Bill Henson Photos: Child Pornography or Art?

[gdnp]

No physical harm comes from being naked and considerable kudos comes from being part of a respected artist's portfolio.

The women in this painting, for example is very proud to have modeled for such an important painter.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertai...art_fat_woman_nude_breaks_auction_record.html

It just sold for $33 million USD

 

[nightwind]

Art

This is totally ridiculous. Nudity does not equal pornography! Sheesh. I never cease to be amazed at the way that some people think.

Just look at the complaining party. A bunch of nutcases to say the least, who have never met a child that has not been abused.

It is art. Good grief. And police are idiots if they can't find anything better to do.

This should not even be news. Trivial bs.

 

[Nogbad]

This is totally ridiculous. Nudity does not equal pornography! Sheesh. I never cease to be amazed at the way that some people think.

Just look at the complaining party. A bunch of nutcases to say the least, who have never met a child that has not been abused.

It is art. Good grief. And police are idiots if they can't find anything better to do.

This should not even be news. Trivial bs.

Come off the fence and say what you think

 

[BillyJoe]

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.

Maybe because what you seem to be offering is a gut reaction. Maybe if you explain exactly why you think "a child can not consent to having someone take naked photos of them".

Moreover, apparently I lack an understanding of the benefits of art, and of being involved in the artistic process.

You are a performing artist, if I remember. You are also, of a sceptical frame of mind, I believe. This is why I find your opinion strange. This is why I would be interested in a clear statement from you of the reasons for your opinion.

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.

But, if I remember correctly, you are just starting out in your chosen field. Isn't that right? Don't think that there is nothing more that you can learn after you pass the age of eighteen. Your whole life is a learning experience. Please don't cut it off at the knees.

 

[BillyJoe]

The woman in this painting, for example, is very proud to have modeled for such an important painter.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertai...art_fat_woman_nude_breaks_auction_record.html

It just sold for $33 million USD

I don't know, I would have had the whole sofa in the same pattern.

 

[lionking]

Maybe because what you seem to be offering is a gut reaction. Maybe if you explain exactly why you think "a child can not consent to having someone take naked photos of them".


You are a performing artist, if I remember. You are also, of a sceptical frame of mind, I believe. This is why I find your opinion strange. This is why I would be interested in a clear statement from you of the reasons for your opinion.


But, if I remember correctly, you are just starting out in your chosen field. Isn't that right? Don't think that there is nothing more that you can learn after you pass the age of eighteen. Your whole life is a learning experience. Please don't cut it off at the knees.

It's been a long time since I have seen such a condescending post, particularly to a respected member of this forum.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It's been a long time since I have seen such a condescending post, particularly to a respected member of this forum.

Respected members of this forum don't usually evade the really obvious questions raised by their claims.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

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 have a question for godofpie, lionking, and others who think it was wrong of the artist to take these pictures. I realize I risk accusations of a slippery slope, but here goes...

Would it have been ok if the model had been wearing nothing but pasties?
Would it have been ok if the model had been wearing nothing but a g-string?
Would it have been ok if the model had been wearing underwear?
Would it have been ok if the model had been wearing a bikini?
Would it have been ok if the model had been wearing a one-piece bathing suit?
Would it have been ok if the model had been wearing cutoff jeans and a tank top?
Would it have been ok if the model had been wearing sweatpants and a T-shirt?
Would it have been ok if the model had been wearing a 3-piece business suit?

In other words, if you consider this to be pornography/exploitation, at what point is it not pornography/exploitation?

And once you've answered that question, please explain why you have chosen that point.

Thanks.

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.

Oh. Really.

 

[Darth Rotor]

You are either an idiot or a troll yourself.

Checkmate!

Nope. Checkmite is on topic, on target, and spot on.

In Henson's defense, it takes something a bit extraordinary to get any attention, and getting attention is what an artist is all about.

"Hey, look at my art."

So, if it takes trolling to get people interested in one's corner of the craft of art, then so be it, you can call it marketing if trolling isn't a pretty enough depiction for you.

Adage: any publicity is good publicity. Ever hear it? Attention whores the world over practice it.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

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.


Boo

Are the photos worthy of sharing with your JREF friends, or would you rather not?

DR

 

[lionking]

Respected members of this forum don't usually evade the really obvious questions raised by their claims.

I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse here, but the answer to your "obvious" question, given by myself, moby and others is that young children are not mature enough to understand the consequences and possible harm resulting from participating in these photographs.

Whatever, participatants in this thread do not warrant being patronised by Billy Joe in a number of his posts.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse here, but the answer to your "obvious" question, given by myself, moby and others is that young children are not mature enough to understand the consequences and possible harm resulting from participating in these photographs.

We keep asking what the consequences and possible harm are, and asking for the evidence that led you to the conclusion that these consequences and possible harm are serious enough to merit government intervention, but we don't get any clear answers.

I don't think I'm the one being obtuse.

Whatever, participatants in this thread do not warrant being patronised by Billy Joe in a number of his posts.

Mobyseven decided to go for the "get offended, and use that as an excuse not to back up their claims" route as well.

Why not just ignore the rudeness of posters who offend you, and stick to just presenting facts and evidence to support your position?

 

[GreyICE]

I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse here, but the answer to your "obvious" question, given by myself, moby and others is that young children are not mature enough to understand the consequences and possible harm resulting from participating in these photographs.

What consequences? What harm?

I'll ask again, since it apparently got missed: Where are the studies showing that nudity is harmful to children. There's enough nudists out there. Where are these studies showing the consequences? There's enough cultures that practice casual nudity, especially for children. Go, fetch me consequences!

You are claiming consequences and harm. What are those consequences, what is the harm?

All you have to do to get me to agree with you and argue against every poster who disagrees with you is show me reputable scientific studies published in a peer-reviewed journal documenting harm or consequences to the children. That's it.

 

[lionking]

The burden of proof is not so clear cut here. Children are prevented from doing so many things because they are harmful. So isn't equally contingent on you to prove that posing for a naked (or pornographic - this has not yet been established) photograph causes no harm? There are a number of psychologists who say it can cause harm, like Steven Biddulph (oops, argument from authority again.....).

Interesting update. Henson is refusing to identify the children he photographed. If it was so innocent and harmless, why is he hampering the investigation in this way?

 

[gdnp]

We keep asking what the consequences and possible harm are, and asking for the evidence that led you to the conclusion that these consequences and possible harm are serious enough to merit government intervention, but we don't get any clear answers.

Oh, let me play the devil's advocate if he won't
1) the kids will be ridiculed and ostracized by their peers
2) their friend's parents will not let their children associate with children of such obviously low moral character
3) perverts will look at the pictures and masturbate
4) perverts will seek out the children and try to molest them
5) parents will coerce children to pose against their will
6) Even if the children do consent, they will realize what a terrible thing they have done when they grow older, leading to severe psychological damage, drug and alcohol abuse, promiscuity, godless communism, and eventually suicide.
7) they will be hounded by do-gooders and religious fanatics wanting to protect them from exploitation and help them save their souls
8) those that are Muslim may be subjected to honor killings by family members
9) they may cause the western world to realize that nudity is not such a big deal, causing the rest of the population to start walking around nude. This will have the twofold effect of plunging the world economy into recession as clothing sales plummet and dramatically increasing the incidence of skin cancer.

and most importantly

10) Put on a sweater! You'll catch your death of cold!

 

[GreyICE]

The burden of proof is not so clear cut here. Children are prevented from doing so many things because they are harmful. So isn't equally contingent on you to prove that posing for a naked (or pornographic - this has not yet been established) photograph causes no harm? There are a number of psychologists who say it can cause harm, like Steven Biddulph (oops, argument from authority again.....).

No, the burden of proof is on the people who make the positive claim - in this case the people who say it causes harm. The same as it is for people who claim video games harm children, or violence on TV harms children, or comic books harm children.

Interesting update. Henson is refusing to identify the children he photographed. If it was so innocent and harmless, why is he hampering the investigation in this way?

Maybe the model or the model's parents asked for anonymity. Certainly I can see why, given the likely lynch mob of people screaming 'bad parenting.' In any case you seem to be leaping to your conclusion here.

As I said, demonstrate harm in the logical, reasonable manner I outlined and I'll be your most ardent supporter.

 

[gdnp]

Interesting update. Henson is refusing to identify the children he photographed. If it was so innocent and harmless, why is he hampering the investigation in this way?

See #7 above.

The children and their parents are free to come forward if they wish. The damage to the kids from the media circus that will ensue once their identities are revealed to the public will be far more damaging than posing for the photos was.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

This may have been overlooked, so I'll ask again.

I have a question for godofpie, lionking, and others who think it was wrong of the artist to take these pictures. I realize I risk accusations of a slippery slope, but here goes...

Would it have been ok if the model had been wearing nothing but pasties?
Would it have been ok if the model had been wearing nothing but a g-string?
Would it have been ok if the model had been wearing underwear?
Would it have been ok if the model had been wearing a bikini?
Would it have been ok if the model had been wearing a one-piece bathing suit?
Would it have been ok if the model had been wearing cutoff jeans and a tank top?
Would it have been ok if the model had been wearing sweatpants and a T-shirt?
Would it have been ok if the model had been wearing a 3-piece business suit?

In other words, if you consider this to be pornography/exploitation, at what point is it not pornography/exploitation?

And once you've answered that question, please explain why you have chosen that point.

Thanks.

 

[gdnp]

No, the burden of proof is on the people who make the positive claim - in this case the people who say it causes harm. The same as it is for people who claim video games harm children, or violence on TV harms children, or comic books harm children.

Not so sure about this. For example, we require drug manufacturers to prove their products are safe before they can be marketed.

In general, I would argue that if something is generally accepted, like spanking or video games, then the burden of proof is on the persons wishing to have the item/activity banned. But I think it is a stretch to argue that photographs of naked adolescents are generally accepted. In fact, I would argue that photographs of naked adolescents are generally prohibited as the bulk are child pornography. It is thus up to Henson's supporters to make the argument that these photographs are different and should not be banned.

 

[BillyJoe]

Nope. Checkmite is on topic, on target, and spot on.

In Henson's defense, it takes something a bit extraordinary to get any attention, and getting attention is what an artist is all about.

"Hey, look at my art."

So, if it takes trolling to get people interested in one's corner of the craft of art, then so be it, you can call it marketing if trolling isn't a pretty enough depiction for you.

Adage: any publicity is good publicity. Ever hear it? Attention whores the world over practice it.

No. His was a fly-by shooting. That's all.
He obviously knew nothing about the case, or the artist, before he dropped by and, now that he is gone, he is none the wiser.

And...ditto.