[Dale]

Letter to todays Age puts an interesting skew on this. The writer puts the following hypothesis:

Henson gets parental and subject permission to take the images, and then escrow the images until the subject was legally old enough to consent/not consent to his/her image being published.

Interesting!

[Photo Tramp]

I have been following this thread for some time with out comment. I wanted to see if anyone knew or would post what if any charges the police have against the artiest. After reading today's post and seeing that the legal profession there has told the police to think long and hard about charges, leads me to believe that the person, or group that made the complaint to police has done so malisciously to defame the artiest because of their own agenda.
If it is true the artiest has a release from the parents and has not shown the image of the child until the child was old enough to make their own decision, than the artiest has done the right thing by the child.
However pornography takes many forms in this world in the eyes of the beholder. Those who see any form of nudity, and are offended by the image in toady's world are considered Prudes. (But again this is their opinion and not the majority.) Those who see nudity as sexually explicit no matter what the picture is of will never agree there is art in the form of the human body.
Since there is no mention of sexually explicit or deviate acts in the image and if this image is only of a nude, and the artiest had permission from the parents to take said shot and waited until the child became of age of consent and there is no sexually explicit sexual act in the image then the artiest has met the criteria for art and not pornography.
If we look at the bible and see pictures of cherubs with angelic wings portrayed as children flying hither and yon naked to the world, I ask is this pornography, or is it the artiest rendition of beauty of the child and used as an art form? For most rational persons seeing this type of image it is art. To those who feel the form of the human body is obscene than it is pornography. (To me there is something wrong with this type of person and should be watched very carefully.) these are the people who really need help.
Again not being able to view the image to judge for my self and only reading bits and pieces here, I can only come to take the side of the artiest and hope he knows what is pornography and what is art.

[KL Matt]

Matt,
We can agree to disagree.

Well at least that's one thing we can agree on. ;-)

"If sexuality is not sanctified, worth protecting in childhood, in your opinion, then we'd be arguing until our graves. That's OK - just a difference in opinion."

Not really a difference of opinion since I have no idea what you could possibly be talking about. The word "sexuality" thankfully doesn't apply to most childhoods. Sexuality means "the state of having sex and sexual functions; the quality of being sexual."

"Sanctifying" sexuality in childhood would mean protecting precisely that perversion which you appear so vehemently to wish to protect children from. What exactly are you trying to say?

"I don't believe in limiting freedom of speech or thoughts, as you may think I'm advocating, but I do believe in a right and a wrong."

I should certainly hope so. Nearly everyone does. But the issue here is not believing in right and wrong, it's what in this case constitutes right and wrong.

-Matt

[Patang]

Intresesting to see what what was said re Henson waiting for the model to become of legal age. Do you have a link to that article anywhere?

Also, as many people have pointed out in recent days, this furore over the image is probably making things worst for the subject, not better. Just like with Miley Cyrus, she only started feeling bad about the photos taken after the media got wind of it and created a massive story over nothing.

[Ash]

Interesting discussion, all.
Thanks for the participation.
Hope we've all gotten something out of it.
Cheers.

[Venturi]

Interesting conversation and a healthy one to be having especially in this forum. As photographers, professional or amateur, it is really vital that we understand the laws before capturing images of the human body.

I do not know Hensen's work so I can not comment directly to the exhibit in question, however I feel I can shed some light on the topic in general at least from the perspective of US law.

First, by the law, pornography is more than merely depicting a sexual act. If the intent of the depiction is appeal to prurient interests - to arouse sensual or lustful emotions - then it is pornography.
Note the word "intent" as it is key form a legal standpoint and is also the reason there is so much debate on the topic. Showing a homosexual man an image of a nude woman engaged in self pleasure may not illicit prurient thoughts from him, however this does not mean the image is not pornographic. It is pornographic because the intent of the artist was to illicit such response. So just because an image does not arouse YOUR prurient side that doesn't mean anything. This is why intent is difficult to prove legally even though generally we can discern it easily through simple observation.

Secondly, we have the term "obscenity". Legally this is all over the map in the US as it is so very much a subjective definition. However, in the US we have the "Miller Test" (google it) which sets forth a 3-prong test to determine whether a depiction is considered obscene or not - based on "community standards". So depending on the community you are located in there can be a wide variation of what is and is not obscene.

Now then, when it comes to children US law is pretty straight forward in so much as the above two definitions allow. A "child" is defined as anyone under the age of majority and in the USA that age is eighteen (18). US code 18 U.S.C. 2257 requires that the author/producer retain legal identification proving that for all persons depicted in any "pornographic" photographic or video production are/were above the age of majority when the images were captured.
Therefore, depictions of children in a pornographic setting are illegal, period. They are also considered obscene by most community standards under the Miller Test.

So even though things look fairly concise legally, because key elements of measuring works are subjective it is actually a pretty big mess. So in light of this my non-legal advice is: If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck then you are wise to assume that it is in fact a duck.
Henson's exhibit may very well be well within common acceptable norms of decency and he is merely being unjustly scrutinized. Then again, artists do love to push the envelope and while I'm all for this I also subscribe to the truism of "discretion is the better part of valor" and when it comes to blurring the lines between artistic nudes and pornography with children in today's world ... well that's one battle I'd just as soon sit out.

edit: btw, I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV. I merely have some exposure to the issue from consulting work building web applications. Do not take anything above as being the gospel truth - that's what 1st Amendment attorneys are for.

[ll_coffee_lP]

Great post Venturi!

c[_]

[Ash]

Well put, Venturi.
Who knows Henson's intent?
And how would an intent of arousing sexual thoughts be proven in court from a picture?
The issue is certainly food for thought.

[mfc]

we have the intent factor here as well
but donkeys have tails, cats have tails therefore cats are donkeys!
is a logic error
the main thing is that there is no intent to produce pornography,and while the images illicit strong responses in some people they are not lewd,pornographicor illigal
regading intent its relativly easy to find hensons motovation to produce them{in his own and others words}

[flyer]

Just to make a point about what is acceptable or not.
In the sixties, an African dance troup was invited to present their show in Montréal (Canada).The female dancers in the troup where dancing bare breasted, as was traditional for them in their country of origin. Unfortunately, a police officer watching the show went out to call reinforcement to arrest the whole troup and have them charged with pornography. As an aside, the legal definition of pornography in those days was: if it moves, it is pornographic. Nowaday, this type of show wouldn't even raise an eyebrow. This is just an example among others that clearly shows that what is acceptable is in the eye of the watcher. As far as paedophiles are concerned, they really are looking for raunchier material, so I don't think they will be lining up to watch the exhibit. I don't endorse or condemn Henson's work, alot of people actually seem to be doing that without adding to it. I just want to illustrate that something can be right for a person and wrong for the other. One thing to consider: Henson's work is kind of known, so Why would somebody who could be offended by his work go see it? Just to stir sh***? Food for thought...

[mfc]

has anyone here seden bill hensons work{crappy web reproductions excepted}

[Dale]

Last couple of editions of the local Geelong paper "The Advertiser" have featured several op ed pieces that are very critical of Hensons work, calling it pornography and clamouring for him to be charged.

On Friday the Addy puts out a Geelong Today colour magazine with the paper. It features a double page spread of a Geelong borne paparazzi photographers work. There for all the world to see is the Addies moral standards in full colour: an upskirt of Goldie Hawn as she gets out of a car.

The Addy chastises her for not knowing how to get out of a car without exposing herself to a photographer with a telephoto lens aimed at her groin.

The double standards are appalling.

[mfc]

`true true
"when they offer you a picture in stockings and suspenders,next to calls for stiffer penaltys for sex offenders" billy bragg

[Dale]

Firstly Hensons work held in the National Gallery of Australia, Australian Federal Police find no breaches of the law.

Terry Lane of The Age devotes his Thursday piece to Hensons work, and compares reactions to with the complete absence of reaction to another traveling exhibition detailing life and death.

I'll take the liberty of quoting Terry in his most pointed of rebuttals:

"Only the most dirty minded self-appointed guardians of our morals would see any similarity of intent or style between Henson and Penthouse...

...You could imitate his style easily, even with digital, but imitation is merely the tribute that mediocrity pays to genius."

[KrisK10D]

This is gonna be a an extreme post as I've not had a chance to catch up on this thread for a while and there's a few posts I'd like to respond to. I appologise

Yes I do, the presenter of said series and a number of other similar series that included frank interviews with female and male kids between 10 and 16 on all aspects of going through puberty. Several of the series presented by the same person included nudity of both sexes of those ages as you state.

Absolutely no fuss anywhere about that was there? I wonder why?

Was it because the person was Prof. The Lord Winston

That's the guy. Glad I'm not the only person who saw this series. It was fantastic!

One thing that you can be assured of now is that everyone and their dog will be tying to get a look at the work for themselves now, giving Bill Henson even more free publicity.

And if they do manage to ban his work it'll just drive it into the underground, making it even more valuable.

In my opinion if they would have left him alone theres a good chance he would have faded into the past pretty quickly. Now that won't happen

Sorry, little laker, but this guy wont fade into the past! He's a pre-emenant artist in this country who's exhibited his work all over the world and commands prices in excess of $30,000 per piece.

Snapshot of a small-minded people - Arts - Entertainment - smh.com.au
"I went to see the remnants of the Henson exhibition last week and listened to Oxley's description of where the confiscated works fitted in. As usual, Henson had hung the show so that the human figures stood in contrast to velvety black landscapes, in this case dimly lit images of the ruins of ancient Rome. The arrangement of pictures and the lighting were orchestrated to make a powerful impression on the viewer. It would require an incredibly narrow mind to see only the "offensive" images of under-age children. To view Henson's work in context is to understand why 65,000 people visited the artist's 2005 retrospective at the AGNSW and no one complained."

Because this is not an ideal world, there will be some that will be 'excited' when they see it, some that will be 'moved' when they see it, and others that will be appalled when they see it. And these do not include the paedophiles.

If we generally accept that sexuality is sacred, then it is our duty as adults to protect those children from being sexually exploited, whether or not it is the law to do so.

If there were a way of only viewing such work to those who would just see it as art, there wouldn't be the same problem. Obviously, this isn't possible, and a consumer of fine art can still be a paedophile. Hence, the work is not acceptable for the public.

No physical damage from this work? Sure. No emotional damage? Don't know about that. Again, it's the child being photographed that is at risk of being affected. I would have to agree with Mr. Rudd on this one - very little lost for a lot gained by removing the work from public eyes.

I have a friend who is a prison guard an he tells me it's a regular occurrence to search the cells of sex offenders to remove the catalog's for Target and Kmart etc. because of the images of children in underwear.

As for damage to the child being photographed... this from the horses mouth (so to speak) Model's mother defends Henson - Arts - Entertainment - smh.com.au

The angry mob's one of the purest forms of democracy, after all.

An angry mob is just an angry mob! And by today's standards, which we're discussing, assaulting someone because your views are different to his is against the law. More so than Henson's photographs.

Unless minors are becoming considerably more responsible and capable of making appropriate informed decisions at younger ages, the age of consent is unlikely to change. In medicine, the Gillick competency rules are not a law, but a bill passed to guide clinicians on judging a minor's ability to make appropriate decisions with regards to their medical treatment, and therefore suffice as informed consent even if against parents' wishes. This 'rule' has rarely had to be implemented as the vast majority of cases were adequately guided by parents' decisions. It has mainly been used for the teen having unprotected sex seeking contraception - and then again, it's used to protect the teen from 'damaging' herself.

We need to allow children to BE children for as long as they require - they will all eventually lose their innocence at the right time. We never need to rush this process.

Sorry for the rant, but this issue does not compare to the legalisation of Indigenous Australians' (and womens' in general) votes or the formal recognition of alternate sexual orientations.

There was an interesting comment made in another discussion on this subject that may intrigue you. Society today, in general, submits that a human being under the age of 16 is unable/incapable of making certain decisions for themselves. Scenario... What if another 13 year old was asked to pose naked in the name of art, and even though their parents were all for the idea, the child wasn't willing to pose? Would the argument be that a 13 year old is not capable to make that decision and that the parents wishes would be upheld and the images taken or would the child's wishes be prevalent?

Who has the right to determine when childhood ends and adulthood begins? Through human history we have lived in caves together where couples ummm... coupled and bore their children in the company of everyone else in their community, including children. Female humans can produce young from 12, 13 years of age. It's only been government intervention that's decided that 12 & 13 years olds are not allowed to actually do that.

First, by the law, pornography is more than merely depicting a sexual act. If the intent of the depiction is appeal to prurient interests - to arouse sensual or lustful emotions - then it is pornography.
Note the word "intent" as it is key form a legal standpoint and is also the reason there is so much debate on the topic. Showing a homosexual man an image of a nude woman engaged in self pleasure may not illicit prurient thoughts from him, however this does not mean the image is not pornographic. It is pornographic because the intent of the artist was to illicit such response. So just because an image does not arouse YOUR prurient side that doesn't mean anything. This is why intent is difficult to prove legally even though generally we can discern it easily through simple observation.

After the Miley Syrus photo I had a similar conversation with an American fellow. The term 'pornography' be it used in American, Australian or International law does not include the word 'intent'. It is the depiction of a sexual act/context, full stop (with some reference to torture, cruelty, abuse and animals). In Australia there's prosecutory defense if the material produced was reasonable for it's purpose (ie: A world famous photographer taking pictures of a naked 13 year old to hang in the National Gallery). Photos of naked children is not pornography regardless of how they are perceived by soccer mums or used by dirty old men.

For reference, I was an officer with the Aust. Customs Department for 15 years. I have experience in the area and have been involved in putting some of Australia's more disgusting pedophiles in the big house

Some news articles posted above are from another forum thread about this matter that some may find interesting... here's some on a lighter side.

A timely crackdown on the lewd, rude drawings of naked infants in Snugglepot
A timely crackdown on the lewd, rude drawings of naked infants in Snugglepot

Illustration: Michael Leunig
The Age: national, world, business, entertainment, sport and technology news from Melbourne's leading newspaper.