Bill Henson Photos: Child Pornography or Art?

[BillyJoe]

I don't know which I find more revolting - that people can't see a naked child for what it is, or that they justify their vile reactions with that "children should be allowed to have their childhood". That's exactly what this is about, dammit! It's bad enough that we have developed such a twisted culture that the naked body is automatically considered as something lewd without having to extend that to individuals who are not even concerned with sexuality.

If we keep treating children as sexual objects who have to be covered up so not to tempt the lusts of perverts, we will be designing our society after the perverts. What kind of message does that send?

You seem to have it all together, Rufo. Good for you.

 

[BillyJoe]

Interesting but not true. Girl claims she never got the horse.

Oops...

A fight back? A fight in favour of nude pics of kids? I mean yes the ACLU would probably be interested to an extent but for anyone else that would be social suicide.

Well, I meant in a more subtle way. Like defending artists under attack; refuting the views of the those who have no come to grips with this subject at all; exposing the underlying reasons ?psychological ?religious for the distorted views gaining currency in the media; etc

 

[BillyJoe]

I said exposed. It's barely visible in only one that I've seen, that means it's not the focus of the picture, and nowhere is it its intent.

Fair enough, if that's what you meant.

Exposed genitals does not, of course, equal pornography.

It may not be sine qua non, but it's one dead give-away when it is done suggestively in order to arouse. Pornography is about exhibition.

Fair enough, but that's not what I meant.

 

[BillyJoe]

This is exactly the point I was going to raise, which curiously nobdy else has discussed. If not pornographic, which is arguable, these photos can be seen as exploiting young people.

I provided a few links, so what do you think about this particular case?
Are they pornographic and were the children exploited in your opinion?
And, seeing you are also an Australian, what do you think of Mr. Rudd's revolting comment?

 

[BillyJoe]

But the informed consent issue is relevant. 13 year olds cannot consent to anything much at all. They are deemed by law (right or wrong) not to be aware enough to judge the effects of their actions. They cannot vote, drive a car, enter into a contract, leaave home legally, marry without parental consent (and a court of law in many jurisdictions), have sex, and hundreds of other things.

Can 13 year olds do anything do you think?
I mean are we going top lock them away till they are 18?
Children play, swear, run around naked, have their pictures taken, play with their toys, play with their genitals. Do they need informed consent to do these things?
For some reason you think that taking nude pictures of children is something they cannot give informed consent to. I wonder why you single that out.

Now, was the girl in question told what could happen when her pictures were made public? If she was just told that they are artistic photos, and people will see them as art, she was not informed correctly (but cannot consent either way regardless).

A photo of your own child attending the local fair could be printed in the local newspaper if you give your consent to the photographer. Would you warn your child that a dirty old man might masturbate in front of it.
Are you going to ask your daughter for informed consent for this photo?

If she was also told the flip of the coin side: "There is 100% chance that your pictures will turn up on the internet, and (some) dirty old men in raincoats will sit at the screen, looking at your picture and masturbating over it while thinking about you", would she have consented? (still not relevant - she cannot legally consent, but food for thought)

Ditto for any picture of your child.
Are you really going to tell your daughter that before you give your consent to the photographer?

 

[BillyJoe]

Nude children are not pornographic so long as there is no sexual activity.

Unless, like Pardalis , you are going to hit me with a personal defintion, I would say that is not correct. A photo of a nude child can be pornographic without there being any sexual activity.

 

[Pardalis]

Fair enough, if that's what you meant.


Fair enough, but that's not what I meant.

It's probably a translation thing. In French "s'exposer" means to exhibit yourself, maybe in English it isn't that clear.

ETA: Or rather I should say "s'exhiber", which I don't think there's an equivalent in english.

 

[rjh01]

But the informed consent issue is relevant. 13 year olds cannot consent to anything much at all.

In that case can they give consent for anyone to take any photo of them at all? If yes what is the difference between a child model and one of these photos in the way of consent?

 

[RandFan]

Unless, like Pardalis , you are going to hit me with a personal defintion, I would say that is not correct. A photo of a nude child can be pornographic without there being any sexual activity.

Not in America.

What is Child Pornography?


Under federal law, child pornography1is defined as a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, photograph, film, video, or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where it

• depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene, or
• depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.2

ETA: I believe that supreme court struck down the part of the law that involves virtual dipictions.

 

[BillyJoe]

In that case can they give consent for anyone to take any photo of them at all? If yes what is the difference between a child model and one of these photos in the way of consent?

Yes, it's trying to make a special case out of something that doesn't require it. An obsession with nudity that is more pornographic than any Bill Henson photograph that I've seen.

 

[BillyJoe]

RandFan,

You're hitting me with a legal definition?

 

[RandFan]

Just curious here, what is the religious or philosophical aspect of this?

 

[Chupacabras]

America had a dust up with the artist Mapplethorpe...

Also Jock Sturges, and woos still get the rage about his pictures.

Why?

Because I am mad at the issue and I lack the eloquence to put it in words. Because the linked photo is of a nude girl with her legs spread and her genitalia exposed, and yet has a solid story of social/international interest behind it. Because this picture fits the simplistic description I have gotten from from stupid people and a populist judge. "They are children". And yet, here is this powerful photo, fitting their criteria, to make them swallow their preconceptions.

That's why.

 

[Chupacabras]

Just curious here, what is the religious or philosophical aspect of this?

Answered in post #27. A "toss up", as BillyJoe put it.

 

[fromdownunder]

Can 13 year olds do anything do you think?
I mean are we going top lock them away till they are 18?
Children play, swear, run around naked, have their pictures taken, play with their toys, play with their genitals. Do they need informed consent to do these things?
For some reason you think that taking nude pictures of children is something they cannot give informed consent to. I wonder why you single that out.

I didn't single it out. I gave many examples of things that 13 year olds are not allowed to do by law. I also added the term "right or wrong" which you chose not to see. That was my point. You chose it to mean something else. It is not the pictures per se that concern me at all. It is publication of the pictures, without the child/woman (possibly) being made aware of potential subsequent ramifications.

And yes, I do have nude pictures of my daughters (although they were much younger than 13 at the time. They were sharing a bath and a rubber duck if you are interested in that sort of thing. I shall not put it on the internet however, nor in an art gallery.

I also took them to a nudist colony as well (when they were about 10 and nine).

A photo of your own child attending the local fair could be printed in the local newspaper if you give your consent to the photographer. Would you warn your child that a dirty old man might masturbate in front of it. Are you going to ask your daughter for informed consent for this photo?

It is a lesser degree of risk. I never encouraged them to go to the local fair naked. Oh, I did let them go alone once though. And when they were that age, there was no such thing as the intrawebs.

You are right in a way though. Anybody can have a fetish about anything. But there is a degree at which some people draw a line, and others draw another. I had no problem with the nudist colony, because I knew the people (my parents and my sister and her husband were among the members) and knew how careful the vetting process was. Risk was not eliminated, but it was minimised. So, not a problem.

Ditto for any picture of your child.
Are you really going to tell your daughter that before you give your consent to the photographer?

Had it been in this day and age and she was 13 and wanted to pose naked for publication, yes, I would discuss as many possibilities that I could think of so that she (they) could, you know, actually think about the matter. But I would do that for any subject they raised. It makes sense to actually talk to your kids, and advise them of the possibe consequences of any actions. It worked for me. They are still alive, as close to normal as people can be.

Norm

 

[RandFan]

Because I am mad at the issue and I lack the eloquence to put it in words. Because the linked photo is of a nude girl with her legs spread and her genitalia exposed, and yet has a solid story of social/international interest behind it. Because this picture fits the simplistic description I have gotten from from stupid people and a populist judge. "They are children". And yet, here is this powerful photo, fitting their criteria, to make them swallow their preconceptions.

Thank you. I'm a bit confused as to how it makes your point or why you are incensed but that's fine.

I found the photo very disturbing and I'm not sure how much the fact that she is nude contributed to my feelings.

I went to see a Mapplethorpe exhibit because I wanted to support freedom of expression. I would do it again tomorrow. That said I have to be honest, I didn't at all like his photos of naked children. I think my ick factor is due to the fact that there are people that do get sexually aroused by such images and many of these people do sexually exploit children. But I understand that not everyone who likes to look at children's genitalia are pedophiles.

I don't know why people care to look at children's genitalia. I don't but so long as children aren't being harmed then I whole heartedly support it as a means of expression.

 

[RandFan]

And I'm pretty sure there is a far bit of religion and at least some philosophy in there.

I don't see anything remotely religious or philosophical whatsoever. Social Issues & Current Events would make much more sense IMO.

 

[fromdownunder]

In that case can they give consent for anyone to take any photo of them at all?

Depends on the picture and the circumstances. Family birthday parties, and public domain are usually are not an issue - consent is probably implied. Upskirting is an issue - consent is not implied. Different circumstances, different issues.

If yes what is the difference between a child model and one of these photos in the way of consent?

The point I was making (and I may have not made it clearly) is that a 13 year old cannot make a legal contract (and I will repeat "right or wrong") It is, at that age the parents responsibility to agree to the contract.

The difference would have been (when my kids were 13) I would have discussed the matter fully with them first. If they said "no, I don't want to do it", I would not have signed the contract. If they said "yes" I would have signed. Nudity for publication? I do not think I would have. But that's me.

Norm

 

[Chupacabras]

Thank you. I'm a bit confused as to how it makes your point or why you are incensed but that's fine.

You're welcome: I am a photographer. The short story is that I have been stopped by the police for having taken pictures of children on the street (which I did not, but my fellow photographer from Spain did... On request by the children!). I tried to make a big case about it, but everyone told me to leave it alone, that I wasn't beaten, robbed or anything. I rather traded several friends for my standing values, and it hurt.

I found the photo very disturbing and I'm not sure how much the fact that she is nude contributed to my feelings.

That is my point! It's not the fact that she is naked, but that's their argument! I'm trying to respond in a "So here's pedophilia" sort of way.

I'm no big fan of artistic nudes. Not Mapplethorpe's nor Sturges' nor Sheide's nor Andrew de Carlo's (adult female nudes). I wholly empathize with you about the "ick factor" and that this is important for freedom of expression.

I am not very good with words, but the judge back then had to let me walk away!

 

[RandFan]

You're welcome: I am a photographer. The short story is that I have been stopped by the police for having taken pictures of children on the street (which I did not, but my fellow photographer from Spain did... On request by the children!). I tried to make a big case about it, but everyone told me to leave it alone, that I wasn't beaten, robbed or anything. I rather traded several friends for my standing values, and it hurt.

That is my point! It's not the fact that she is naked, but that's their argument! I'm trying to respond in a "So here's pedophilia" sort of way.

I'm no big fan of artistic nudes. Not Mapplethorpe's nor Sturges' nor Sheide's nor Andrew de Carlo's (adult female nudes). I wholly empathize with you about the "ick factor" and that this is important for freedom of expression.

I am not very good with words, but the judge back then had to let me walk away!

I completly understand now. Again, thanks.