Search

[kellyr999]

An Australian artist named Bill Henson has recently had some of his photographs taken down from a Sydney art gallery because they depicted naked children.
i believe that there was nothing sexual about any of his work and the reason many of the polls in newspapers such as the age and Harald sun show 90% opposition to his work are because the people polled are responding to the idea of photos featuring naked children.
what do you think

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Henson

EDIT:

Corrected to say "photos" so everyone knows what we're talking about. -DW

[LeCompte]

Your post is misleading when you say his "paintings" were removed.

Bill Henson is not a painter, but a photographer. Paintings of naked children were not removed, photographs of them were.

From your link:

On 22 May 2008, the opening night of Bill Henson's 2007-2008 exhibition at the Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery in Paddington, Sydney, was cancelled after eight individual complaints were made to Police voicing concerns about an email invitation from the Gallery to a "Private View" that depicted a photographic image of a nude 13-year old girl.

So this guy found a thirteen year old girl, had her strip down naked, took a picture, and is surprised when people are offended?

For some reason I don't view exploitation of children as "art," and it seems the people of Sydney agree with me.

[Pandajuice]

Bored artists, especially photographers, have a tendancy to make grabs at fame by putting controversial works into exhibitions or on the market, knowing full well how offensive their images are. This seems like it's no different. Just another "artist" using deliberate shock value to make a bigger name for themselves (Read: Jesus in urine). Nude children is not art, nor is it responsible and he should be locked up like any other pedophile simply because he's stating clearly through his photographs that he thinks naked children are beautiful.

[Glenn]

Do you think there is a difference between thinking the human body is beautiful and being sexually attracted to the human body? I, for one, can admire a guy with a perfectly cut body without being sexually attracted.

[Danny G]

I'm with Glenn on this one.  Would I own it?  Absolutely not.  But I think there's a big difference between a picture intended as art and one intended as pornography.  Just like I think it's different to find something like that in a 'gallery' rather than in a dark, hidden room.  So, I respectfully disagree and don't think he "should be locked up like any other pedophile."

[Pandajuice]

Fellas, the "human body" is one thing when you're talking about a cut 20 year old dude. Children's bodies are a whole 'nother matter. And the point I was making is that these pictures weren't intended as art. They're intended to make a controversial statement to get his name out there and force people to look at his other, more mainstream pieces they'd have never seen in the first place. It's a cheap tactic to publicize oneself, and exploitation of people who aren't old enough to make their own, responsible decisions.

[pingollum]

Henson, while perhaps creating lazy, shock art, has nevertheless committed no crime deserving of being locked up. Reprimanded, definitely. Banned, probably. But even so, after browsing through a few of his galleries, there is, at least from my subjective appreciation, no inherent sexual value in his images.

Even so, I am very relieved that his art has been banned, since no doubt there is no room for these types of precendents in a society where child pornography and abuse is such a serious issue. Even though I personally did not infer sexuality from the context of his pictures, there will, of course, always be a number pedophiles who find even the most subtle art sexually arousing, thus sexualising the subjects of Henson's art in a way that is inadequate, controversial, and thus should be utterly avoided.

[Chairman_Meow]

I always kind of felt the same way about the Virgin Killer album cover, even though there's an obvious sexual connotation there. It never really made me uncomfortable, but I can definitely see how others would be disturbed by it. Yes, it was changed for a good reason, but my personal thoughts on it was that it was an interesting picture.

I agree with the consensus here. I don't think pictures of this nature automatically makes the artist a monster, but I would question (perhaps wrongfully, perhaps not) the motives of someone who wants to own it.

[Glenn]

And the point I was making is that these pictures weren't intended as art.

That was one of the points you made. The other point, the one I specifically reacted to, was your suggestion that he should be locked up because he thinks his pictures 'beautiful' which makes him a pedophile. It may indeed just be a cheap publicity stunt or whatever, the point is that it is possible to conceive of such photos as art, as beautiful, without sex or pedophilia being drawn into the equation.

If you want to argue that the negative consequences of showcasing this art outweigh the positive results, then that's fine. I just think you do a disservice to actual victims of pedophilia by harshly condemning this photographer. My mother took pictures of be in the bathtub when I was a child, is she a pedophile necessarily? Few things in life are black and white, and hyperbolic reactions are seldom constructive.

[David Wong]

It has nothing to do with the artist or the buyers. It has to do with the child being exploited.

They can paint or render in 3D or photoshop naked kids all day for all I care. But taking a child too young to make their own decisions and photographing them nude to be displayed to the public (a public that includes pedophiles) should be a crime. Not because any kind of art is wrong - it's not - but because there is a real, living, breathing child being exploited there.

This is what drives me nuts about things like that Oprah episode on growing child porn on the web (there the 4chan meme got referenced). She quotes all these terrifying statistics about how a naked child can be photographed on Monday, and by Friday it's on 300,000 computers that have downloaded it.

I'm not worried about those 300,000. Find that damned child in the photograph and save her. That's where your victim is.

[Danny G]

It has nothing to do with the artist or the buyers. It has to do with the child being exploited.

I completely agree with you, David.  I think that the guy should be punished.  But, to the same degree as the guy that has 500 gigs of actual child pornography on his hard drive?  Or someone that solicits sex from a minor?  I don't think this is the same. 

All I'm saying is, punish the guy, sure.  But, I don't think it's the same, and it shouldn't be punished the same way.

[Chairman_Meow]

I just saw the pictures in question, and I'll be damned if I didn't pick up on a lot of sexual meaning in some of them. And these did actually make me uncomfortable.

My husband is an amateur photographer and he collects photograph books. One is Immogen Cunningham's works and she took a lot of nudes, not only of adults but many of children. Some of photographs are of a family at a beach, all of them naked. And there are a few of a set of twins she photographed for years beginning when they were barely walking through their teenage years.

I think the difference is that Cunningham's photos are in no way exploitative. (I don't find them to be, anyway.) Pictures of children are all taken from a great distance, and there's no indication that they're not used to being naked. Most of the close-ups have their genitals obscured by something, like kids sitting behind a low table. She most likely did this on purpose, but I have no idea.  

[Glenn]

Just to clarify, my only point was that taking artistic pictures doesn't make him a pedophile, not in the sense that word should be used. That doesn't mean we can't have all kinds of valid reason for not allowing such art to be produced and displayed, chief among these the exploitation of a real child.

[pingollum]

Well, that puts any doubts to rest then. I suspected I might have browsed through some rather incomplete galleries, however, if there are pictures that are blatantly open to sexual interpretation, I stand drastically corrected.

Also, it seems art has been squeezing this controversial-exploitation tendency for all its worth, but there is a difference between a urine covered Jesus and taking nude photographs of children. Namely, the explotation of victims in the latter. Pedophiles are a problem, no doubt. But, as Wong stipulated, society's priority should be to protect the children from this type of explotation.

[Chairman_Meow]

In another gallery there's a photograph of a young girl lying down in a way to imply unconsciousness, with a teenage boy crouching over her. She's wearing a very short and soiled night dress and the boy is naked. That's so inappropriate I don't know where to begin. 

[Pandajuice]

In another gallery there's a photograph of a young girl lying down in a way to imply unconsciousness, with a teenage boy crouching over her. She's wearing a very short and soiled night dress and the boy is naked. That's so inappropriate I don't know where to begin. 

That's exactly what I was talking about above. I may have used hyperbole in comparing Henson to a run of the mill, rape van pedophile, but then again, how exactly is he different from that pedophile if he thinks that taking such a suggestive picture is a great idea and an example of beauty? Such a thing speaks volumes to me about his personal proclusions.

[Ferik]

I may have used hyperbole in comparing Henson to a run of the mill, rape van pedophile, but then again, how exactly is he different from that pedophile if he thinks that taking such a suggestive picture is a great idea and an example of beauty?

One of drives around in a van, abducts children and rapes them. 

The other one takes photographs of unclothed children for atristic purposes after obtaining the consent of their parents.

One is an obvious uncontrolable danger to society and should be put in prison for the rest of their life, the other needs to have a friend sit down with him and have it carefully explained that what he is doing is innapropriate, even if not done with ill intent.

Henson isn't a pedophile.  The photograph's are not pornographic in nature.  Nevertheless, just because something is art rather than porn, doesn't mean that children haven't been exploited.  In Australia, Henson has gained fame and notoriety well outside his usual circles (off the top of my head, I couldn't name a single other Australian photographer) by displaying photos of unclothed children.  He is now using children to generate controversy and bring attention to his work.  The hysteria in the media surrounding the exhibitions is also disapointing.

What he's doing may be art, but it's also exploiting children, and he shouldn't do it.

[Paracetamol]

Bored artists, especially photographers, have a tendancy to make grabs at fame by putting controversial works into exhibitions or on the market, knowing full well how offensive their images are.

While this is certainly true of many artists, I don't think Bill Henson was doing this. I happened to see a Bill Henson exhibition several years ago, many of the controversial works we're talking about here were on display at the time. He has been producing pictures for decades, not all, but some of these have depicted naked children. There simply wasn't the public outcry then that there is now about these images.

I admit that I'm on the fence regarding Bill Henson. Some of the images certainly are confronting, but I honesty believe that they were not created with the intention of serving as child pornography. David makes a good point in that the safety of the child has to come before artistic freedoms. The disturbing truth though is that pedophiles can use all sorts of material not intended as child porn for sexual gratification. Many pedophiles are found with children's catalogues and such in their possession. They also trawl facebook and other areas for childrens photos. I think there would be very few people that would advocate banning this sort of media because it endangers children.

I can understand the desire to ban Bill Henson's photographs because depicting child nudity takes things a good deal farther than innocuous photographs, but the same laws that would make these photos illegal would also through a lot of poor parents in jail. I know a lot of families that have movies of their children taking their first bath or running around the house with little to no clothing on. Can we really say that sort of thing is child porn for the simple reason it depicts naked children?

[Captain Bravo]

Home movies are naked videos of yourself and your family squirreled away in the attic to come back and embarrass you later on in life.

Bull Henson's art is pictures of random naked children shown in a gallery to thousands of people, as well as being recorded for posterity.

Do you honestly not see the difference here? I realize there's a discussion to be found there about where exactly you should draw the line, but that's not what's on the floor here. He took naked pictures of random children, for the express purpose of showing them off to the public. Again, do you honestly not see the problem here?`

[Paracetamol]

So if Bill Henson took these pictures and never showed anyone else them they would no longer be pornographic? I can understand that these particular images in question offend you, but I'm not sure what you're arguing for. Should we make all pictures of nude children illegal? Should only family members be able to photograph their children? Should we just ban Bill Henson from taking pictures of children?