Bill Henson Photos: Child Pornography or Art?

[BillyJoe]

Okay you are not going to answer the question.

You are not as dumb as I thought.
But, hey, I bet you still don't know why.

And your civility extends to calling posters "idiots".

I called one poster either an "idiot" or a "troll".
(Because he presumed to know Bill Henson's motives in taking nude photographs of young adolescent children despite knowing nothing whatsoever about the artist or his work)
He chose "idiot" and disappeared back into the night.
Who are you to disagree?

 

[BillyJoe]

If LionKing wants to look at harm I don't think he need go much further than the tabloid press.

I am with you.

But who is LionKing?
We have only the diminutive form here.

 

[lionking]

You have accused me in previous posts of not answering your questions. Was the woman who wrote the letter to the Age harmed or not?

 

[lionking]

I am with you.

But who is LionKing?
We have only the diminutive form here.

Purile.

 

[BillyJoe]

I still haven't located the letter from the woman referred to by lionking and who was not a model for Bill Henson.
However, here is a letter from someone who was a model for Bill Henson.

Henson evokes a whole world


AS A child I was photographed by Bill Henson, along with my brother and father, and have known his work since I was seven.


It has been an influence in inspiring me to become an artist.


To me, these images have always communicated a fragile truth and a pure beauty in a dark world. There is, I think, a metaphoric darkness beyond the world of night that the models appear in. Significantly, these images of naked adolescents sit alongside other photographs of night skies, empty lit buildings and silhouettes of trees; it is a whole world he is evoking.


Henson's work is poetic, not pornographic.


If we censor the expression of what is dark and ambiguous in art, then a far greater darkness takes hold - that of ignorance, suppression and a numbing of imagination.


If Bill Henson were convicted, this would set a precedent for curbing the civil liberty of artistic expression and a dumbing down of Australian cultural experience.


As an artist, the prospect of making work in this country is looking bleaker daily.

 

[gdnp]

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?

If I were he there is NO WAY I would release the identities of the models to the press under any circumstances. No one is stopping the children or their parents from talking to the press if they wish. To release their names to the press would be like pouring blood in the water around a group of bathers with the sharks circling.

I would, however, release the names to the police. I would try to negotiate with them first to assure that the interviews that they will inevitably conduct are done with sensitivity. As many have pointed out, it is quite possible that the witch hunt will cause more psychological damage to the kids than the posing did. Unfortunately, now the wheels have been put in motion, I do not see the issue magically going away without the kids and their parents being interviewed. The key is to make it as atraumatic to the kids as possible.

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.

the peenometer is a crude tool: most hard core heterosexual pornography scores 0 on my peenometer. Male-on-male homosexual pornography, S & M, bondage, rape fantasies, and kiddie porn score negative on my peenometer. They are still erotic.

Although you may not see this as erotic, would you agree with the statement that sexuality (sweet or otherwise) is central to the photo in post 211? That doesn't make it smut, IMHO. I do not wish to close the subject of adolescent sexuality to artistic examination. But it does move at least some of Henson's art into a category different than, for example, photos of a naked 2 year old child in a bathtub or of a naked Vietnamese child escaping a napalm attack.

If, for example, the photo were #1 in a series of 20, I would wish to have #2-20 examined to make sure there is nothing more explicit.

 

[BillyJoe]

You have accused me in previous posts of not answering your questions. Was the woman who wrote the letter to the Age harmed or not?

If she was harmed, she wasn't harmed by Bill Henson.

But I'm still trying to locate the letter.
Did you say it was in the letter's section of The Age?
Can you remember the date by chance?

 

[BillyJoe]

Purile.

Sometimes the only worthy response is to respond in kind.

 

[gdnp]

I still haven't located the letter from the woman referred to by lionking and who was not a model for Bill Henson.
However, here is a letter from someone who was a model for Bill Henson.

An intelligent and thoughtful letter, one which adds immeasurably to the discussion. Unlike a certain other thus far unproduced letter from a model of a different artist, which is at this point hearsay.

This reminds me of the film Pleasantville. The true threat may be to the Victorian world view that children are not and should not be sexual beings.

 

[lionking]

If she was harmed, she wasn't harmed by Bill Henson.

But I'm still trying to locate the letter.
Did you say it was in the letter's section of The Age?
Can you remember the date by chance?

Saturday. And if she wasn't harmed be Bill Henson, that's ok? Obviously not, so what's your point?

 

[BillyJoe]

I would, however, release the names to the police. I would try to negotiate with them first to assure that the interviews that they will inevitably conduct are done with sensitivity. As many have pointed out, it is quite possible that the witch hunt will cause more psychological damage to the kids than the posing did. Unfortunately, now the wheels have been put in motion, I do not see the issue magically going away without the kids and their parents being interviewed. The key is to make it as atraumatic to the kids as possible.

How exactly does interviewing the children and their parents help establish whether or not the photographs are pornographic?

Only if and when the photographs are judged to be pornographic is there any need to interview the children and their parents to establish whether charges of child abuse by the parents are worth pursuing.

If the photographs are judged to be not pornographic, the parents can have no charge to answer

 

[Nogbad]

If I were he there is NO WAY I would release the identities of the models to the press under any circumstances. No one is stopping the children or their parents from talking to the press if they wish. To release their names to the press would be like pouring blood in the water around a group of bathers with the sharks circling.

I would, however, release the names to the police. I would try to negotiate with them first to assure that the interviews that they will inevitably conduct are done with sensitivity. As many have pointed out, it is quite possible that the witch hunt will cause more psychological damage to the kids than the posing did. Unfortunately, now the wheels have been put in motion, I do not see the issue magically going away without the kids and their parents being interviewed. The key is to make it as atraumatic to the kids as possible.



the peenometer is a crude tool: most hard core heterosexual pornography scores 0 on my peenometer. Male-on-male homosexual pornography, S & M, bondage, rape fantasies, and kiddie porn score negative on my peenometer. They are still erotic.

Although you may not see this as erotic, would you agree with the statement that sexuality (sweet or otherwise) is central to the photo in post 211? That doesn't make it smut, IMHO. I do not wish to close the subject of adolescent sexuality to artistic examination. But it does move at least some of Henson's art into a category different than, for example, photos of a naked 2 year old child in a bathtub or of a naked Vietnamese child escaping a napalm attack.

If, for example, the photo were #1 in a series of 20, I would wish to have #2-20 examined to make sure there is nothing more explicit.

Don't really disagree with much of that. I may be coming at this from a slightly different angle - erotic to me raise the peenometer scale - if it fails it either isn't erotic or really not my bag (but can of course be sexual in nature). The picture to me is a moment of affection as I said and there is nothing wrong with young people having moments of affection. It isn't obscene or objectionable - though the 2-20 is a fair fair point where relevant.

The other picture shown a few posts above from the exhibition surely was not removed though as it is just a head and shoulders portrait? Only a mad mullah from mad mullahstan would impound that picture (naked head hair and all that).

 

[BillyJoe]

Saturday.

Saturday 31st May?
In the letters section of The Age?

And if she wasn't harmed be Bill Henson, that's ok? Obviously not, so what's your point?

If she wasn't harmed by Bill Henson, her case is irrelevant to this thread because...er...she wasn't harmed by Bill Henson and...um...this thread is about...Bill Henson...

....but I'm sure I explained all this before.

 

[Nogbad]

You have accused me in previous posts of not answering your questions. Was the woman who wrote the letter to the Age harmed or not?

I have not seen the letter but if the woman said she found it a harmful experience then I see no reason to doubt her. In just about any field of human experience it is possible to be ripped of and feel abused and violated - from having your photograph taken to having your roof repaired. However, the bad experiences do not negate photography or roof repairs. The fact that Henson's former models speak well of him act in the same way that clients speak well of a roofer or a car mechanic.

If all the experiences of child models were negative then one might reasonably assume that it was a harmful activity generally and should be banned, if it is harmful under specific circumstances only then it is only those circumstances that need to be addressed. Another example might be athletes. The training regime is hard. Some children consider their childhood was ruined by over-ambitious parents. Should we ban children from competitive sports as they are not in a position to make such a decision themselves and their parents should not?

 

[BillyJoe]

The other picture shown a few posts above from the exhibition surely was not removed though as it is just a head and shoulders portrait? Only a mad mullah from mad mullahstan would impound that picture (naked head hair and all that).

The following link shows the pictures that were not removed from the gallery:

http://images.google.com.au/imgres?...ges?q=Roslyn+Oxley9+Gallery+&gbv=2&hl=en&sa=G

So I think the answer to your question is yes.

 

[Nogbad]

The following link shows the pictures that were not removed from the gallery:

http://images.google.com.au/imgres?...ges?q=Roslyn+Oxley9+Gallery+&gbv=2&hl=en&sa=G

So I think the answer to your question is yes.

If that is the case then Mad Mullahstan, thy name is Australia.

 

[BillyJoe]

I have found that letter and here it is quoted in full:

At 12 years old my parents and I consented to me posing naked for a photographer who was to use the images for an exhibition.

When the exhibition opened, there were a number of members of the public who presumed to speak on my behalf. (I couldn't speak for myself, since I had locked myself in my room in humiliation.)

I won't presume to speak for the girl in Henson's photographs, but what I wished I had said then is that while I consented to being part of someone's artistic project, I certainly never consented to having my picture printed and reprinted in the press.

This removal of the image from the original context (the image being part of a series of works) and its injection into the public domain to be commented upon by everyone who reads the paper is what caused the real distress for me.

Moreover, Hampel's legal opinion that Bill Henson could find himself liable if the individual, once of age, decides that she or he has been scarred by the event, may be valid.

My litigious anger, however, was reserved for the press who used my image utterly without my (or my parents') consent.

I will leave the letter to speak for itself.


Goodnight,
BillyJoe

 

[Nogbad]

I have found that letter and here it is quoted in full:




I will leave the letter to speak for itself.


Goodnight,
BillyJoe

The tabloids is bastards.

 

[Chupacabras]

I will leave the letter to speak for itself.

Harrump!

 

[GreyICE]

Nope. Because this is entirely testable. All you need to do is examine all of the photos in the exhibit, which I assume to be a finite number. Unfortunately, all of the photos in the exhibit are not available on the internet, so I cannot do this, nor can you. The courts, however, will presumably examine them all before they have their say.

Making insinuations about one thing based on another is a fallacy. The courts will certainly decide on the specifics of that exhibit, however if I showed a photograph Bill Henson took of an apple and asked "How could this possibly be child pornography, do you really think anything in the exhibit is pornographic?" I hope you would take me to task. I am simply pointing out the problem.

Undeniably. Which was my point in presenting the scenarios such as "what if she were naked, what if they were having sex, what if they were 6 instead of 15" to which you objected above. You can't have it both ways. Here you seem to be arguing no photo deemed to have artistic value can be considered pornography. This may be true in the US based on supreme court rulings.

It really more or less is. Note that the supreme court may hold that a photograph has artistic value but also violated the rights of the participants and/or other laws.

In my mind, however, a photo where a 6 year old appears to be performing fellatio should be considered pornographic even if it is done with fuzzy back lighting.

I'd agree. With the caveat, of course, that it actually has to look like that (see the subtle supreme court ruling).

edited to add: and of course the question here is not how the US supreme court defines child pornography but how the Australian courts do. Their standards may be looser, stricter, or on different grounds than those in the US. Does anyone have any information on Australian pornography laws?

Obviously. Of course the Saudi courts define holding hands as a death penalty offense, so don't be surprised if I don't take local codes as the be all and end all.

P.S. And a KO to BillyJoe. Fact triumphs over emotional appeal yet again.