In my opinion that would cross the line of what art is.

But obviously it was illegal for them to be taken.

Originally posted by Migwah
But obviously it was illegal for them to be taken.

That's like saying someone is guilty just because they were arrested. It's a very broad statement with absolutely no consideration of situational specifics.

I think this is an area where we need to be very careful. That said, the care cuts both ways. We need to be careful to protect minors, but we also need to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

My opinion is that these photos were clearly artistic and not sexual in nature. The models in the pictures (several of whom have been interviewed by the Australian media) were not manipulated, abused or pressured, and to me that's what counts. If there were even the slightest evidence of abuse, then hell yes the artist needs to be investigated. But this should be judged on the artist and the models, not the art.

Originally posted by Nammu
I'd need to see them first to judge for myself.

I've tried to ignore this story on the TV news, but it won't go away.

They showed the pictues with obvious editing around the sensitive areas. The poses were all 'artistic' (whatever that is?) with some profile shots, with the girls using their arms to hide/show what was needed.

I still can't get my head around why this has been national news that has caused division between our Prime Minister and the artistic community... A big fuss over nothing, maybe???

if i remember correctly there are naked pictures of children at the melbourne museum going through different stages of puberty. if it is illegal to take pictures of children naked why hasn't something been done about these pictures that i have mentioned? if it is ok for one why isn't it ok for another?

Im am so incredably pissed of what is happening to Bill Hensons work at the moment. For some reason people seem to think that there is no difference between porn and art..... I dont know if anyone has actualy seen any of these works in real life but they are incredably confronting for the viewer when viewing them.
I dont know if anyone relises that non of the people photographed have come forward against Henson... infact there have been a few that have spoken out in support of him.
What I just dont get about this is that many of these phots have been around for many many years..... and the moment the Rudd takes a look he is quick to sit there and talk out against this art.

There are so many people that arnt in the art community that dont see these works for what they are.... they are ment to be confronting... they are ment to challenge the viewer..... they arnt ment to show these children in a sexual way.

Just my 2c.

-fm

[edit on 28-5-2008 by funky monk]

It has been all over the news the last few days here in Vic.

If anyone else took naked pics of children they would go to jail. Parents approval or not. Why should it be any different for 'artists'?

i have a news link with a picture - just making sure its `ok` to post it here first , don`t want to get into trouble

Tricky decision here for any judge and jury.
If they were 'sexual' in nature there wouldn't be an argument..

But if it WAS purely artistic then you're opening up a can of worms here..
I'm assuming the photography session would have been closely controlled and of course the models paid.

If it's a 'You shouldn't be photographing nude kids" thing...Then what about children and parents who holiday in nudist resorts..
You can't take photos of your family on holiday?

I'm playing devils advocate here as I don't have kids and I'm not a nudist but you can see where this could lead to..

But, on the other hand..When does art become 'soft porn' for perverts?.

Originally posted by AGENT_T


But, on the other hand..When does art become 'soft porn' for perverts?.

Well in a way art has always been like that to some people..... Like there are people that go the library where my mum works and they get out some art book on old renaissance art and they sit there and perve on all the nude paintings.
Bill Hensons works are actualy modern recreations of the renaissance works.... thats the stype he aims for.

-fm

Well if you find that kind of stuff sick, you should go to Arnold Swarzi personnal collection. It's much more sick than that. I will only say painting made in blood, naked children in nazi uniforms... I won't say more.

Oh boy.. I've had some heated arguments at uni over this...

I'm on the side that thinks that it should be looked at very carefully. I don't like the images one bit, but I'm trying not to let that prejudice me about whether they should be censored or not.

A few questions though...

* What is Henson's fixation on youth? Why not use 80 or 90 year old models? That'd be just as 'out there'.

* What is and what isn't art. Henson might be able to take photo's of naked prepubescent girls and call it art, what about every day Joe? If you took similar photographs of other people's children, you'd get the wrap over the knuckles very very quickly.

* Why does Kevin Rudd have to justify his comments of being against it? A bunch of actors have written a letter saying that Rudd should withdraw his comments, or somehow face being hijacked by the arts community. Well, people need to get real - last year under Howard's work choices laws, it was going to be made illegal to fly the Eureka flag at construction sites. I think that was a bit more totalitarian than this!

Henson's previous works were more abstract and less full frontal than these newest ones. If you've seen the new ones, even the censored samples, you'd know what I mean - I don't really see the artistic value in them.

And like it or not, a 13 year old IS a child. Everyone expects their kids to grow up too fast. How on Earth can a child make a decision to be in these works? A judge has recently suggested that there'd be grounds for the children to sue at a later stage if they felt someway violated by Henson, so it'd be damaging for him as well.

Some say that classical works feature child nudity - but that was also when we were burning witches at the stake, but somehow now with photographic technology, taking photographs of children and risking having them censored is somehow 'backward'.

Bottom line - he won't be prosecuted. I've gotten the general feeling from the debate and people saying that it's 'OK' is that they're scared of not sounding liberal enough. Just around the burrows here and there, anyway.

I'm a liberal sorta guy, but I well and truly don't like these images.