Bill Henson Photos: Child Pornography or Art?

[RandFan]

Did your children really want to be involved or was it just one of those things they might do.

What does "really want to do" have to do with it? Kids all over the world really want to do things that are not in their best interest. I'm not sure I understand this line of thinking. And I'm still at a loss for the fanatical devotion to naked children. I just don't get it. I'm not making a judgement but somehow I doubt the world would be much impovrished with fewer images of naked children.

FTR: In this thread I've had several discussions with others about this so I'm not new to it and I don't look down my nose at those who appreciate this kind of art. I just don't get it and I don't see the passion for it. That's just me.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

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.

Must... resist.... temptation.... to make..... silly comment!!!....

 

[The Fool]

"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.

Thats right...think of the children is rhetoric....but it appears to be all the forces of artistic repression have to go on.

When art is taken down from the gallery walls and carried off by the state police force then something is very very wrong.

all those supporting it....think long and hard first.

Put that one in your sig.

 

[RandFan]

Thats right...think of the children is rhetoric....but it appears to be all the forces of artistic repression have to go on.

Is it really? There's no chance whatsoever that a child will later regret his or her decision? The value or significance of this art automatically trumps any and all considerations?

The dirty little secret you don't want to admit is that we do in fact treat children differently from adults. We don't let them make all of the same decisions as adults even if they want to. In fact, we don't even leave all decisions regarding children up to parents.

I'm for freedom of expression. I've not called for a moratorium. I would like to discuss it and I wonder if this isn't something we ought to consider. What are the limits? And shouldn't we consider those in both directions? Perhaps what is currently considered illegal when it comes to children should be allowed for children for artistic purposes? Why not? What are our concerns and are they overblown in that direction? If what we normaly think of as an adolescent is mature enough why not allow that child more leeway in expression?

Shouldn't we be able to question and discuss any conventional wisdom and limits? Is this a sacred subject that can't even be discussed without a great deal of emotion and recriminations?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

What does "really want to do" have to do with it? Kids all over the world really want to do things that are not in their best interest. I'm not sure I understand this line of thinking. And I'm still at a loss for the fanatical devotion to naked children. I just don't get it. I'm not making a judgement but somehow I doubt the world would be much impovrished with fewer images of naked children.

This is a standard argument from censorship advocates:

(Implied Premise: Either you need a particular kind of free speech or artistic expression, or you don't need it. If you don't need it, it is perfectly okay for us to ban it.)
Premise: I don't see why you need this particular kind of free speech or artistic expression.
Conclusion: Therefore it's okay for us to ban it.

The only fair response is to say "Sorry, but in a free society it's up to you to provide concrete evidence that this particular kind free speech or artistic expression harms people, as opposed to that particular kind of free speech or artistic expression merely getting your puritannical panties in a bunch".

Is it really? There's no chance whatsoever that a child will later regret his or her decision? The value or significance of this art automatically trumps any and all considerations?

Rhetorical questions are primarily a way of avoiding actually making a statement which you might then have to defend. For example you might instead have said "I have evidence that there is a meaningful risk that the child will regret the decision later for reasons which are not directly caused by the Puritans doing the complaining right now", or "I have a convincing argument as to why my concerns trump the significance of art". You didn't, and I suspect it's because you couldn't support any claims like that.

You don't get to transfer the burden of proof just by hiding behind rhetorical questions.

The dirty little secret you don't want to admit is that we do in fact treat children differently from adults. We don't let them make all of the same decisions as adults even if they want to. In fact, we don't even leave all decisions regarding children up to parents.

This is condescending, obvious and irrelevant. If you have something to say that specifically relates to this particular issue then say it, rather than stating trivial generalities.

I'm for freedom of expression. I've not called for a moratorium. I would like to discuss it and I wonder if this isn't something we ought to consider. What are the limits? And shouldn't we consider those in both directions? Perhaps what is currently considered illegal when it comes to children should be allowed for children for artistic purposes? Why not? What are our concerns and are they overblown in that direction? If what we normaly think of as an adolescent is mature enough why not allow that child more leeway in expression?

Shouldn't we be able to question and discuss any conventional wisdom and limits? Is this a sacred subject that can't even be discussed without a great deal of emotion and recriminations?

When you finish Just Asking Questions and have some evidence that actual harm is caused to actual people by this kind of artistic photography, then and only then is there a meaningful discussion to be had.

 

[BillyJoe]

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?

Oh well, I tried.

reporting (is that better)...

See, that wasn't hard was it?

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.

Perhaps he was into not hiding anything.
Telling it as it is.

 

[BillyJoe]

Billy, I'm quite certain that based on your tone you have no idea as to my position.

I think I understand it a little, but I am only responding to what you wrote in that post.

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?

Sure.
But we are being asked to stop those for whom it is a positive experience. All because others like Hetty Johnson have a hang up about child nudity.

? 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?

If you don't think a "need" or "desire" to view photographs that depict nude children is a misuse of that form of art I don't know what else to say. The artist did not intend it for that purpose, therefore those who use his art for those purposes are misusing his art.
And I don't understand your objection to my use of the words "that form".

Your Jodie Foster example is what would be called anecdotal.

It was an example for illustrative purposes.
Why should the individual artist freedom be subject to the dictates of someone with an alternative view. Why should Jodie Foster's freedom have been compromised by someone elses anxieties, beliefs, attitudes, fears...

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with child nudity.

I never said there was.

I didn't actually say you did, but I'm happy you agree

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.

Fair enough.

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.

But this thread is about Bill Henson, the children who pose for his photographs, and their parents. If you find ways to prevent parents from exploiting their children, I will support you as long as those ways do not cause collateral damage to those who are not being exploited.

I'm NOT saying we should change anything. I'm saying it's something we ought to be willing to be skeptical about.

Maybe we should also be sceptical about the agenda of those driving this issue.

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.

How do you know that those children have a "desire to be exposed publicly"? You can't think of any other possible reason for them agreeing to be photographed?
As for "sacrosanct", it is not me who is singling out children appearing nude for special consideration. I'm just defending those who have been singled out by others.

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.

I wish I had been there to support your lone stand.
But for some reason you want to make an exception with children appearing nude in artistic photgraphs.

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

I have read my posts and I have read yours and I don't see that you have anything to complain about regarding the emotion in my posts. I make no apologies for introducing a bit of emotion. No one deserves to be made a scapegoat, least of all someone who hasn't ostensibly has done something wrong.

 

[BillyJoe]

Did your children really want to be involved or was it just one of those things they might do.

What does "really want to do" have to do with it? Kids all over the world really want to do things that are not in their best interest. I'm not sure I understand this line of thinking.

You missed my point.
Jodie Foster "really wanted to" be an actress, specifically to act the part of the child prostitute in "Taxi Driver". It would have been wrong to have stopped her. I merely forgiving you for stopping your children, if it is the case that it was just a thing they thought they might do as opposed to really especially wanted to do.
(If you now want to tell me to p!$$ off, my excuse is that you forced me to explain the point you missed.)

And I'm still at a loss for the fanatical devotion to naked children. I just don't get it. I'm not making a judgement but somehow I doubt the world would be much impovrished with fewer images of naked children.

What you don't get is that it is not a matter of a "fanatical devotion to naked children". It is a matter of defending the freedom of those whose freedom is being threatened by someone else's anxieties, fears, and beliefs.

FTR: In this thread I've had several discussions with others about this so I'm not new to it and I don't look down my nose at those who appreciate this kind of art. I just don't get it and I don't see the passion for it. That's just me.

For what it's worth it is not a big thing for me either. However I do like to think I can appreciate good art when I see it, no matter what the subject matter. Bill Henson is good at what he does. He has a genuine artistic intent, the children are happy to be in his art, and their parents are happy for them to be in it. Hetty Johnson can go to hell. That is my passion.

 

[The Fool]

Is it really? There's no chance whatsoever that a child will later regret his or her decision? The value or significance of this art automatically trumps any and all considerations?

well of course some people may end up regretting things they do. How many activities does this "no chance whatsoever that a child....." test allow? None...

The dirty little secret you don't want to admit is that we do in fact treat children differently from adults.

How did you figure this out? I don't want to admit something?

We don't let them make all of the same decisions as adults even if they want to. In fact, we don't even leave all decisions regarding children up to parents.

That is correct. I'm assuming here that you not only want to control the school, the artist....but now the parents too? Parental concent was never in question.

I'm for freedom of expression.

except in.........?

I've not called for a moratorium. I would like to discuss it and I wonder if this isn't something we ought to consider. What are the limits? And shouldn't we consider those in both directions? Perhaps what is currently considered illegal when it comes to children should be allowed for children for artistic purposes? Why not? What are our concerns and are they overblown in that direction? If what we normaly think of as an adolescent is mature enough why not allow that child more leeway in expression?

Shouldn't we be able to question and discuss any conventional wisdom and limits? Is this a sacred subject that can't even be discussed without a great deal of emotion and recriminations?

discuss away......in the meantime we'll cancel the police raids and such?

 

[lionking]

well of course some people may end up regretting things they do. How many activities does this "no chance whatsoever that a child....." test allow? None...


How did you figure this out? I don't want to admit something?


That is correct. I'm assuming here that you not only want to control the school, the artist....but now the parents too? Parental concent was never in question.


except in.........?



discuss away......in the meantime we'll cancel the police raids and such?

Sorry, but parental consent was certainly in question in regard to Henson's visit to the primary school. And I will keep on repeating PRIMARY.

BTW, have you come up with any examples of football scouts or modeling agencies visiting PRIMARY schools scouting for talent without parents knowing?

 

[gtc]

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

No I am not. That is not how the English language works. If I say that you do not have the right to keep a slave, am I implying that you think that you have that right? Of course not.

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

That is rubbish. They are completely different sentences. Walking implies that he was not stationary and was not riding a unicycle. Escorted means not unescorted. As I have said before, you are really lacking perspective on this.

Is that all he does?

No. He does lots of things, like eating, sleeping, but apparently not walking. How is this relevant?

I'm highlighting the loaded words you used.

These words seem highly significant to you. But why is not clear.

 

[gtc]

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)

Yeah right. The author is a Fairfax journalist, I bet he is just mortified that his book and heavily hyped interview with the artist has proven to be controversial. Bill Henson is hardly media-shy and the Principal, if what is said is actually true, is hardly innocent if he allowed the man to search his school for models without parental approval. More so, if he was allowed to do so unaccompanied and if it was for nude models.

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.

Yes.

IBTW 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.

I very much doubt that David Marr was surprised that something in the book ended up being controversial.

When art is taken down from the gallery walls and carried off by the state police force then something is very very wrong.

There are two different issues here. One, is where the line is to be drawn between art and child pornography and the other is who has the right to access schools without parental permission.

all those supporting it....think long and hard first.

Personally, I don't think that labelling something art is enough to render just anything legitimate. It is perfectly acceptable to discuss where the line is to be drawn.

 

[BillyJoe]

No I am not. That is not how the English language works. If I say that you do not have the right to keep a slave, am I implying that you think that you have that right? Of course not.

That is rubbish. They are completely different sentences. Walking implies that he was not stationary and was not riding a unicycle. Escorted means not unescorted. As I have said before, you are really lacking perspective on this.

No. He does lots of things, like eating, sleeping, but apparently not walking. How is this relevant?

These words seem highly significant to you. But why is not clear.

If you want to joke around, I don't mind, but a few smilies wouldn't go astray to warn me not to make a serious response.

(Either that, or you are so far gone there is nothing I can say to bring you back )

 

[gtc]

If you want to joke around, I don't mind, but a few smilies wouldn't go astray to warn me not to make a serious response.

(Either that, or you are so far gone there is nothing I can say to bring you back )

I am being serious.

I honestly have no idea why you would think that 'walk' would be a loaded term. It simply means that he 'walked'.

 

[BillyJoe]

Yeah right. The author is a Fairfax journalist, I bet he is just mortified that his book and heavily hyped interview with the artist has proven to be controversial. Bill Henson is hardly media-shy and the Principal, if what is said is actually true, is hardly innocent if he allowed the man to search his school for models without parental approval. More so, if he was allowed to do so unaccompanied and if it was for nude models.

Just a few facts:

David Marr wrote the book in support of Bill Henson.
Bill Henson has given only one interview since last May.
The principal is a female.
Bill Henson was not unaccompanied.
Bill Henson did not approach any pupils or parents.
The principal communicated with the parents.
The girl's parents declined and the boys parents accepted.
The boy was not photgraphed nude.

 

[BillyJoe]

I am being serious.

I honestly have no idea why you would think that 'walk' would be a loaded term. It simply means that he 'walked'.

Well, okay, I'm going with my second comment then.

 

[chillzero]

Bill Henson is hardly media-shy and the Principal, if what is said is actually true, is hardly innocent if he allowed the man to search his school for models without parental approval. More so, if he was allowed to do so unaccompanied and if it was for nude models.

You make it seem like the man wandered into a school, dragged some kids off on their own and forced them to pose nude without their parents ever knowing until later.

The kids weren't nude at school, I'm pretty certain. The guy had permission from the principal to be on school grounds, and for the purpose of ... what? ... looking at kids. Just looking at them, to see if any might make suitable models. You do realise that looking at children for an artistic assessment is not a sexual act, don't you?

If he then identifies children that he thinks would make good models - that's when you get parental consent to approach, discuss, photograph, the children. Perhaps the principal could have contacted parents and said "we will have this photographer in the school on this date to look for models". Perhaps the children (whose parents allowed them to leave the house at all on that date) would then have sent their children to school a little differently than usual, and then the photographer doesn't see them dressed and behaving naturally. I don't see what is so terrible about him not having parental consent to be in a school. Don't you think he sees children at any other time? Does he need consent to be in the main street of his own town, in case he happens to notice a child that would be a perfect model? Using his eyes to look at children, and his mind to assess them for model potential is not a sexual act. Nor is it invasive or in any way derogatory.

 

[Skeptic]

(Yawn)

Another photographer who knows full well he isn't exactly the next Man Ray or Henri Cartier-Bresson, so he figures that if he photographs something obscene, sacreligious, disgusting, or pornographic, the with-it, bien pensant art world to love him, as a "brave" and "transgressive" and "challanging the boundries of art", etc., etc.

Why child porn, then? Because nothing else will get much attention any more.

After all, we already had all other kinds of porn (straight, gay, animal, vegetable, and mineral) presented as "art" in respectable museums. We also had "piss Christ", we had an off-broadway play with Jesus having sex with his disciples, a painting of a Madonna with elephant dung on it, etc., etc. We even had a few cases of "masterpieces" by famous "controvertial" artists that the garbage men threw out to the by mistake (?) after closing time (give 'em a large raise!).

So it is not enough for a publicity-seeking artist to make art that is pornographic, sacreligious, scatological, or literally garbage. To be really controevertial, all that's left is child porn. (And, after that, necrophilia, I suppose.)

Big deal.

 

[Nogbad]

The Principal should be disciplined for allowing this.

Spanked with a moist herring?

This thread has risen from the murky depths non?

 

[BillyJoe]

(Yawn)

Another photographer who knows full well he isn't exactly the next Man Ray or Henri Cartier-Bresson, so he figures that if he photographs something obscene, sacreligious, disgusting, or pornographic, the with-it, bien pensant art world to love him, as a "brave" and "transgressive" and "challanging the boundries of art", etc., etc.

Why child porn, then? Because nothing else will get much attention any more.

After all, we already had all other kinds of porn (straight, gay, animal, vegetable, and mineral) presented as "art" in respectable museums. We also had "piss Christ", we had an off-broadway play with Jesus having sex with his disciples, a painting of a Madonna with elephant dung on it, etc., etc. We even had a few cases of "masterpieces" by famous "controvertial" artists that the garbage men threw out to the by mistake (?) after closing time (give 'em a large raise!).

So it is not enough for a publicity-seeking artist to make art that is pornographic, sacreligious, scatological, or literally garbage. To be really controevertial, all that's left is child porn. (And, after that, necrophilia, I suppose.)

Big deal.

Another sceptic who knows he isn't exactly a Mercutio or a Piggy, so he figures slandering an artist totally unknown to him with cluttered prose and foreigh language phraseology might get him a little bit of attention.

Skeptic, you are an embarassment.

Wrap yourself up in your piss christ and madonna dung and crawl back into the gardage dump you crawled out of.


See, it so easy to do that isn't it.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson