DPP to consider charging Henson

Their is no way I would allow my children to be photogragh in that maner nor would any other self respecting parent.He crossed the line plain and simple.The girls parents should be whipped,I can't imagine a self conscious 13 years old willingly having nude photo's taken.If people think that this is acceptable we are a sad country. Pat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Like you, I have not seen the photos, but it needs to be pointed out that photographing of naked children is not in itself illegal in any Australian state or territory, so you are right, there is no grey area. It is not even illegal in the USA, where so much of our popular culture comes from, or as far as I am aware, in any western country.

If the viewer finds images of naked children automatically obscene, I suggest that it says more about the viewer than the artist*.

Images of naked children may be pornography, but this depends entirely on whether the child is portrayed in a sexual pose or not - and there may well be a difference of opinion about what constitutes a sexual pose.

With the proliferation of digital cameras, the proportion of parents/grandparents with photographs of (their own) naked children would be very high, and it is unlikely that modifications to the existing laws to ban them would gain popular support. Look at the furor over the proposal a year or so ago to ban parents from taking photos at school swimming carnivals! (the proposal was quickly dropped).

The question of consent is a separate one, but it is worth noting that in this case both the girl involved and her parents have, through their lawyer, pointed out that the photography and publication were approved by them and still has their approval.

I, for one, am very wary of the modern idea that our lives should be guided by the assumption that everybody (else) is untrustworthy in the worst possible way. I suggest a perusal of the article in the June 2008 Scientific American on the biological basis of trust is worthwhile - it has an interesting comparison of how much people trust each other by country; the countries with most trust are the ones most people would consider to be good places to live. Australia is fairly well up the list.

John

*An excellent, well documented case of this is the one of Mark Foley. A US Congressman, he was a campaigner against child abuse, introducing the "Child Modeling Exploitation prevention Act of 2002" (which failed, largely because it would have made all commercial photography of children illegal) and campaigning against programs for teenagers at a Florida nudist resort. He was also a supporter of other legislation against child pornography.

In 2006 he resigned from Congress when his relation with teenage "Congressional Pages" over the previous ten years came to light, initially through publication of explicit emails from him, but he had been warned a year earlier by the Clerk of the House.

---

Well written.

I think that if one is to object to the artworks, think about the parents who allowed that to happen to their children. The artist is doing his job, not living out a fantasy - sounds to me that the parents were open minded or could see lots of money.

To say that Australia's most highly acclaimed photographic artist ought to be slaughtered is out of line - that's just over emotive crap with no careful thought at all. How's that any better than creating child 'porn'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B92 8NW

To say that Australia's most highly acclaimed photographic artist ought to be slaughtered is out of line

---

Never heard of him up until last week, then again as a parent I don't frequent the kiddie porn circles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B92 8NW

How's that any better than creating child 'porn'?

---

Please explain to me why you would like to see a 12yr old girl photographed like in the images, what artistic merit can you possible get? What is your interpretation of the images? I presume by your response you do not have a young daughter, I do, and I would not let anyone exploit her in any way. I don't know of a parent who would let their child be photographed in such a way, therefore can we summise that there is something slightly wrong with this "acclaimed photographers" work.

Another greatly "Acclaimed and award winning artist" of the 20th century Mr Ron Jeremy. He uses the same media in his "artworks". If a naked 12yr old was seen (posing not acting) in one of his films, would that be deemed as art or kiddie porn? Would there be an uproar and charges laid? I think so, so whats the difference?

I guess what has come out of this, is that there is a difference between naked and porn. I really do have mixed opinions on it all, but as a parrallel, what are peoples thoughs on sculptures for example, where there is a naked sculpture of a kiddie or adolescent on a pedestal in a gallery or museam - particularly in Roman context, or even in gardens where some kid is peeing into a pond? There is no sexual suggestion, but these have been around ever since I can remember as features, decorations, art or whatever in public places.

I have to say I'm mixed on the topic but over all I think a line has to be drawn for the safety of the young people in society. He won't get prosecuted unless they find naughty images on his computer but they probably won't even do a proper search.

The thing I ponder is when he had it up for viewing before it was in the gallery 65,000 people saw it and not one complained. weird?

Back in the 70's he had a very similar exhibition and it caused no problems.

Xav

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slunnie

I guess what has come out of this, is that there is a difference between naked and porn. I really do have mixed opinions on it all, but as a parrallel, what are peoples thoughs on sculptures for example, where there is a naked sculpture of a kiddie or adolescent on a pedestal in a gallery or museam - particularly in Roman context, or even in gardens where some kid is peeing into a pond? There is no sexual suggestion, but these have been around ever since I can remember as features, decorations, art or whatever in public places.

---

I think as society we have somewhat evolved from the times of the Roman empire. Paedophilia, homosexuality, incest and beastiality (both volutary and forced), group sex, rape, murder, public executions, religious persecution, slavery, etc.... . A kiddie posing, or being sent to service a dirty old man in that time and empire was nothing.The phrase "When in Rome, do what the Roman's do" springs to mind.

We're not in Rome, and the Roman's were a group of depraved perverts and sickoes.

I am talking in current times, not in roman times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dobbo

Please explain to me why you would like to see a 12yr old girl photographed like in the images, what artistic merit can you possible get? What is your interpretation of the images?

---

I would like to know this too. I'm not an art person, and I try not to comment on it as its not my thing but what do people get out of seeing a 12 year old girl naked??!! Especially when said images have been claimed to be sexually suggestive.

I don't know why the discussion has deviated towards pictures of kids having fun in the yard etc in their bday suites as the issue here, I thought, was about sexually suggestive photographs of children being claimed as art. Is that not the case??

I saw some of the images posted on another forum and they are akin to the sort of pose you might find in a men's magazine (ralph, fhm etc). Perhaps they picked the most shocking ones but I certainly don't think they are acceptable.

I have a degree in visual arts but still struggle to express the artistic merit of the works - the artist aims to convey the period in everyones life when they begin to realise they're transition into adulthood. A powerful and confusing time when we're upon the verge of adult potential while limited by a childs experience and social limitations.

It doesn't detract from the fact that he's taken photos of kids in the raw. The fact that he found this the most efficient way to depict the subject, doesn't change societies view of the black and white of naked children.

I think he achieves his goal of depicting the subject and i don't see it as pornographic but it doesn't mean i want to see it or it's the right subject to depict in artform. The fact that it's against the law is indicative of societies view of what is right and wrong, to go against this is to presume a foolish and elite position. I'd love to know his opinion on creating art of societies other taboo's like theft and murder?

A 12 year old girl is not mentally mature enough to be making such a decision with respect to displaying herself thus. IMO her parents do not have the right to make said decision for her.

This so called artist did not do this for 'Art' . He did it for money. The more controversial, the more money!

Blatent exploitation of a minor!

And anyone who thinks that publicly publishing suggestive photo's of a 12yo is the same as showing the family some shot's of a five year old needs serious counselling IMO.

Just because this creep's a "respected artist" dosn't mean he's not a moral vacuum. Gary Glitter was once a respected musician!