Bill Henson Photos: Child Pornography or Art?

[Kevin_Lowe]

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

I will leave the letter to speak for itself.

Goodnight,
BillyJoe

Very well played, BillyJoe. I can see why lionking gave us his version of that letter rather than presenting the actual text.

 

[lionking]

I said that she was more angry at the press, but was she not humiliated at the opening of the exhibition? That is harmful in most people's opinion.

She is saying, and others here are also saying, that it is somehow okay for these images to be shown in an exhibition, but not in the press. Please explain why.

Also, do you think that if Henson's photos were published in a magazine and sold in a sex shop would they be seized and the shop owner prosecuted? The answer is certainly yes. So what is so special about an art gallery? Apart from only the right sort of people going to a gallery of course.

 

[I less than three logic]

Seems to me that the girl in the letter was humiliated by the all controversy people made about her photos, not by the photos themselves. I realize that the photographs were required to get the whole controversy bit started. Without the photos there wouldn't be anything to have controversy about, but the point of this discussion seems to be whether such controversy is justified at all.

So far I remain unconvinced that it is. The letter is the best example, presented so far this thread, of possible harm (using the term loosely) caused by adolescents having nude photographs taken, and the harm in this case seems to be caused by the very controversy the example is attempting to justify.

 

[lionking]

Perhaps but she said she was humilitated on the night of the exhibition, which from her letter seems before the press took interest.

 

[Megalodon]

Perhaps but she said she was humilitated on the night of the exhibition, which from her letter seems before the press took interest.

From the letter:

"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.)"

The girl felt humiliated because there were a number of members of the public who presumed to talk on her behalf.

I would guess they were saying that the pictures were revolting and disgusting, that the girl was involved in pornography and that the parents should be arrested...

Nah, who would be crazy enough to say such a thing to a little girl involved in an artistic project....

 

[lionking]

I really don't know how you could conclude that from the letter. A guess is exactly that.

 

[Megalodon]

The guess is an educated one.

My understanding of the phrase seems to be spot on.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

BTW my main objection to these photographs remains the problem of an immature child giving informed consent.

And my main objection is that you take others to task for not answering questions when you've avoided quite a few yourself.

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

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?

So, in case you've forgotten, here they are again:

Ok, since you don't seem to want to answer my questions, let me rephrase them to something more similar to what you are asking.

You seem to be stating that a child cannot give informed consent to have nude photographs of themselves taken.

Can a child give informed consent to have clothed photographs taken of them?
Can a child give informed consent to have photographs taken of them while in a bathing suit?
Can a child give informed consent to have photographs taken of them in underwear?
Can a child give informed consent to have photographs taken of them in a g-string? In pasties? Nude, but covered by hands or other objects?

I am honestly curious at what point you think the child loses the ability to give informed consent.

ETA: Also, when you are talking about a child, are you talking about a 4-year old? A 10-year old? A 17-year old?

I really don't know how you could conclude that from the letter. A guess is exactly that.

A guess? How about a quote from the letter?

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.

Doesn't get much more evident than that.

 

[Beerina]

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.

Ya gotta keep in mind our beloved America is a land that has no problem whatsoever with charging a 16 year old boy with felony production and distribution of child pornography for taking a nude cell phone pic of himself and forwarding it to two girlfriends.

Personally, I would prefer an America where that prosecutor's head was sawn off in the public square while he screamed, and the video put on Youtube.

But that's just silly me.


We should invade Europe, by the way, so we can start rounding up all those 14 year old exhibitionists on the topless and nude beaches and parks of Europe. God damned savages all, over there. National Geographic would be proud to study them. They need us to come edumicate them to propriety!

 

[rjh01]

What everyone here appears to have missed is that No case against Henson: prosecutors

Photographer Bill Henson will not face charges over photographs of a naked 13-year-old girl that sparked a political furore.

Twenty of the artist's photographs were seized from Sydney's Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery last month after complaints from the public.

But the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has told police there is no reasonable prospect of a conviction.

My questions are
1. Will the photos be returned?
2. Will anyone get compensation?
3. Has there been any winners or losers in this?

 

[BillyJoe]

In the mean time...

Police drop all charges against Bill Henson after his photographs are described as "mild and justified" by The Australian Classification Board.


http://www.theage.com.au/national/no-charges-for-henson-20080606-2mnv.html

Police will not prosecute artist Bill Henson over his photographs of naked teenagers, declared "mild and justified" by Australia's Classification Board.

Central Metropolitan Region Commander Assistant Commissioner Catherine Burn said police were obliged to investigate the works following complaints from the public.

 

[BillyJoe]

...sorry, didn't see rjh01's post - should have refreshed the page first.

From that link:

Bill Henson's comment:

"It has been profoundly humbling to witness the depth of support for my work in these past weeks," Henson said.
"Of course, I recognise that much of this support came from the desire of many people to voice their commitment to more general principles.
"It is reassuring to see existing laws, having been rigorously tested, still provide a framework in which debate and expression of ideas can occur."

NSW Law Society president, Hugh Macken said:

..the decision establishes a simple fact: that nudity is not obscenity.
"Bill Henson is one of most eminent photographers. He is a man worthy of accolades, not persecution," he said.
"There was never any prospects that these photos would fit the definition of child pornography and the decision of the DPP vindicates that position."

Hetty Johnston, from the Bravehearts group, said

...it is a dark day. "This is a big green light for the commercial sexual exploitation of our children," she said.
"There was money exchanged so that this child could pose nude as a model to take these photos. Those photos are then sold. That is commercial sexual exploitation.
"That we can't prosecute that in this country is an absolute disgrace."

Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, said

"My reaction was very-clear cut," he said.
"I've been asked many times since then, 'Have I changed my view?' ... I have not changed my view one bit.

 

[gdnp]

"It is reassuring to see existing laws, having been rigorously tested, still provide a framework in which debate and expression of ideas can occur."

 

[Beerina]

This is not difficult - pornography is by definition depiction of sexual acts, Nudes are not pornography no matter what age the individual.

In the US, anyway, IIRC the Supreme Court decided that nudity was not obscene or pornographic, in and of itself, independent of any muddled arguments about it needing to be of artistic, scientific, etc. value. Which would be a 2nd reason this case would be borked in the US.

I understand that true paedophiles will gain pleasure from just about any picture of a child clothed or otherwise.

"True" paedophiles would seem to be more interested in 8 year old boys than 14 or 15 year old girls. There's a gigantic difference between appreciating budding sexuality and wanting to molest little kids.

 

[Beerina]

If that's child porn, than my grandmother owns child porn. She has a large art collection, and right in her dining room is a big painting by a Cuban artist depicting a bunch of kids playing on and around a raft, including one kid peeing into the lake.

Not to mention Brussels, for having the nerve to have one of the most famous statues in the world, Manneken Pis, a little boy peeing into a fountain.

Oh, you sick, diseased Europeans. You need the holy righteousness of the Holy American Empire to come down on you and your perverted ways!

 

[luchog]

I said that she was more angry at the press, but was she not humiliated at the opening of the exhibition? That is harmful in most people's opinion.

You come so close to the point, but veer away from it at the last moment, probably to avoid the obvious conclusion. Your own statement contains a germ of that clue that you manage to miss every time.

She was humiliated at the exhibition, not by the exhibition. Her comments on the exhibition itself, what few there are, are positive. It's the press who caused the humiliation.

there were a number of members of the public who presumed to speak on my behalf

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.

She is saying, and others here are also saying, that it is somehow okay for these images to be shown in an exhibition, but not in the press. Please explain why.

Emphasis added for the hard-of-reading-comprehension.

You should actually read the letter you're using to supposedly support your assertions. The answer is right there in front of your face.

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

Emphasis again added for the hard-of-reading-comprehension.

It wasn't the art that she felt was harmful, it was the way she was treated in the press by a bunch of self-righteous do-gooder bluenoses who believed they knew what was good for her better than she or her parents did; a press which exploited her for the sole purpose of sensationalizing a non-issues, and pushing their own agenda, against her own wishes or best interests. They didn't give a rat's tuchis about the girl or her feelings. All they were interested in inflicting their own attitudes on others, and using the resulting manufactured controversy to sell their own articles.

It wasn't the artist who used her as a sexual object, it was the reporters who were supposedly protesting such thing who made her a sexual object.

Also, do you think that if Henson's photos were published in a magazine and sold in a sex shop would they be seized and the shop owner prosecuted? The answer is certainly yes.

You got part of it right, but for entirely the wrong reason. Yes, they'd be siezed and the owner prosecuted. Guess why? Wrong, it would be for copyright and privacy violation, since neither the artist, nor the subject, has consented to such a use.

So what is so special about an art gallery? Apart from only the right sort of people going to a gallery of course.

Apart from the consent of the model and the artist, the context, and the nature of associating artistic endeavors, you mean? I don't know, why don't you tell me what is so special about art; because that is what this is about.

 

[BillyJoe]

Bill Henson is in the news again:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/o...defend-hensonrow-principal-20081006-4urn.html



And the knee-jerk morally-outraged minority is at it again.
http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20081006-Faris-Henson-child-pornographer.html#comments



Our Deputy PM has got her nickers all in a twist:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/ministers-slam-henson-20081005-4uby.html

"That someone has been allowed to go into a school to look at children, I think would send a shudder through people's spines," Ms Gillard told the Nine Network.

Aping her leader, Kevin Rudd who, like a programmed robot, has again spat out the words "revolting" and "disgusting".
And this from the Youth Minister:

Ms Ellis told Sky News: "I think it is quite appalling … When was it decided that we wanted to step on in and snatch away that innocence before it happens naturally?"

 

[lionking]

Okay, as a parent I would be mightily concerned about Bill Henson walking around the yard of our local Primary School scouting talent. The Principal should be disciplined for allowing this.

Yes the Principal contacted the parents and asked if the children "selected" could be photographed, but we get back to the "informed assent" issue again. How is a primary school child supposed to give this? Even Henson's "celebrated" model N was in secondary school.

I suggest you look up the story of Jodie Foster, whose parents allowed naked photographs to be taken of her at 13 or so. She has never gotten over it.

And I'll tell you what, if you think I am in the minority in opposing Henson scouting for talent in a primary school, you are sadly mistaken.

 

[BillyJoe]

Bill Henson is an experienced and talented photographic artist, well respected within the art community. The children in his photographs and their parents have nothing but praise for him. His photographs, while confrontational, are artistically presented, and it beggars belief that anyone could characterise them as porngraphic. And I would rather see Bill Henson attend my daughter's school than the politicians who slander his character and mischaracterise his photographs.


I have have been unable to find a reference to Jodie Foster's experiences.
In the following link, the closest I can find is a reference to her being a bare bottomed 3 year old in a Coppertone commercial.
http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biography_story/862:1203/1/Jodie_Foster.htm

Wikipedia doesn't mention it either:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jodie_Foster

 

[BillyJoe]

I still can't find anything about Jodie Foster and child nudity.
I am interested because I love her as an actress and what you are implying she says doesn't ring true. I could be mistaken though.

As examples, here are her comments (in later life) about her role as a child protitute (at the age of 14) in "The Taxi Driver"

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000149/bio

"At first I didn't want to do the part, but only because I was afraid my friends would tease me afterwards. I thought, wow, they've got to be kidding. It was a great part for a 21-year old, but I couldn't believe that they were offering it to me. I was the Disney kid."


"I spent four hours with a shrink to prove that I was normal enough to play a hooker. It was the role that changed my life. For the first time I played something completely different. But I knew the character I had to play - I grew up three blocks away from Hollywood Boulevard and saw prostitutes like Iris every day."


"There was a welfare worker on the set every day and she saw the daily rushes of all my scenes and made sure I wasn't on set when Robert De Niro said a dirty word."


"I think it's one of the finest films that's ever been made in America. It's a statement about America. About violence. About loneliness. Anonymity. Some of the best works are those that have tried to imitate that kind of film, that kind of style. It's just a classic. I felt when I came home every day that I had really accomplished something."