Bill Henson Photos: Child Pornography or Art?

[luchog]

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".

Actually, that's not entirely accurate.

A more appropriate chain of logic would be this: The arguments against Henson's (and Sturges', and Mann's) work is that some things are rightfully forbidden because they are clearly harmful to the child; and some things are a gray area that may cause harm to a child, therefore should be forbidden because of the potential harm, regardless of the wishes of the child; and some things are good for the child, and therefore the child should participate in them, regardless of the wishes of the child. The logical conclusion of this train of thought is not "everything should be forbidden", because that's just ridiculous. The true conclusion would inevitably be "that which is not compulsory should be forbidden".

The problem here is that of who decides where those boundaries are? Who decides what is black, what is white, and what is gray and therefore effectively black? Who decides what is compulsory, and what is forbidden? The comments made by many in this thread who "just want to protect the children" have already effectively rules out parents making such decisions, because some parents make the wrong decisions, decisions which "aren't in the child's best interests". So it's left up to some other nebulous entity who has been made the ultimate authority. Either the State, or some religious authority (although that's redundant, because in cases like these, the State is typically given the level of unquestioned authority previously reserved for supernatural dieties).

Claiming that "community standards" are the arbiter of such decisions is worse than a cop-out; since it ignores the myriad of abuses that "community standards" have inflicted on children. Genital mutiliation, ritual deflowering, chattel status, numerous forms of community-sanctioned physical and sexual abuse, and so on. In my lifetime, there were still many community standards which prohibited mixed-race couples. In the US, children who show signs of being homosexual can be legally subjected to all manner of physical and psychological abuse in the name of "curing" their homosexuality; and in much of the Middle East, it's perfectly acceptable to kill them. Are those the "community standards" you want to govern? What makes your standards any more valid than theirs, aside from your own preferences?

As others have said, clear demonstrable harm is the only valid criteria on which to judge. If you want to forbid it, you have to demonstrate clear and incontrovertible evidence that it causes real harm. The statments of the models make it quite clear that they don't consider it harmful in any way. Quite the opposite.

 

[gdnp]

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.

Absolute BS. It is not the child's decision on whether it is safe to go to a playground near his house, it is the parent's decision. For a small child there may be busy streets that the parent deems too dangerous to cross alone. For an older child, the playground may be frequented by gangs or drug dealers to which the parent does not wish the child to be exposed. From birth to the age of majority it is the parent's decision, not the child's.

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.

fallacious. The presence or absence of clear benefit to the child is irrelevant to the question of parental authority. If it were relevant, then examine this scenario: What if the artist offered a full college scholarship to the child in exchange for her posing? Now there is a clear benefit to the child.

In such a situation I would argue that it is the state's responsibility to decide if the activity is legal: we would not allow the parents to consent to filming of the rape of their daughter under a similar scenario. It is then the parent's responsibility to determine whether the benefits outweigh the negatives.

Remove the monetary benefit and the principal of parental authority remains.

 

[BillyJoe]

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).

Firstly, the artist has been on the scene for thirty years, his work is well respected by fellow artist, when under attrack a group of forty fellow artist meet to compose a letter of support, parents attend his exhibitions with their children, the parents and the children involved in his phtographs all speak highly of him, .....
Secondly, you can, if you were interested hear the artist speak about his works and what his intentions are with his photographs and you can see for yourself whether or not he is genuinely interested in his art and in the children who pose for his photographs.
Lastly, you can view his photographic works and judge for yourself that the professed intention of the artist is indeed expressed in them. However, you would need to get past your obsession with the "nudity/age/sexuality" of the subjects.

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 would be a stupid slippery slope argument if is was a slippery slope argument. But it is not. I am clearly not saying don't ban these photographs, otherwise your children's school camps will be next. That would be the slippery slope argument. What I am saying is that to ban these photographs would be no different than banning these other activities. In other words, I am asking you to justify your opinion that these photographs should be banned as opposed to the other things that children do.

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.

There could be roads to cross on the way to the playground and unsavoury gentlemen to avoid in the playground itself.
What is the risk compared to doing a nude photo shoot with a well-respected artist, and with the acquiescence of a parent, for the purpose of producing a work of art?

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.

I think you underestimate the aptitude of children of this age. An average 13 year old child is certainly capable of understanding the need for surgery. Some are as capable as the parent. In certain situations, they would be more capable than the parent.

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.

You have no more argued that a particular 13 year old is not able to understand the situation with respect to the nude photographs as you have explained why they are capable of understanding the situation with resspect to going to the local playground.
You have merely stated that you think this is so.

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.

The parents do not make the decision, the child makes the decision and the parent support it (or not).
As for no benefit for the child, why do you think these children choose to be involved in the photgraphs. Is it pure altruism do you think? Is it just for the money? Even that would be a benefit, of course, so there goes your theory already.
The child in those photographs, with the expert guidance of the artist, gains the satisfaction that comes from expressing her or himself artistically in the poses he or she creates for the photograph and from seeing the result artistically presented in the finished artwork.

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

What is "bleedin' obvious" is often just "gut reaction".

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[BillyJoe]

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.

Good point which, I think, comes out as the "gut reaction" which we see so often in the public arena.

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.

You see, I knew there was a religious angle here somewhere.

 

[lionking]

Well no religious angle from me. So many posters think that either pre-pubescent children or their parents can consent to nude photographs like Henson's and to oppose this view would denies a child their liberty. I would like to hear where they would draw the line. According to this logic, can a child consent to a pornographic film? If not, why not?

And luchog I have only read comments from models who were photographed as adults, and none from the child models, so we do not know how they feel about these photographs being shown many years later.

 

[geni]

And luchog I have only read comments from models who were photographed as adults, and none from the child models, so we do not know how they feel about these photographs being shown many years later.

Well we know the model on the blind faith album cover doesn't have a problem with it.

 

[lionking]

Which proves? I am more interested in the children in these photographs.

 

[BillyJoe]

Well no religious angle from me.

Dig a little and you may surprise yourself at what lies hidden beneath the surface.

So many posters think that either pre-pubescent children or their parents can consent to nude photographs like Henson's and to oppose this view would denies a child their liberty.

Well, I think that the point is that you need clear evidence of harm to justify banning this activity.

I would like to hear where they would draw the line.

At evidence of clear harm.

According to this logic, can a child consent to a pornographic film? If not, why not?

If you can show clear evidence of harm (and I have no doubt that you can), then the involvement of children in pornographic films should be banned (as it is).
This is a separate discussion though.

And luchog I have only read comments from models who were photographed as adults, and none from the child models, so we do not know how they feel about these photographs being shown many years later.

I will see if I can find any.


Meanwhile, a bit of googling has led me to this link which contains an uncensored version of the photograph which prompted the original complaint of child pornography:
http://www.sauer-thompson.com/junkforcode/archives/2008/05/bill-henson-6-u.html
I would welcome any comment.

 

[lionking]

Okay you seem to concede that pornographic films are out of bounds for children. We have had one poster here honest enough to concede that he found the photographs "erotic". I would now like you to draw a thin black line between "erotica" and "pornography" and not a very broad, fuzzy one.

 

[BillyJoe]

Okay you seem to concede that pornographic films are out of bounds for children. We have had one poster here honest enough to concede that he found the photographs "erotic". I would now like you to draw a thin black line between "erotica" and "pornography" and not a very broad, fuzzy one.

And the relevance of this impossible task to the the topic under discussion?

 

[BillyJoe]

Here is the text of the open letter by Australian artists in defence of Bill Henson:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/bread-the-letterb/2008/05/27/1211654031202.html


Some excerpts:

We suggest that the media sensationalism and the criminalisation of laying charges against Mr Henson, his gallery and the parents of the young people depicted in his work, would be far more traumatic for the young people concerned than anything Mr Henson has done.

...in its respect for the autonomy of its subjects, the work is a counter-argument to the exploitation and commodification of young people in both commercial media and in pornographic images...Mr Henson’s work shows the delicacy of the transition from childhood to adulthood, its troubledness and its beauty, in ways which do not violate the essential innocence of his subjects. It can be confronting, but that does not mean that it is pornography.

It is notable that the attacks on Mr Henson’s work have, almost without exception, come from those who are unfamiliar with the photographs, or who have seen them in mutilated or reduced images on the internet.

If an example is made of Bill Henson, one of Australia’s most prominent artists, it is hard to believe that those who have sought to bring these charges will stop with him. Rather, this action will encourage a repressive climate of hysterical condemnation, backed by the threat of prosecution.
We are already seeing troubling signs in the pre-emptive self-censorship of some galleries. This is not the hallmark of an open democracy nor of a decent and civilised society. We should remember that an important index of social freedom, in earlier times or in repressive regimes elsewhere in the world, is how artists and art are treated by the state.

And finally:

We urge our political leaders to follow the example of Neville Wran, when in 1982 a similar outcry greeted paintings by Juan Davila. At that time, Mr Wran said: “I do not believe that art has anything to do with the vice squad”. With Mr Wran, we believe the proper place for debate is outside the courts of law."

 

[BillyJoe]

It seems the image has been de-censored, because here it appears in an article from The Age online:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/05/24/1211183189567.html


Interesting accompanying text:

About 15 years he ago he produced a series of teenage nudes sprawled across car bonnets...they have barely raised an eyebrow, let alone a scandal...and there has never been...any concern or complaints from the public...they had to go through the council and the acquisition committee, and there were no objections raised...that's what's shocking everybody that works similar to what we've put on display are now the subject of a police investigation and all this controversy. We're gobsmacked.

This bit about the photograph of the 13 year old girl particularly resonates with me:

It was a powerful image. I would call it very beautiful in its vulnerability rather than 'revolting' as the Prime Minister has done...the photograph suggested the girl gave her trust to Henson … and this trust has been violated by the police and Kevin Rudd's comments.

 

[geni]

Which proves? I am more interested in the children in these photographs.

That at least one former child nude has not problem with what is in her case a very widely circulated image.

 

[Mobyseven]

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.

Oh, screw this thread for a joke. I don't think a child can consent to having someone take naked photos of themselves, and that makes me clearly obsessed with sexuality. Moreover, apparently I lack an understanding of the benefits of art, and of being involved in the artistic process.

You'll forgive, I hope, for thinking you're an ignorant twat, but the irony that you're accusing me of being ignorant of art does seem to point somewhat in that direction.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Oh, screw this thread for a joke. I don't think a child can consent to having someone take naked photos of themselves, and that makes me clearly obsessed with sexuality....

Can you explain what you mean by "I don't think a child can consent to having someone take naked photos of themselves", and why you think that is the case?

 

[gdnp]

It is ironic that the controversy raised by those wishing to ban display of these photos had lead to so much publicity that they have now been seen by orders of magnitude more people than would have seen them had the show gone on as scheduled. Which has only increased Henson's fame many-fold, and thus the incentive for him to produce more such images.

Unless they lock him away or get a judicial injunction (or the Australian equivalent) banning him from photographing nude children their actions have been totally counterproductive.

 

[Nogbad]

Which proves? I am more interested in the children in these photographs.

Thought post 99 covered this point?

 

[GreyICE]

I don't see any evidence for lasting harm from this. Many children in many cultures are naked until a certain age (or simply casual nudity is not a taboo), no one has ever documented any negative effects of nudism, etc.

On the other hand, documentation for lasting harm from sexual abuse of children is plentiful, and not controversial.

You can't just staple gun your position to a non-controversial position.

As for erotica vs. pornography, you're wandering into weird ground we probably shouldn't legislate on. What is obscenity, what is artistic merit, etc. Lets stick to 'documented harm.'

 

[Boo]

Okay you seem to concede that pornographic films are out of bounds for children. We have had one poster here honest enough to concede that he found the photographs "erotic". I would now like you to draw a thin black line between "erotica" and "pornography" and not a very broad, fuzzy one.

The thin line between erotica and pornography is in the mind of the viewer and in the intent of the creator.

IMHO, erotica is done in a manner as to show artistic merit and in a generally recognizable style; be it through staging, lighting, framing of the image or focus of the subject. Pornography is blunt and serves one purpose, to titillate. There is no attempt, except in cheesy "movies", to express any recognizable artistic style or concern for artistic merit.


The fine line could be said to be the difference between the subtlety of a brush stroke as opposed to the broad sweeping of a paint roller.


As a parent I would hope that other parents would recognize the difference between the guy on the street with a camera asking for young girls to "pose" for him and a recognized photographer approaching parents with adolescent children at a viewing of his work. It should be fairly obvious that if they are already there they have an implicit understanding of his work and what modeling for him would involve. If the child is comfortable enough to view those images in public, with their parents, then there is likely a level of communication and trust between them so that expressed interest in modeling would lead to agreement from the parents.


I have to wonder if perhaps you feel that parents and adolescents aren't capable of the level of trust and open communication to allow for modeling of this sort without coercion on the parents behalf.




Boo

 

[Nogbad]

I think it is probably fair to say that some people are just not comfortable with nudity at any age. However, even a cursory glance around the beaches of Europe this summer will demonstrate that nudity at virtually any age is commonplace in our culture.

I will be surprised if the work of this photographer is considered obscene and consequently the exhibition illegal. If, therefore, it is legal and both the parents and models are happy, then what is it that those who are uncomfortable with the exhibition want? New legislation to remove parental authority to agree to such sittings for artists? A redefinition of what is obscene?

Legislation already exist to prevent depiction of young adolescents engaged in sexual acts as it is not legal for them to engage such activities (I would consider 18 year olds to be adolescents too but they can fill their boots if they so desire without parental consent). Any depiction of young models clothed or otherwise can be leered over by those of bad intent. The fault is in their mind not in the actions of the artist or the adolescent. The logical end route of such thinking is the Taliban insisting women be covered from head to toe in a burkha because otherwise they would incite men to commit adultery at least by thought if not in deed. The fault resting with the women not the men.

No physical harm comes from being naked and considerable kudos comes from being part of a respected artist's portfolio. Harm and hurt I would suggest comes from those who should know better calling the pictures revolting - an ill advised knee jerk from a politician (now there is a first).