One of the main reasons this is controversial is that it is photography; if it were a painting the identification with a specific person is diffused
and the subtext of voyeurism and exploitation greatly diffused. It's the particularity of the image that is most offensive to some, methinks.
It reminds me also that ideas of what is pornographic are relative and wax and wane over time; the nudes in Michelangelo's Sistine Ceiling and Last
Judgment in the Vatican were later painted over with judiciously placed drapery to hide their sexual organs--and countless male nude statues have had
their privates hacked off and fig leafs appended in the name of modesty. Many figures have been restored to return them to their original states, as
have most of Michelangelo's figures. So this is all a question of perspective.
Also, AG Ashcroft was more recently mocked for misplaced prudery when he ordered drapery to clothe the nude statues in the rotonda of his offices.
Finally, it recalls Andy Warhol's definition of art: "Art is a man's name."
Inappropriate photos in art gallery seized by police., page 3
privacy
it is a different medium, and is totally the vision and responsibility of the artist, as opposed to a
photographer and a live person as subject involves more than just the artist.reply posted on 28-5-2008 @ 12:00 PM by garyo1954
This is a very confusing thing we have.
The artist, who made a career of photographs along this vein thought it was art.
The kids who posed thought it was art.
The gallery who sells art thought it was art.
Does this mean we have to arrest Andrew Dominik?
Putting him perspective she writes:
Source
[edit on 28-5-2008 by garyo1954]
The artist, who made a career of photographs along this vein thought it was art.
The kids who posed thought it was art.
The gallery who sells art thought it was art.
Even if you don't know his work, his signature look - particularly his taste in vulnerable adolescents shot in ominous settings at night - is probably familiar: it has even been appropriated by Chopper director Andrew Dominik in a Levi's commercial for their "born again" 501s.
Does this mean we have to arrest Andrew Dominik?
Bill Henson's sexualised images of adolescents repel some viewers, but critics are unanimous in hailing his vision, writes Gina McColl.
Critics love to say that Henson, Australia's most celebrated and collected photographer, divides opinion: you either love him or hate him. But he doesn't divide the critics. Henson has been a favourite for 10 years - since he represented Australia at the Venice Biennale, the premier international contemporary art event, in 1995.
Putting him perspective she writes:
More recently, critics have been quick to reject such criticism as righteous indignation and superficiality. Henson himself has called it hype and borrowed indignation. In part, this is because graphic depictions of sexuality, and often perverse sexuality, are commonplace in contemporary art. In Britain, the winner of last year's Turner Prize was a transvestite potter who makes neo-Classical vases decorated with tableaux of kinky sex and child abuse. Makes Henson seem tame.
Source
[edit on 28-5-2008 by garyo1954]
reply posted on 28-5-2008 @ 12:49 PM by bloodcircle
From news items relating to the controversy, parents not only were present but consented to nude shots of their children.
Source
He has obviously been taking these photo's for some time and we've yet to hear of weirdos and sad cases getting off over these pictures on the internet.
I am still at a loss as to why, this time, it's caused a stir.
Having not seen his work, except from some scenery images from links in this thread, perhaps he is getting more leery in his work.
However I just found this link where one of the 13 year old former models wants no part in any investigations.
Girl identified in Bill Henson photograph snubs police
To be honest, I think this is just a case of overreaction on the part of the pollies, the police involved and especially the PM.
Having said that, I do agree with you Dr love. A small egg timer..
But then Im sure nor you or I would ever agree for our children to pose
nude.
mod edit:
[removed quote of entire previous post]
Mod Edit: Quoting – Please Review This Link.
[edit on 29-5-2008 by sanctum]
Kerryn, whose daughter Lizzie posed, although not nude, for Henson as a 12-year-old, said it was his "prurient" critics who were damaging the young models, not Henson.
The teenagers she knew who had posed for him had grown into accomplished, well-adjusted adults, she said.
A MELBOURNE mother who arranged for her pre-teen children to be photographed naked said she believed there was nothing pornographic or indecent about his work.
Emma De Clario, 36, a Melbourne artist and actor, yesterday said she had agreed to allow her 10-year-old daughter and six-year-old son to sit naked for Henson, though it had not been able to proceed.
Model mum Kerryn said she had been present at each of the shoots.
Her daughter, now 19, had eagerly attended the sessions between the ages of 12-15.
Source
He has obviously been taking these photo's for some time and we've yet to hear of weirdos and sad cases getting off over these pictures on the internet.
I am still at a loss as to why, this time, it's caused a stir.
Having not seen his work, except from some scenery images from links in this thread, perhaps he is getting more leery in his work.
However I just found this link where one of the 13 year old former models wants no part in any investigations.
Girl identified in Bill Henson photograph snubs police
To be honest, I think this is just a case of overreaction on the part of the pollies, the police involved and especially the PM.
Having said that, I do agree with you Dr love. A small egg timer..
But then Im sure nor you or I would ever agree for our children to pose
nude. mod edit:
[removed quote of entire previous post]
Mod Edit: Quoting – Please Review This Link.
[edit on 29-5-2008 by sanctum]
reply posted on 28-5-2008 @ 01:40 PM by Dr Love
reply to post by bloodcircle
Wow, those mothers make Patsy Ramsey look like Mother Teresa.
Which raises another question, were those 12 and 13 y/o girls begging to strip down for this guy and the parents just gave in, or what? Did the parents decide for the child? The logic, or lack thereof, defies me.
Peace
Wow, those mothers make Patsy Ramsey look like Mother Teresa.
Which raises another question, were those 12 and 13 y/o girls begging to strip down for this guy and the parents just gave in, or what? Did the parents decide for the child? The logic, or lack thereof, defies me.
Peace
reply posted on 28-5-2008 @ 02:34 PM by flice
reply to post by greeneyedleo
My deity!! Why are you even asking these questions? Henson doesn't ask if he can go further than this... and if you or anyone else don't know where to draw the line, if you don't know how far one could go in such a case as this, then you my friend have bigger problems than Henson. The fact that this ART was taken down indeed proves that especially the commisioner has a problem knowing where the line is...
In fact Henson seems to be the only who knows where it is. And he stuck to it with honors.
Another thing is, who are you to judge what other parents allow or don't allow their kids to do? You have NO business what so ever... NO!
I think that the parents of the kids who were portrayed made a admirable choice. They allowed themselves to seperate from societys sick need to dominate the single persons and their views down to something as benign as art.
Last time we could see something like this was when the church tried to subdue comedy. It's appalling, and puts mankind back in a state of being nothing more than a horde mindnumb zealots, who frown at anything that makes them feel and questions their way of life.
Last and not least... the taking down of these images says sooo much more about the people who were "affected" by them, the commisioner in particular, than it does about the images or Henson... I think you know what I mean.
I takes a sick sick sick mind to turn those images into erotisism or porn, into something to be affraid of. I think you should be more affraid of yourselves....
SHAME ON YOU!
[edit on 28/5/08 by flice]
Is this photographer right up against the line? Or will you 'OK' him to go a little further? And how much further? Can he simulate sex between them - because, in my opinion, sex between 2 people can be absolutely beautiful and even artistic if painted, photographed, etc.
My deity!! Why are you even asking these questions? Henson doesn't ask if he can go further than this... and if you or anyone else don't know where to draw the line, if you don't know how far one could go in such a case as this, then you my friend have bigger problems than Henson. The fact that this ART was taken down indeed proves that especially the commisioner has a problem knowing where the line is...
In fact Henson seems to be the only who knows where it is. And he stuck to it with honors.
Another thing is, who are you to judge what other parents allow or don't allow their kids to do? You have NO business what so ever... NO!
I think that the parents of the kids who were portrayed made a admirable choice. They allowed themselves to seperate from societys sick need to dominate the single persons and their views down to something as benign as art.
Last time we could see something like this was when the church tried to subdue comedy. It's appalling, and puts mankind back in a state of being nothing more than a horde mindnumb zealots, who frown at anything that makes them feel and questions their way of life.
Last and not least... the taking down of these images says sooo much more about the people who were "affected" by them, the commisioner in particular, than it does about the images or Henson... I think you know what I mean.
I takes a sick sick sick mind to turn those images into erotisism or porn, into something to be affraid of. I think you should be more affraid of yourselves....
SHAME ON YOU!
[edit on 28/5/08 by flice]
reply posted on 28-5-2008 @ 03:10 PM by TrailGator
Originally posted by flice
reply to post by greeneyedleo
Is this photographer right up against the line? Or will you 'OK' him to go a little further? And how much further? Can he simulate sex between them - because, in my opinion, sex between 2 people can be absolutely beautiful and even artistic if painted, photographed, etc.
My deity!! Why are you even asking these questions? Henson doesn't ask if he can go further than this... and if you or anyone else don't know where to draw the line, if you don't know how far one could go in such a case as this, then you my friend have bigger problems than Henson. The fact that this ART was taken down indeed proves that especially the commisioner has a problem knowing where the line is...
In fact Henson seems to be the only who knows where it is. And he stuck to it with honors.
Another thing is, who are you to judge what other parents allow or don't allow their kids to do? You have NO business what so ever... NO!
I think that the parents of the kids who were portrayed made a admirable choice. They allowed themselves to seperate from societys sick need to dominate the single persons and their views down to something as benign as art.
Last time we could see something like this was when the church tried to subdue comedy. It's appalling, and puts mankind back in a state of being nothing more than a horde mindnumb zealots, who frown at anything that makes them feel and questions their way of life.
Last and not least... the taking down of these images says sooo much more about the people who were "affected" by them, the commisioner in particular, than it does about the images or Henson... I think you know what I mean.
I takes a sick sick sick mind to turn those images into erotisism or porn, into something to be affraid of. I think you should be more affraid of yourselves....
SHAME ON YOU!
[edit on 28/5/08 by flice]
a predictable response if there ever was one. Thats right....no one sets morality...how dare society as a whole decide whats right and wrong.
But where do YOU - yes, flice, YOU.... decide when its too far? or is it EVER too far - and there IS a too far somewhere within you, though you wish to get all indignent and call us all prudes... cause when it gets there (too far for you, that is) let us know so that we may be able to determine by what criteria YOU made that "line"
reply posted on 28-5-2008 @ 03:17 PM by greeneyedleo
reply to post by flice
I know very well, where the line should be. But people like you, clearly do not. Or really, it seems everyone has a different opinion of where the line should be. Thus the question is asked by moral adults (parents) such as me who have the interest of CHILDREN in mind first and foremost.
Im sorry Flice, but what? Who am I to VOICE MY OPINION on a subject of CHILDREN, me being a mother? Hmmmmmmmmm. And who are YOU to tell me what I can and can NOT voice my opinion on? Are you a member of the Taliban, by chance?
Also, whose business is it? MINE, as the art was put on display for the public. I am the public. Therefore, I have every right to discuss my OPINION on the matter at hand.
Hmmm. If you had read my response and not had such a knee jerk reaction that your rights to see naked children might be taken away….then you would see that I am the LAST person who views nudity as a bad thing. I, in fact said that I view the human body as beautiful and amazing…and even went as far as to say that I think viewing sex between 2 people can actually be created in an artistic way. I also said that the “artist” is creating art because again, I find the human body beautiful and erotic in some ways. The sole issue is the use of CHILDREN – actual children.
And last but not least…..the taking down of these photos ACTUALLY shows that the people were CONCERNED for the CHILDREN being photographed naked. THANK GOD. Someone needs to be. I seriously doubt, if this had been photos of adults, there would be any fuss at all. We are talking about CHILDREN.
It takes a sick sick mind to NOT see that children are innocent beings and are vulnerable to manipulation by adults – including their own parents. And we should at ALL costs fight to keep them innocent and protect them from those who prey on their innocence. Just because a parent allows it, does not make it okay. What if the child didn’t want to do it? But the parents said "I want it done"?
The fact that you desire to have children subjected to this in order to fulfill whatever fantasy you or others may have……….well, SHAME ON YOU.
My deity!! Why are you even asking these questions? Henson doesn't ask if he can go further than this... and if you or anyone else don't know where to draw the line, if you don't know how far one could go in such a case as this, then you my friend have bigger problems than Henson. The fact that this ART was taken down indeed proves that especially the commisioner has a problem knowing where the line is... In fact Henson seems to be the only who knows where it is. And he stuck to it with honors.
I know very well, where the line should be. But people like you, clearly do not. Or really, it seems everyone has a different opinion of where the line should be. Thus the question is asked by moral adults (parents) such as me who have the interest of CHILDREN in mind first and foremost.
Another thing is, who are you to judge what other parents allow or don't allow their kids to do? You have NO business what so ever... NO!
Im sorry Flice, but what? Who am I to VOICE MY OPINION on a subject of CHILDREN, me being a mother? Hmmmmmmmmm. And who are YOU to tell me what I can and can NOT voice my opinion on? Are you a member of the Taliban, by chance?
Also, whose business is it? MINE, as the art was put on display for the public. I am the public. Therefore, I have every right to discuss my OPINION on the matter at hand.
I think that the parents of the kids who were portrayed made a admirable choice. They allowed themselves to seperate from societys sick need to dominate the single persons and their views down to something as benign as art.
Last time we could see something like this was when the church tried to subdue comedy. It's appalling, and puts mankind back in a state of being nothing more than a horde mindnumb zealots, who frown at anything that makes them feel and questions their way of life.
Hmmm. If you had read my response and not had such a knee jerk reaction that your rights to see naked children might be taken away….then you would see that I am the LAST person who views nudity as a bad thing. I, in fact said that I view the human body as beautiful and amazing…and even went as far as to say that I think viewing sex between 2 people can actually be created in an artistic way. I also said that the “artist” is creating art because again, I find the human body beautiful and erotic in some ways. The sole issue is the use of CHILDREN – actual children.
Last and not least... the taking down of these images says sooo much more about the people who were "affected" by them, the commisioner in particular, than it does about the images or Henson... I think you know what I mean.
I takes a sick sick sick mind to turn those images into erotisism or porn, into something to be affraid of. I think you should be more affraid of yourselves.... SHAME ON YOU!
And last but not least…..the taking down of these photos ACTUALLY shows that the people were CONCERNED for the CHILDREN being photographed naked. THANK GOD. Someone needs to be. I seriously doubt, if this had been photos of adults, there would be any fuss at all. We are talking about CHILDREN.
It takes a sick sick mind to NOT see that children are innocent beings and are vulnerable to manipulation by adults – including their own parents. And we should at ALL costs fight to keep them innocent and protect them from those who prey on their innocence. Just because a parent allows it, does not make it okay. What if the child didn’t want to do it? But the parents said "I want it done"?
The fact that you desire to have children subjected to this in order to fulfill whatever fantasy you or others may have……….well, SHAME ON YOU.
reply posted on 28-5-2008 @ 03:37 PM by bloodcircle
Originally posted by Dr Love
reply to post by bloodcircle
Wow, those mothers make Patsy Ramsey look like Mother Teresa.
Which raises another question, were those 12 and 13 y/o girls begging to strip down for this guy and the parents just gave in, or what? Did the parents decide for the child? The logic, or lack thereof, defies me.
Peace
I wondered that myself, as I can imagine the thought of being a model, in the minds of young girls, as an alluring idea, and we have all seen how some parents can push their daughters into an adult world far too early, chasing fame and money.
But I don't know anymore than the news items suggest and what the photographers basic history is.. Certainly can't judge the situation about these families without knowing more, which I doubt we will.
-- on a side note, it's rather ironic that as I type this, I'm also watching USA Today (We get the US version a day late, in the mornings), where they've just had an item about Teenagers in School being given contraceptives and should they even be having sex, and it is followed by an item on the Sex in the City movie...
Aussie guy gets stuck by lightning while filming electrical storm
Posted 18 days ago with 3 member flags
Posted 18 days ago with 3 member flags
HMS Victory 1737 is to be raised from the sea, possible treasure!
Posted 15 days ago with 3 member flags
Posted 15 days ago with 3 member flags
Full-body scans rolled out at all Australian international airports after trial
Posted 3 days ago with 3 member flags
Posted 3 days ago with 3 member flags
Dog Rescued from Icy Pond - Bites News Anchor During Followup Interview
Posted 1 days ago with 3 member flags
Posted 1 days ago with 3 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
New Views from the HiRISE camera on NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Show Old NASA Mars Landers
Space Exploration, Posted 12 minutes ago
Space Exploration, Posted 12 minutes ago
U.S. regulators approved plans to build new nuclear power plant despite NRC Chairman objections
Fragile Earth, Posted 17 minutes ago
Fragile Earth, Posted 17 minutes ago
I was told I'm John the Baptist in dreams - Isaiah 17 Prophecy Damascus being destroyed, viral pand
Dreams & Predictions, Posted 18 minutes ago
Dreams & Predictions, Posted 18 minutes ago
Unemployment From Abbott and Costello. (Relevent to Modern Times)
Jokes, Puns, & Pranks, Posted 23 minutes ago
Jokes, Puns, & Pranks, Posted 23 minutes ago
New Hampshire Republican proposes end to lunch break law
US Political Madness, Posted 25 minutes ago
US Political Madness, Posted 25 minutes ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Alaska: Samantha Koenig Kidnapped last week. Please help fellow Ak'ers
Other Current Events, Posted 17 hours ago, 85 flags
Other Current Events, Posted 17 hours ago, 85 flags
BREAKING: Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 13 hours ago, 38 flags
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 13 hours ago, 38 flags
Biggest Conspiracy of 2012 : FACEBOOK ... It is time you close your account
US Political Madness, Posted 15 hours ago, 34 flags
US Political Madness, Posted 15 hours ago, 34 flags
Mass-arrest attempt on video - proof that CA riot police are the ones inciting violence
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 11 hours ago, 25 flags
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 11 hours ago, 25 flags
Are you a Fundamentalist Christian? Top ten signs!?
Jokes, Puns, & Pranks, Posted 6 hours ago, 13 flags
Jokes, Puns, & Pranks, Posted 6 hours ago, 13 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
The Chinese have seen the dragon in the sky !!
Other Current Events, Posted 9 hours ago, 122 replies
Other Current Events, Posted 9 hours ago, 122 replies
Biggest Conspiracy of 2012 : FACEBOOK ... It is time you close your account
US Political Madness, Posted 15 hours ago, 91 replies
US Political Madness, Posted 15 hours ago, 91 replies
BREAKING: Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 13 hours ago, 80 replies
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 13 hours ago, 80 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.010 seconds
Page processed in: 0.281 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.010 seconds
Page processed in: 0.281 seconds
