirteen or twelve year old being mature enough to properly grasp what they are consenting to.

 

[Don At Work]

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.

So. If not the child (because they simply cannot understand), and not the parents (who are responsible for the well being and upbringing of their offspring), who SHOULD make the decision?

 

[lionking]

Nobody. In the same way that nobody should decide that a child can drive a car. It doesn't mean that bad decisions are not made, of course.

 

[BillyJoe]

This is an interesting point right here - should an artist ever be held responsible for his art? If the intention of the artist is purely creative or aesthetic, should the artist be allowed to create or do whatever he wishes, without fear of ever being held responsible for how the viewer interprets the piece?

A Myer catalogue on children's clothing, though only mildly artistic, has the potential to produce pornographic thoughts in the minds of certain viewers. Should they be held responsible for that?
If we make every artist responsible for the activitry that goes on on the mind of every potential viewer, the production of works of art would come to a complete halt.
So, even from a purely practical point of view, the answer to your second question is yes.

Also, I don't think that the issue of informed consent merely 'evaporates' because the parents like the artist and see no problem with the way the child is treated. The parent is not the child, and I cannot see why they should be allowed to make this particular decision for the child. At the same time, I cannot see a thirteen or twelve year old being mature enough to properly grasp what they are consenting to.

Then the situation you are left with is that children can do nothing at all because they cannot decide for themselves and their parents cannot decide for them. Perhaps children can do nothing at all unless the law decides that they can!
Is that the solution you wish to offer?

 

[gdnp]

The parent is not the child, and I cannot see why they should be allowed to make this particular decision for the child.

Because they are the parents, and are presumed to be acting in the child's best interests until proven otherwise.

Parents make all sorts of questionable decisions regarding their children. It is not uncommon for parents in my town to hold their children back for a year before starting school so that they will be older than most of their classmates. Not because it will help them intellectually, but because it will give them an advantage on the football team. Are children entered in beauty pageants for their benefit or to stroke the parent's ego. Should this be allowed?

Unfortunately, the alternative is for Big Brother to make the decisions for the parents, a solution so fraught with negatives that I would not advocate it. If the courts can say that the child cannot pose nude, they can probably also say that naturist/nudist parents and their children must remain clothed in each other's presence. Too intrusive

That being said, if one of these models decided to sue her parents for abuse once she turned 18 she would probably have a case. So you'd better make sure your kid is well adjusted and doing this voluntarily before you consent.

 

[BillyJoe]

Nobody. In the same way that nobody should decide that a child can drive a car. It doesn't mean that bad decisions are not made, of course.

In this case, the law does decide what a child can do because there is a legal driving age.

Perhaps we should extend the law then. At what age can a child go out to play in the park, stay over at a friend's place for a few hours to attend a party, stay at a friend's place overnight, go on a school expedition, go on a school camp, go to a public pool, swim in a beach, eat at a fast food restaurant, smoke, drink.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Nobody. In the same way that nobody should decide that a child can drive a car. It doesn't mean that bad decisions are not made, of course.

What is this "nobody" nonsense? The government decides that a child can not drive a car. That decision is not made by a disembodied moral force, it's made by human beings in government, hopefully after they have looked at hard evidence with regard to accident rates and death rates.

If you are arguing that the government should decide that children/parents should not be allowed to decide that an underage person can pose nude for an artist then just say so instead of hiding behind the "nobody" fig leaf. Then show us the evidence of harm.

 

[Nogbad]

Because they are the parents, and are presumed to be acting in the child's best interests until proven otherwise.

Parents make all sorts of questionable decisions regarding their children. It is not uncommon for parents in my town to hold their children back for a year before starting school so that they will be older than most of their classmates. Not because it will help them intellectually, but because it will give them an advantage on the football team. Are children entered in beauty pageants for their benefit or to stroke the parent's ego. Should this be allowed?

Unfortunately, the alternative is for Big Brother to make the decisions for the parents, a solution so fraught with negatives that I would not advocate it. If the courts can say that the child cannot pose nude, they can probably also say that naturist/nudist parents and their children must remain clothed in each other's presence. Too intrusive

That being said, if one of these models decided to sue her parents for abuse once she turned 18 she would probably have a case. So you'd better make sure your kid is well adjusted and doing this voluntarily before you consent.

Child beauty pageants are way, way more questionable than these photographs. In fact adult beauty pageants are more questionable than these photographs....but that is a de-rail

 

[Soapy Sam]

Seems to me, art, like porn, is what the viewer thinks it is .
As I have not actually seen the images in question, I have no opinion in this case.

 

[godofpie]

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.

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.

I don't have any problem separating nudity from sexuality when you are talking about pre-pubescent children. After puberty it is a different story. You have obviously never parented a child that has been abused. Or am I wrong?

 

[gdnp]

Originally Posted by gdnp View Post
But these photos are far from asexual.

...for you.

And that says something about you, not the photographs.

Actually, it says something about me and the photographs. I do not find most photographs of people erotic. I do not find all photographs of naked people erotic. I do find many photographs of clothed people erotic.

As I stated in the snipped portion of my post, in this case I think the sexuality of the girls is central to their interest and their artistic merit. (notice the "I think" part of that quote). I would not make a similar claim, for example, for the famous Vietnam-era photo of a naked child running away from a Napalm attack.

So yes, this says something about me. But I guess the relevant question is, am I just some perverted pedophile, well out of the mainstream, or is my reaction typical? Or somewhere in between? And does it matter?

Based on other's postings, these pictures would not be considered obscene in America because they are clearly not devoid of artistic merit. In the words of Tom Lehrer,

"As the judge remarked the day that he
Acquitted my Aunt Hortense
"To be smut it must be ut-
Terly without redeeming social importance"

 

[Mobyseven]

A Myer catalogue on children's clothing, though only mildly artistic, has the potential to produce pornographic thoughts in the minds of certain viewers. Should they be held responsible for that?
If we make every artist responsible for the activitry that goes on on the mind of every potential viewer, the production of works of art would come to a complete halt.
So, even from a purely practical point of view, the answer to your second question is yes.

How then should we go about determining the intention of the artist? Unless you have some way of doing that without relying on the artist's say-so, you have to allow everything that the artist calls 'art' (which means that all an artist has to do is say 'this is art' and they'll be untouchable).

Then the situation you are left with is that children can do nothing at all because they cannot decide for themselves and their parents cannot decide for them. Perhaps children can do nothing at all unless the law decides that they can!
Is that the solution you wish to offer?

What a stupid slippery-slope argument. How does it follow that because I don't think children can properly give informed consent to have pictures of themselves taken naked, and that parents should not be allowed to give such consent for their child, that children can do nothing at all? You're being utterly nonsensical.

If a child wants to go to the playground near his house, that is a decision the child can make on their own. The child can understand the situation and make an informed decision. If a child requires a life saving operation, that is not a decision the child can make on their own - they cannot properly understand the situation, and so we go to their parents and obtain their consent, because allowing the parents to make the decision for their child is clearly in the best interests of the child.

If an artist wishes to take naked photos of a child for public display, I would argue that this is not a decision that the child can make on their own - they cannot properly understand the situation. But also, why should the parents be allowed to make this decision on behalf of the child? There is no clear benefit for the child - the people who benefit are the artist, and also in some cases the parent.

So, perhaps now I've gone and stated the bleedin' obvious you'll steer away from the logical fallacies?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

What a stupid slippery-slope argument. How does it follow that because I don't think children can properly give informed consent to have pictures of themselves taken naked, and that parents should not be allowed to give such consent for their child, that children can do nothing at all? You're being utterly nonsensical.

It's the inescapable consequence of the argument we've seen from the other side of the debate, amusingly enough.

The main anti-Henson argument has been "Some things are rightfully forbidden to children, therefore this particular thing should be forbidden". If that argument works as is, then it does indeed follow that the following argument works: "Some things are rightfully forbidden to children, therefore everything should be forbidden".

Of course we could be sane and provide hard evidence for why a given activity should or should not be forbidden. Or rather demand that those in favour of prohibiting something show evidence why it should be forbidden, since the onus of proof should be on those making a positive claim of harm.

If a child wants to go to the playground near his house, that is a decision the child can make on their own. The child can understand the situation and make an informed decision. If a child requires a life saving operation, that is not a decision the child can make on their own - they cannot properly understand the situation, and so we go to their parents and obtain their consent, because allowing the parents to make the decision for their child is clearly in the best interests of the child.

If an artist wishes to take naked photos of a child for public display, I would argue that this is not a decision that the child can make on their own - they cannot properly understand the situation. But also, why should the parents be allowed to make this decision on behalf of the child? There is no clear benefit for the child - the people who benefit are the artist, and also in some cases the parent.

So, perhaps now I've gone and stated the bleedin' obvious you'll steer away from the logical fallacies?

This is a common, if sneaky, rhetorical trick. State the obvious a few times in a row, then sneak in a highly questionable claim, then pretend that the highly questionable claim was "bleedin' obvious" and hope nobody notices the sleight of hand.

Why should things be forbidden to children (given parental consent) just because there is no clear benefit for the child? If there is no harm, and both the parents and the child want to do it, whence comes the need or the moral authority for you to forbid it? For that matter, since I'd be quite happy to have a professional photographer take cool photos of me, where do you get the idea that there is no benefit to the child?

 

[luchog]

I don't have any problem separating nudity from sexuality when you are talking about pre-pubescent children.

Why? Many Europeans manage quite well. So do the vast majority of the Pacific Islanders, Africans. Naturists manage it quite well. Nearly every tropical or sub-tropical people throughout history have managed it. In fact, for many of them, there was no coorelation between nudity and sexuality until it was imposed on them by puritanical Europeans and Americans.

Simply because you are, due to your embrace of longstanding religion-based cultural programming, unable to seperate the idea of nudity from sexuality; doesn't mean that the rest of the world necessarily follows your example.

After puberty it is a different story. You have obviously never parented a child that has been abused. Or am I wrong?

I would ask you to re-word that, because it sounds an awful lot like you're accusing me of child abuse.

And for the record, I was abused.

 

[luchog]

There is no clear benefit for the child

There isn't? I suppose you wouldn't see that, given your clear obsession with sexuality; and lack of understanding of the benefits of art, and being involved in the artistic process.

- the people who benefit are the artist, and also in some cases the parent.

You clearly completely ignored the comments from the now-grown children who modelled for Henson. I'd also direct you to my previous post regarding Jock Sturges, and the number of models he photographed as children who he is still close to, and still photographs as adults; with even the children of some of his earlier models now modelling for him.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any real examples of Henson's work; but I would argue that anyone who sees anything overtly sexual and "obscene" about Sturges' work has some serious problems they're projecting onto it.

 

[godofpie]

Why? Many Europeans manage quite well. So do the vast majority of the Pacific Islanders, Africans. Naturists manage it quite well. Nearly every tropical or sub-tropical people throughout history have managed it. In fact, for many of them, there was no coorelation between nudity and sexuality until it was imposed on them by puritanical Europeans and Americans.

Simply because you are, due to your embrace of longstanding religion-based cultural programming, unable to seperate the idea of nudity from sexuality; doesn't mean that the rest of the world necessarily follows your example.

I would ask you to re-word that, because it sounds an awful lot like you're accusing me of child abuse.

And for the record, I was abused.

Pacific Islanders and sub-tropical cultures and native Africans didn't have any qualms about impregnating 12,13,14 year old girls before they were westernized and if you think I was accusing you of child abuse you need to re-read the question. We are sexual creatures, period. Man's brain is hardwired to find the female form sexually attractive. Not the body of a prepubescent child. Man's natural instinct is to protect small children. People are going on and on about the human body being a work of art. No more so than a horse or lion.