[Patang]

For all of you media savvy people in Australia, what do you make of the entire furor surrounding the postponed Bill Henson exhibition at the gallery in Paddington?
For those who don't know, Bill Henson is an Aussie photographic artist that is quite controversial with many of his exhibitions and has recently had some of his work that was meant to be displayed confiscated by police and he may face charges of child pornography. The images are of 12 and 13 year old children in the nude.

This is a link to a recent article done by The Age. It does have a picture of one of the works in question so if you are easily offended, I wouldn't click on it.

Where do you draw the line between art and pornography? Or is it more because the actual subjects in question are minors that people are up in arms about it all? Or are we all too politically correct these days to really appreciate what artists try to tell us through their artwork?

[KrisK10D]

Pornography is the depiction of a sexual act. Art is everything else.

The authorities can charge Henson but it will cost the taxpayer millions cause they'll lose the trial. Then Henson would be quite within his right to sue them for loss if income and maybe a bit of defamation.

[roentarre]

I felt that this is just simply too much politics. If this guy's work is on display in various national gallery along the same theme - "exploring al type of emotion in all human forms", he has been officially recognised for this type of work. After all, even many ministers also displayed his art in their offices anyway. This is just finding a scapegoat for publicity.

[cupic]

All the born again christians(Not real christians) stirring the pot

cheers

[Dale]

I liked the fact that the National Gallery of Victoria issued a statement defending his art. As for a trial, I'd be surprised that DPP would even consider prosecuting him.

I quite like his photography, and with the storm in a tea cup in mind, I vox popped my local coffee shop in rural Victoria. Once my patron friends saw his photography, they couldn't even see what the fuss is about. Nuidity does not necessarily equal sexuality.

Of interest is that The Age newspaper felt confident in reproducing one image, surely opening them to prosecution.

Our waitress was particularly succinct about it; "Since when did all images of kids under 16 become porn by default? They will be after the National Geographic next!"

Good point I thought...

The art obscenity trials in England in the sixties/seventies make fascinating reading for anyone interested in a similar way. Funny enough it even echos the arrest of Dr Haneef, a sorry saga that is now unraveling.

I think that art is something that shouldn't be censored. Unfortunately though in the world we live in, I'm afraid an exhibition like this one is a bit like a Disneyland for paedophiles because of the publicity. Assuming that the artist got written permission from the parents, I think the exhibition should be allowed to go ahead but after this furor has died down. I think the real problem in this case is that the powers that be are playing into the hands of the artist because art like this is produced in order to shock people. Art should be allowed to succeed or fail on it's own merits, this kind of bad publicity just encourages artists to be controversial because controversial art sells whether it is good or bad.

[Ash]

Problem is pornography has a subjective definition.
And a 13 year old girl may be deemed underage enough not to be able to make competent decisions, like whether it's OK to be photographed naked for public viewing.
A parent may give the minor's consent, but then it's not the parent's body on display...

But does this kind of art cause any harm? Not so much a problem for the viewer (the choice can be made not to view the art), but more for the model (when she becomes an adult, will she have regretted the explicit viewing of her body?).

All subjective - I'd personally not condone this type of photography (not from a christian point of view, but more a moral & ethical one) but I accept and appreciate that it will still happen regardless of my stance...

[fula6]

It certainly is a hot topic here. Personally I would not photograph an under age nude though I have done adult nudes before. I feel that Henson's photography is art and that once again it has become a political platform - as so many issues do!

[KrisK10D]

Problem is pornography has a subjective definition
............

It's not a subjective definition. It's a very clear one. As I said in my first post, pornography must be a depiction of a sexual act. If you want me to be more specific, I can.

The images I have seen, and I'm limited to what's been reported by our ever impartial news media, are not! I agree with Dale's waitress. This curfufall is not because the model is naked. It's because the model is naked & only 13. If it can be considered pornography then every other nude image ever produced must also be considered pornography.

[wwwmorrell]

Sadly these days, the time it takes to click a mouse butten, art can turn to porn.

Wal'

[Dale]

It's not a subjective definition. It's a very clear one. As I said in my first post, pornography must be a depiction of a sexual act. If you want me to be more specific, I can.

The images I have seen, and I'm limited to what's been reported by our ever impartial news media, are not! I agree with Dale's waitress. This curfufall is not because the model is naked. It's because the model is naked & only 13. If it can be considered pornography then every other nude image ever produced must also be considered pornography.

Yep, a defence laywer in reference to these images said:

"My advice to clients would be that it's simply an age issue … Everyone takes happy snaps of their naked babies, but teenage girls taken between 10 and 16, it would be in the realm of pornography, especially if it was open for public display."

Female b/w 10 and 16 = realm of pornography. Any male or female nude subject outside those ages is by default "not in the realm of pornography"?

Now if the photographer was female would the reaction be the same?

If the subject was male would the reaction be the same?

I'll make the point that the presumption is guilt because the subject is both female and between 10 and 16.

[fula6]

Sadly these days, the time it takes to click a mouse butten, art can turn to porn.

Wal'

I could not agree more Wal. I think you summed it up perfectly!

[Patang]

It really is interesting reading, and in regards to an earlier point about The Age feeling confident enough to publish the unedited version, I only thought of that after finding a similar article on the ABC website with the same image, but with a big black stripe across the breasts and her face pixellated.

As for whether it is child pornography, I found this on the Australian Institute for Criminology website:

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.

[little laker]

I really can't remember how often have I seen photographs of children having a bubble bath or something along those lines.
Usually revealing the same body parts.

And it's always the proud parents showing these pic's

I don't remember ever hearing anyone, even those born again bible thumpers calling those images as child porn, so I'm almost wondering how they can call this artists pic's that.

Personally it isn't my cup of tea, but then again not everyone likes my art either

[flyer]

I really can't remember how often have I seen photographs of children having a bubble bath or something along those lines.
Usually revealing the same body parts.

And it's always the proud parents showing these pic's

I don't remember ever hearing anyone, even those born again bible thumpers calling those images as child porn, so I'm almost wondering how they can call this artists pic's that.

Personally it isn't my cup of tea, but then again not everyone likes my art either

In the U.S.A., a grand mother has been arrested and charged with pornography for taking nude pictures of her grand daughters.
But what gives a censor the right to watch a movie, picture or whatever, and then tell me I can't watch it because it is porn. Are they so much better than anybody else that they can view such pictures and other media without harm but I would be harmed? I thought we where all equal in the society, but apparently, some are more "equal" than others. Actually, this is just a point of view, not an endorsement of juvenile pornography, which I'm against, but I'm still puzzled by the power of a censor to tell me I can't watch something after HE watched it.