Bill Henson Photos: Child Pornography or Art?

[Ron_Tomkins]

Here it is again:

http://www.sauer-thompson.com/junkforcode/archives/2008/05/25/HensonBuncensored.jpg

So, what do you think?
Is this pornogrpahy?
If not, there is no issue here, at least as far as this particular photograph is concerned.

I would not label that as pornography, but I can see why a lot of people would:

1) Explicit exposure of an underage girl

2) The low quality of the picture and her face expression suggests that it´s some sort of underground work where she was forced to pose

3) Pedophiles would definitively find the material arousing and get off to it


But for it to be pornography, she would have to be either engaged in a sexual act or acting a pose that is clearly a sexual pose as seen in traditional porn, where because of her age and lack of criteria she would obviously need to be directed and told how to pose, and where there would probably be self stimulation.

 

[lionking]

....in the mean time the mother of the girl depicted in the above photograph has issued a press release supporting of Bill Henson.

(no details yet)

And a woman who posed for a nude photograph at age 12 (not Henson's, but an artist nonetheless), which was shown shown at an exhibition had a letter published in the Age today. She tells how she locked herself in her room in humiliation on the opening of the exhibition. This was made worse by the photograph being re-printed in the press and her anger is clearly directed more at the press than the photographer, but the point is that a decision made on her behalf has caused her harm. No doubt you will find ways of interpreting this as irrelevant.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Some wish to condemn Henson as a purveyor of smut without having seen the pictures. This is wrong.

Some wish to condemn the authorities in this case as prudes who are overreacting to a little nudity when there is absolutely nothing sexual in his work without having seen the pictures. This is also wrong.

Some would like the photographs examined by intelligent people versed in the relevant legal standards who can then determine whether it is artistic freedom or the children that have been assaulted. They are called critical thinkers.

My view is if the "relevant legal standards" put Henson's work in the same category as child porn then the legislators who passed those laws need a slap and new laws need to be passed.

If someone sexually abuses someone (underage or not) and records it then I'm very happy to lock them up and throw away the key. If they take photographs of an underage person in sexual poses with no particular artistic merit I'm a lot less clear on how this is supposed to be harmful to the subject, as opposed to harmful to adults' Victorian fantasy of childhood innocence, particularly if the subjects are in their teens, but I'm happy to postulate that it's bad (somehow) for the sake of this discussion.

If a respected professional photographer takes photos of children in non-sexual poses with the consent of both the child and the child's parents, and former models who are now adults have come out and said that such modelling was totally harmless, then I want a ton of very hard evidence that such modelling is harmful before I'm willing to entertain the idea that opposition to such modelling is anything other than vicious prudery masquerading as concern for children's welfare.

That assumes of course that our goal is actually protecting children from harm, as opposed to having a self-indulgent moral panic attack.

 

[Chupacabras]

FIWFW, I was terrified of my own nudity (even being alone) for years well into adulthood - I couldn't look at myself in the mirror. One of my brothers didn't clean himself thoroughly in the shower for fear of improperness.

We never posed for painters or photographers. Humiliation is the way we were "educated" and I am not nearly proud of it.

ETA: I guess what I mean is you will likely find an explanation other than having posed for getting any kind of harm, the posing itself being only a posteriori trigger to some other problem.

 

[gdnp]

My view is if the "relevant legal standards" put Henson's work in the same category as child porn then the legislators who passed those laws need a slap and new laws need to be passed.

In the US it is the courts that ultimately decide questions of first amendment rights. Congress has passed several anti-pornography laws that have been struck down as unconstitutional. This may be different in Australia, who have their own constitution, political and legal systems.

If they take photographs of an underage person in sexual poses with no particular artistic merit I'm a lot less clear on how this is supposed to be harmful to the subject, as opposed to harmful to adults' Victorian fantasy of childhood innocence, particularly if the subjects are in their teens, but I'm happy to postulate that it's bad (somehow) for the sake of this discussion.

take the photo I posted in #211 page 6. Underage persons, sexual poses (although no genitalia exposed), but in my mind with definite artistic merit. The US supreme court, if I read their rulings correctly, holds that as long as there is any artistic merit it is not pornography. Which raises the question whether in the US any photographs made with fuzzy or moody lighting can be considered pornography.

If a respected professional photographer takes photos of children in non-sexual poses with the consent of both the child and the child's parents, and former models who are now adults have come out and said that such modelling was totally harmless, then I want a ton of very hard evidence that such modelling is harmful before I'm willing to entertain the idea that opposition to such modelling is anything other than vicious prudery masquerading as concern for children's welfare.

I would also advocate holding the censors to a high standard, but as the photo in post #211 demonstrates, not all of Henson's photographs are of children in non-sexual poses. As for being a respected professional photographer...We've had respected priests caught with alter boys, respected Senators caught in airport restrooms, and respected evangelical preachers caught with prostitutes. There have been many immensely talented artists who have also been profoundly disturbed.

That assumes of course that our goal is actually protecting children from harm, as opposed to having a self-indulgent moral panic attack.

I may not agree with them, but I am willing to accept that the opponents of these photos are acting in good faith until provided with evidence to the contrary.

 

[BillyJoe]

Some wish to condemn the authorities in this case as prudes who are overreacting to a little nudity when there is absolutely nothing sexual in his work without having seen the pictures. This is also wrong.

It seems to have all the attributes of a media/political beat up.
(see the above time line)
In any case, what is being complained about is the way the whole sorry affair has been handled. Additionally, the photograph singled out by the complainers is clearly not pornographic and, indeed, in my opinion, has clear artistic merit. If there is another photograph that more clearly fits the description of pornographic, it probably would have been singled out instead.
Also, it has been about support for a beleaguered artist with a long track record, who has gained acceptance amongst his peers for his careful and sensitive attitude towards his work, as well as support for the young children depicted in his work.

Some would like the photographs examined by intelligent people versed in the relevant legal standards who can then determine whether it is artistic freedom or the children that have been assaulted. They are called critical thinkers.

This will now happen it seems.
However, a critical thinker would perhaps come to the conclusion that the whole sorry episode was beat up, a complete waste of time, and an abuse of the artist and the children depicted in his art.

And I prefer bananas.

Please dispose of hygienically after use.

 

[BillyJoe]

And a woman who posed for a nude photograph at age 12 (not Henson's, but an artist nonetheless), which was shown shown at an exhibition had a letter published in the Age today. She tells how she locked herself in her room in humiliation on the opening of the exhibition. This was made worse by the photograph being re-printed in the press and her anger is clearly directed more at the press than the photographer, but the point is that a decision made on her behalf has caused her harm. No doubt you will find ways of interpreting this as irrelevant.

Of course it is irrelevant.

If you read the thread heading, it clearly contains the words "Bill Henson". He can not be held accountable for every child/adolescent, past and present, who has ever been photographed by any photographer, artistic or otherwise, who has ever existed.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to access the letter online to comment any further - despite the irrelevancy.

 

[BillyJoe]

I would not label that as pornography, but I can see why a lot of people would:

1) Explicit exposure of an underage girl

2) The low quality of the picture and her face expression suggests that it´s some sort of underground work where she was forced to pose

3) Pedophiles would definitively find the material arousing and get off to it


But for it to be pornography, she would have to be either engaged in a sexual act or acting a pose that is clearly a sexual pose as seen in traditional porn, where because of her age and lack of criteria she would obviously need to be directed and told how to pose, and where there would probably be self stimulation.

I can see your point.

And I can see, as someone else mentioned, that people may complain out of genuine concern. However, I'm uncertain that that happened in this case. It really does look like a case of media and political beat-up, and without regard to the consequences of their actions for the artist and the children depicted in his photographs.

 

[BillyJoe]

FIWFW, I was terrified of my own nudity (even being alone) for years well into adulthood - I couldn't look at myself in the mirror. One of my brothers didn't clean himself thoroughly in the shower for fear of improperness.

We never posed for painters or photographers. Humiliation is the way we were "educated" and I am not nearly proud of it.

My parents were actually okay, but they did little to counteract the effect of teachers and clerics, for which they later expressed their regret. My little fella similarly suffered years of neglect. Of course, these days, it gets a great deal more attention than it's worth .

ETA: I guess what I mean is you will likely find an explanation other than having posed for getting any kind of harm, the posing itself being only a posteriori trigger to some other problem.

Yes, I think we need a lot more information before passing comment.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

And a woman who posed for a nude photograph at age 12 (not Henson's, but an artist nonetheless), which was shown shown at an exhibition had a letter published in the Age today. She tells how she locked herself in her room in humiliation on the opening of the exhibition. This was made worse by the photograph being re-printed in the press and her anger is clearly directed more at the press than the photographer, but the point is that a decision made on her behalf has caused her harm. No doubt you will find ways of interpreting this as irrelevant.

Details like the name, date, place, exhibition, photographer, the exact details of the complaint and a link to the photo in question would be valuable. Without those details it is, as you foresaw, of highly limited relevance since it's got nothing in common with the case at hand but the fact that it involved a nude of a 12 year old in a photo exhibition of some sort.

It does highlight the particularly unpleasant hypocrisy inherent in claiming to have the interests of the children involved at heart and simultaneously creating as big a media flap as possible. If the interests of the child were their real motivation they would want the matter cleared up as quickly and quietly as possible and they certainly wouldn't be making noises about trying to get the parents fitted up for criminal charges.

 

[lionking]

Yeah just as I thought. So tell me, do you think that the child was harmed? Or was she a liar?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Yeah just as I thought. So tell me, do you think that the child was harmed? Or was she a liar?

Having precisely zero information about what supposedly happened other than your post, all I can say is "you said that's what she said". So explain what you think follows from this. Or alternatively, surprise us all with an honest answer to the many questions you have so far avoided answering.

 

[BillyJoe]

Yeah just as I thought.

You introduce an irrelevant case, make an irrelevant comment, tease us to call it irrelevant knowing that it is - otherwise why ask - and then act injured when we, in fact, call it for what you and we both know it is - irrelevant!

You are playing funny buggers, lionking, and I think you might be just clever enough to know it.


...oh heck, no you're not. Who am I kidding.

 

[lionking]

Ad hom. Good stuff. Now tell me if that woman was harmed by posing for a nude photograph or not.

 

[BillyJoe]

Here's a piece by Roger Benjamin.

He is research professor in the history of art at the University of Sydney.
He was one of a hand full of people who managed to view the exhibition before the police intervention adn conviscation of "the works of art":

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23785261-16947,00.html

Artistic merit:

Henson's work has artistic merit in scads. I think you would have to say he is Australia's leading figurative artist in any visual medium. There is a reason his photographic tableaus sell for $25,000 apiece: they are an accumulation of decades of professional skill and vision by one of the most acute sensibilities in the country.

Technical expertise:

Fellow photographers consider Henson a near-magician from a technical point of view. He has created a photographic language, vulgarisations of which I have observed in international fashion magazines, video clips and other artists' works for years now.

Pornography:

Soft-core pornography thrives on a limited number of visual cues: the "come-hither" eyes, the artificial pout, the upthrust breasts, the hip shot, the striptease, the exposed and shaven genitals. You will find none of this language in Henson.

He does concede the point, raised by others in this thread, that the choice of picture (the one I linked to above) was ill-advised:

What set off the recent furore (web issues aside) was an ill-advised choice in the image published on the invitation card. This strange photograph is disturbing. We are compelled to look, and look again.

By "ill-advised", I think he means they should have anticipated the possible reaction by certain community groups and protected themselves against that reaction. I guess the rectospectoscope is a clever instrument though. Maybe they went with artistic merit and chose the best of a good bunch.



I cannot find an appropriate extract from the Crimes Act, but the author of this article has this to say:

The photograph does not show an underage person in a sexual context (as the Crimes Act requires). There is no sexual activity visible, nor on her part any complicit expression of the kind I have indicated.

Obviously he thinks there is no case to answer.


BillyJoe

 

[BillyJoe]

Ad hom. Good stuff.

Not really.
I'm restraining myself beyond endurance, but I'm determined to remain civil despite the provocation.

Now tell me if that woman was harmed by posing for a nude photograph or not.

You have an approriate avatar.

 

[lionking]

Okay you are not going to answer the question. And your civility extends to calling posters "idiots".

 

[Nogbad]

Once again to play devil's advocate, no unethical child pornographer would reveal the identity of a subject without a court order, if then. So this behavior is not particularly helpful in distinguishing between the two.

It is true that different motivation can spur similar behaviours. However, in this instance given the pack mentality of the press, is it right he should he tell them the names and addresses of his models? I would be more concerned with his ethical stance if he did to be honest. One might hope the press would be ethical and not camp outside the doors of the models hoping to take paparazzi pictures but I wouldn't put much trust in that. If LionKing wants to look at harm I don't think he need go much further than the tabloid press.

With regards the picture above I really didn't consider it erotic - it registered 0 on my peenometer but that is just me, I can't claim to speak for anyone else on that. It is atmospheric and quite sweet. It is a moment of affection between two people as far as I can see.

As far as I can tell the pictures in the case we are discussing are single portraits - some nude some not.

 

[BillyJoe]

Model's mother defends Henson:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/models-mother-defends-henson/2008/05/29/1211654225893.html

THE mother of the 13-year-old girl at the centre of the Bill Henson controversy has broken the family's week-long silence to defend the artist's portrayal of her daughter.

The parents of the teenager...have known the artist for more than a decade. The girl lives with her parents in Melbourne.

In a statement yesterday her mother said: "There is a police investigation under way and we cannot say anything other than [that] we are very strong supporters of Bill Henson and his work."

The girl is said to have a keen interest in the arts. Her identity is known to police but her family have so far refused to answer any police questions via their lawyer.

The girl, who is still 13, posed for Henson over the past year. Her parents met him through family and friends and were aware of the nature of his work before their daughter posed nude, sources said.

 

[BillyJoe]

Here is another photograph from the exhibition: