[KrisK10D]

I used to have a job like that flyer. The difference between me, in my position, and you, as a member of the public, is that I was employed by a Government authority. It's the same as the authority a Police officer has to search and seize prohibited goods. If you tried that as a member of the public you'd prolly get into trouble from the police officer

[JCSullivan]

was it, is it, for profit?????
Childrens' images are huge questions these days and the subject was kind of discussed in another thread already.
Get ready to send the authorities that be to Londom, Paris, Rome, Venice, Milan, Vatican City, etc - lots of images of nude humans there and yes, some for profit.

I wonder if intent comes into play in situations like this.

[lithos]

I don't think the authorities should be worried about Henson's intent. I think they're more worried about the fact, which is he took photographs of underage kids.

It doesn't bother me, but I don't think you'd get away with hocking a kilo of smack just because you declared it art either. Anyone who think's I'm wrong might wanna go out and try it.

On the upside, it's a great marketing technique. Paedophile's money is still money.

THis is a very complex issue. First, I dont think that the problem is in the picture nor in the photog. The problem is in the viewer. I would say that 99% of the grown people can see a picture of this naked <16 years old girl and they wont feel excited. The 1% that will get excited with this, will do it also even if the girl wear a dress.

Where I see the problem coming is once the girl grows up. She might regret then if she decides that this in inmoral or just feel unconfortable knowing that everyone can see her naked. I would say being 13 years old she cant predict that. At any case, IMO, there is nothing wrong in nudes of any type. I keep thinking that perversion is not on the naked person but in the viewer.


BTW, I just recall another case of child porngraphy. Soon after conservatives won the elections in Spain about 10-15 years ago, the police closed a gallery art cos it was showing pictures of a naked baby (1-2 years old) with the hand and face on his/her mother's breast. THey said it was porngraphy. Go figure.

[tybeck]

My nephews went through a phase around where they were 5 or 6 when they liken to chase each other around the house after their evening bath, naked. Several times the house had 5 adults in it, all family. I was amused by their folly and did nothing but watch. Does this make me a pedophile?

The point has been hit square on the head in several comments here, it's a matter of perspective. Art by it's nature is in a prime position to challenge it's viewers. Artists need to be aware of what what the consequences may be of their work. I'm not saying that happened in Australia is correct, but it is hardly unexpected. Same for the American grandmother (which I'd not heard of).

Children have special status under the law and people think that their parents have say over their welfare while at the same time trying to impose their own morality. For myself I stay away from any kind of kid photography unless they know me. "Mommy, who's the scary looking single man with the camera?"

[Bramela]

I expected this topic to hit the Forums sooner rather than later.
One thing I must note, in the local newspaper report (here in Newcastle) at the centre of it all, it was reported that one girl was only 8 years old.
Now people can philosyphise and dramatise the situation to their hearts content, I, for one object strongly to a girl of that age being shown in a gallery in that way.
We see only one of the photos in this thread, we have not seen the remainder.

And, incidentally, I object in the strongest terms, to the comment, 'born again Christians stirring the pot". That shows to me a very narrowminded, biased mentality.
There are plenty of people who do not fit that description, whose moral standards cause them to object to this display of moral depths, all in the name of "art'.
An artist, so called, is not above the law.

# I must add, I am no prude, and enjoy good photos of the human body as much as anybody else.

[Ash]

There's no evidence 'born again' Christians or any people of any faith stirring the pot here. That comment should be taken with a grain of salt. This issue is more about morals and ethics rather than the law also, which have numerous differences between them.

If pornography has a specific definition, then it's the interpretation of this precise definition that's blurry. What one person may consider art, another considers inappropriate. So the problem may not be on the word's definition, but rather in the viewer making sense of the image.

If the picture incites significant uproar from the community (regardless of their race, creed, etc), then it's probably not fit for public viewing - even if it's not pornographic or unlawful by definition. Insistence on doing so would make it unethical, and with the carnal knowledge that it would adversely affect people it makes it immoral.

This photographer is obviously very skilled in his profession, and this may not be the first time he's taken nude teenage photos, but he would've been aware that his work may not go down all that well with a few members of the public. Then again, if the Australian Federal Police found 'pornographic' photos of children on any person's private computer (and the work in question may be considered both pornographic and of a child by the police), it can land the owner of the computer in a lot of trouble.

Having your own children's nude photos on your computer doesn't count as child pornography, since the vast majority of society don't see that 'sexually exploitative'. Paedophiles may do so, but as these people are psychopaths and a small minority of society, it matters little here.

To me it also matters little that the photographer is male or female. The result is the appropriateness of the image being displayed - there will always be a level of subjectivity in this topic, since we're human and interpret life through in our own unique ways...

[Bramela]

Very well put Ash, I think you have worded your post much better than I did.
I have no gripe whatsoever if a parent takes photos of the children in the bath, running around naked, whatever.

But once such photos of under aged minors go public, internet, print or, as in this case, in a gallery,that is a much different scenario.
that is where my opinon lies, and be it an artist, photographer, advertising or a computer pedo, I feel the law must take a stand in defence of the underaged.

Thats it for me and my opinion, FWIW

[fletcherkane]

I expected this topic to hit the Forums sooner rather than later.

And, incidentally, I object in the strongest terms, to the comment, 'born again Christians stirring the pot". That shows to me a very narrowminded, biased mentality.
There are plenty of people who do not fit that description, whose moral standards cause them to object to this display of moral depths, all in the name of "art'.
An artist, so called, is not above the law.

# I must add, I am no prude, and enjoy good photos of the human body as much as anybody else.

Thanks Bramela,
I couldn't have stated it better myself.
It seems the world demands tolerance for all things, and for every perversion, but, Born-Again Christians (the bible sees no other kind...it's acutually a redundant statement), are the "tolerant" world's favorite whipping boy and the only acceptable people group to be intolerant of. All this because we simply have the gall to call some things black and some things white, some things wrong and some things right. Moral relativism fully realized is anarchy, plain and simple.
I know that this forum is not the place for political or religious banter, but this thread and specifically the bashing of Christians as "prudes" got my hackles up.

[J.Scott]

OK - religion needs to take a back seat for a moment. Let's try this moral barometer; if it was your 13 year old daughter, would you want her naked picture hanging on a wall for all to see, including her school mates and family? No? I didn't think so.

The talk about whether it is for fun or profit is unfounded. Her rights as a child trumps the 'artists' right to make a living or his right to use her body as an expression of his artistry.

Me thinks he is doing it to create controversy, and that is wrong because it is obviously exploiting the child's rights.

[WJW]

According to the law of the Australian State of Victoria, child pornography means a film, photograph, publication or computer game that describes or depicts a person who is, or who looks like, a minor under 16 engaging in sexual activity or depicted in an indecent manner or context. (Crimes Act, 67A)

Now we can all agree that the subject is under 16, but would you consider the image to portray her as engaging in a sexual activity or depicting her in an indecent manner or context? Remember that the motivation behind the exhibition was to portray the vulnerability of adolescence.

The intriguing part in all of this is there are a number of commercial available DVDs that would clearly fit this definition that I know are for rent/sale in Australia. Two that come to mind (and I checked to see if the were available) are Pretty Baby and Laura. I would come much closer to labeling either of these porn before I would the image shown in the article.

Next question: Would this be happening if this was NOT a photograph and was a modern painting? Or a newly discovered painting by a well known dead painter?

[little laker]

Just a thought, but what do the children's parents or guardians have to say about the photographs?

I would at least hope that Bill Henson there got their permission

If they thought the children would suffer in the future with the photo's why didn't they stop it.

And if he didn't get their permission in my opinion he should be in a whole lot more trouble than he is.

[Patang]

The thing with Bill Henson is that he is a major part of the art community in Australia. There was an article in todays paper about a former child model of his (who didn't actually pose nude) who defended Bill. She also said that he always asked the parents permission and that it was a very open and communicative process.
If you want to see some of his other work (which was endorsed and sponsored by the Australian Government no less)here is the link for it.

It does contain more nudity. However I hear that the people in this photo are also younger than 'legal' age. Where is the consistency there?

[Dale]

The thing with Bill Henson is that he is a major part of the art community in Australia. There was an article in todays paper about a former child model of his (who didn't actually pose nude) who defended Bill. She also said that he always asked the parents permission and that it was a very open and communicative process.
If you want to see some of his other work (which was endorsed and sponsored by the Australian Government no less)here is the link for it.

It does contain more nudity. However I hear that the people in this photo are also younger than 'legal' age. Where is the consistency there?

There is no consistency, the clear point is that Henson's work was acceptable to all walks of life, is suddenly and retrospectively labeled as porn.

The Age newspaper is running a series of discussion pieces on the issue here

And as for parental permission...

I'm now waiting to see National Geographic get taken off the shelves in Australia and the editors charged.

I think not.

[lithos]