Bill Henson Photos: Child Pornography or Art?

[BillyJoe]

Lionking,

I'm suggesting you, me, and the rest of the public, do not know the facts.
I'm suggesting that even when "The Facts" are known, the details and nuances of the case may never be fully appreciated as a result of the way these facts may or may not be communicated by the media.

The public is being fed assumed and unconfirmed "facts" which are presented in loaded language to drive an unstated agenda. Then the public is invited to respond to a badly worded, unscientific poll.

...and I'm sorry, lionking, but 92% of the public has just voted that you should not have been allowed to beat your wife and that measures should now be taken to ensure that you never do so again.

(Okay, I know you were just having a friendly wrestle to your mutual benefit, but that's beside the point....)

 

[lionking]

You have decided that Bill Henson can do no wrong and created a scenario where this must be the case. I mean, how arrogant? Even when evidence of what happened is there (there is no dispute Henson was at a primary school looking for models) the general public cannot appreciate the real "facts". You can though.

At least admit that the great unwashed do not agree that what Henson did was appropriate.

 

[BillyJoe]

Well if you read the article from David Marr's book which exposed this whole issue...

Exposed?

There's that loaded language again.

Did you know that both David Marr and his publisher, Michael Heywood, are supportive of Bill Henson. Did you know that the publishers four children attended the school Bill Henson visited? Did you know that the purpose of writing and publishing that book was "so that readers could have a clear understanding of the issues around the closure of Bill Henson's show in May"? And that, in his opinion "the renewed ill-informed and inflammatory commentary shows how important it is that people have access to clear debate about the real issues so they can work out what they think"? And that he considers that Bill Henson's visit to the school was "fully supervised and entirely proper"?

Here is David Marr on the original Bill Henson case:
http://www.smh.com.au/interactive/2008/national/bill-henson-case/index.html

Exposed indeed.

 

[BillyJoe]

You have decided that Bill Henson can do no wrong and created a scenario where this must be the case. I mean, how arrogant? Even when evidence of what happened is there (there is no dispute Henson was at a primary school looking for models) the general public cannot appreciate the real "facts". You can though.

I merely provided a little background information about Bill Henson that causes me - and should cause you - to hesitate in condemning him based on loaded media reports. Just as I have provided a little background about Jodie Foster that causes me to hesitate to accept your version of something you remember she said in a radio interview sometime.

At least admit that the great unwashed do not agree that what Henson did was appropriate.

Is this meant to be a joke?

 

[Moochie]

Bill Henson had been exhibiting his art for decades until suddenly someone with a cause (Hetty Johnson) used him in attempt to further that cause, regardless of any harm to either him or the children who posed for him. She sucessfully beat up a storm in the media, abetted by our dismal collection of politicians.

In these circumstances, these polls cannot be a true indication of the public's attitude. However, if they are correct, it is a sad reflection on either their unhealthy attitudes towards children or their lack of appreciation of art, or both.

Not to mention their prudish, illogical attitude toward nudity.


M.

 

[gtc]

You said:
"None of that gives him the right to walk around primary schools looking for children to photograph naked."
You are assuming:
- that he saw it as a right to do whatever you think he did.

No I am not.

- that he walked around Primary Schools.

Have you read the article? It was a primary school. Or is your issue with the word walking? You are right, I am assuming that the man can't fly.

- that he was looking for chidren to photograph naked.

He photographs children naked. That is what he does.

You said:
"None of that gives him the right to walk around primary schools looking for children to photograph naked."
Your bias is showing in your use of words in reporting what you cannot know are the facts of the case.[/quote]

WTF are you talking about?

 

[gtc]

Exposed?

There's that loaded language again.


Exposed indeed.

Exposed is not a loaded term. I think you need to step back and get a bit of perspective on things.

 

[Cavemonster]

Exposed is not a loaded term. I think you need to step back and get a bit of perspective on things.

You really don't think "exposed" carries negative emotional weight?

What if a news teaser said "We've exposed what your neighborhood ice cream man is really doing around your children, tune in at 11 to find out the truth".

Are you saying that from that headline it would seem equally likely that what was exposed was positive or neutral?

The word has a clear subtext when talking about a person's actions. It implies that something was purposefully hidden, and that the exposed person has been caught behaving badly.

 

[lionking]

Unbelievable. I will use the word "uncovered" then. That better?

 

[lionking]

Exposed?

There's that loaded language again.

Did you know that both David Marr and his publisher, Michael Heywood, are supportive of Bill Henson. Did you know that the publishers four children attended the school Bill Henson visited? Did you know that the purpose of writing and publishing that book was "so that readers could have a clear understanding of the issues around the closure of Bill Henson's show in May"? And that, in his opinion "the renewed ill-informed and inflammatory commentary shows how important it is that people have access to clear debate about the real issues so they can work out what they think"? And that he considers that Bill Henson's visit to the school was "fully supervised and entirely proper"?

Here is David Marr on the original Bill Henson case:
http://www.smh.com.au/interactive/2008/national/bill-henson-case/index.html

Exposed indeed.

Can you please explain the relevance of an author and a publisher believing that Henson's visit to the primary school was "proper"?

 

[The Fool]

Go for it lads......
The gun has been fired and the race is on.
Lets see how much artistic freedom we can destroy in the name of "think of the children".

It makes me ashamed in a way....that its happening in my country.

 

[lionking]

Sigh. Since this thread was re-opened it has not been about artistic freedom, but about inappropriate access to primary schools - by anyone, but particularly someone assessing very young children for possible nude photographs.

 

[BillyJoe]

No I am not.

Yes you are. When you say "None of that gives himthe right...", you are implying that he thinks he has the right.

Have you read the article? It was a primary school. Or is your issue with the word walking? You are right, I am assuming that the man can't fly.

Yes, of course it's about the word "walking".
Try comparing "escorted around the primary school" with "walking around the primary school".

He photographs children naked. That is what he does.

Is that all he does?

You said:
"None of that gives him the right to walk around primary schools looking for children to photograph naked."
Your bias is showing in your use of words in reporting what you cannot know are the facts of the case.

WTF are you talking about?

I'm highlighting the loaded words you used.

 

[BillyJoe]

Unbelievable. I will use the word "uncovered" then. That better?

Not "exposed", and not "uncovered".

The book did not "expose" or "uncover" anything. It collated and reported publically available information and information freely given by those to whom the author spoke. Nothing hidden or concealed was "exposed" or "uncovered" in the book, at least not as far as this incident was concerned.

Have you got that?
Okay, now try again...


Note:
The author and publisher, and Bill Henson himself, are mortified that a book that aimed "to clarify the debate about the issues" has been used to attack yet another ostensibly innocent person (the principle of the school involved)

 

[BillyJoe]

Can you please explain the relevance of an author and a publisher believing that Henson's visit to the primary school was "proper"?

Sorry, I'm really not trying to be nasty here, but I really think you have a problem with comprehension.

You said the information was "exposed" and I'm trying to impress upon you that the information was not "exposed" but freely given to the author and publisher, who are sympathetic towards Bill Henson.

Why is that so hard to understand?

 

[Cavemonster]

Sigh. Since this thread was re-opened it has not been about artistic freedom, but about inappropriate access to primary schools - by anyone, but particularly someone assessing very young children for possible nude photographs.

Lionking,

Since there is no record of any parent from the school, nor any one of the kids, nor any faculty member, being upset by the visit, who are you suggesting was harmed by it?

Would you feel equally indignant if it had been Ann Geddes at a preschool looking for babies to photograph naked? If she had been invited by the principal? I'm curious.

 

[lionking]

Sorry, I'm really not trying to be nasty here, but I really think you have a problem with comprehension.

You said the information was "exposed" and I'm trying to impress upon you that the information was not "exposed" but freely given to the author and publisher, who are sympathetic towards Bill Henson.

Why is that so hard to understand?

I understand what you were trying to say, and snide remarks about my comprehension mean nothing. Now do you mind answering my question about the relevance of the opinion of Marr and his publisher?

BTW the author is an A-grade fool if he thought that the reporting (is that better) of Henson's visit to a primary school to scout for talent would be passed off as a minor curiousity.

 

[lionking]

Lionking,

Since there is no record of any parent from the school, nor any one of the kids, nor any faculty member, being upset by the visit, who are you suggesting was harmed by it?

Would you feel equally indignant if it had been Ann Geddes at a preschool looking for babies to photograph naked? If she had been invited by the principal? I'm curious.

How many times do I have to say it? The parents should always be informed in advance of visits, and principals do not have the absolute right to invite whoever they want into a school yard, including Geddes. Would it be right for a scientologist or a faith healer to visit a school if invited by the principal and if there were no complaints? Not to me.

I would have objected to Geddes using a public school to look for subjects to increase her wealth. And I'll tell you who has been upset by the visit of Henson - the people who run the education system, the government of the state and a majority of the people they represent.

 

[RandFan]

Billy, I'm quite certain that based on your tone you have no idea as to my position. I'm sorry if I have failed to convey my feelings on this. I'm not opposed to nude photography per se. My point here is specifically the ability of a child to form consent. Not every child that grows up having been exposed to the lime light is grateful for the experience. Shouldn't we consider that fact?

Both "need" and "desire" are words that reflect neither the artist nor those who appreciate his art. A "need" or "desire" to see photographs of nude children is an unheathy misuse of that form of art.

? That's a rather odd response. I'm not sure I understand your complaint. "That form of art"? What does that mean? Is "that form" rarefied or special in someway to remove it from ordinary human impulses?

Did your children really want to be involved or was it just one of those things they might do. It makes a difference. Jodie Foster really wanted to act in Taxi Driver and she regards it now as the major highlight of her acting career. Would you have denied her this? Would you have stifled her art?

Your Jodie Foster example is what would be called anecdotal.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with child nudity.

I never said there was.

If you think so, you are not thinking like the children who pose in those photographs and the artist who turns their photographs into pieces of art. Those children and those artists cannot be held responsible for that, and should not be held to ransom for it by those who think that way.

Entirely beside the point. I'm only interested in the concept that most of us agree with that there are things that we ought to keep children from. Now, I'm not a prude. I don't shield my children from nudity and I don't make a big deal about it. I have been very open and honest with my children about these issues.

However, knowing what I now know about exploited children, and lets be honest, there are parents who will exploit their children for a buck. I'm wondering if we shouldn't reconsider some of these issues.

I'm NOT saying we should change anything. I'm saying it's something we ought to be willing to be skeptical about. Why a child's desire to be exposed publicly at a young age is so sacrosanct is beyond me. You are responding in a rather wooish way here.

FTR: I take a back seat to no one on this forum when it comes to freedom of expression. I'm happy to stand behind my record when it comes to speech and artistic expression. I've been a lone voice on this forum many times.

So take the chip of your shoulder and let's have a discussion. There's no need for emotion.

 

[RandFan]

Go for it lads......
The gun has been fired and the race is on.
Lets see how much artistic freedom we can destroy in the name of "think of the children".

It makes me ashamed in a way....that its happening in my country.

"How much"? How much is at stake? Your "think of the children" is just rhetoric and not an argument. I don't think you can reasonably make a slippery slope here. First off there is precedent on both sides of this issue. If there were to be changes there could not be much change. I'm not an expert in Australian law but I doubt it's all that much different from the American. If it is then you have a rather weak legal system.