DPP to consider charging Henson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dobbo

You have been known to take a few good photo's in the past and I know you are a very decent person. Given parental permission and in the name of art, would you feel comfortable taking and putting your name to sexy styled naked images of a 12yr old girl or would you feel a bit funny about it?

---

I dont know what images you've seen, but the ones I seen blurred through the media... well... you'd be scraping the barrel to come up with something sexual.

Look beyond the nakedness, and LOOK at the nakedness in context of the entire image.
The darkness and vunerability, the loneliness and sadness... then look at the nakedness...

You will then realise its a part of the picture, a part of the feelings the picture wants you to feel.

Remember also, whilst it was in a public gallery, how many of you knew about it? They would have expected no more than 200 art critiques to come through those doors, people with a sense of being that goes beyond shallowness.

The media has exposed his work to every Tom Dick and Harry... no wonder there has been an outcry.

I have to admit I am astounded by some of the almost "in defence" responses of this type of work. Lets get some real clarity here. I am yet to hear of a gallery that has as its main content, nudie pics of kiddies under say 6, generally nudie pics are taken by the ones that love them, their parents. People over say 18 who get their gear off, have done so by their own free choice. Children, forgetting how the imagery maybe viewed, under the age of consent, who have been photographed nude for public viewing is wrong. Even if I hadnt seen blurred pics, it would make no difference. I'm not talking about kiddie porn here, or anything of the like, I am talking that in general somebody who takes pics of nude children, how ever they may use the lighting or effects etc, has blatantly done it knowing the impact it would cause. Is that not misuse of trust in itself. Even those that try in an around about way, defend the "art" in the same breath are saying "but I wouldnt view it" or " yes it maybe inappropriate" etc etc.

What if per se, if the whole show was of naked children in whatever type poses, whether "classy" or a bit "sugestive" who here on this thread would entertain going along for a look? Who here on this thread would consider that ok? Who here on this thread...who has a daughter....would let her pose naked............in whatever freakin "arty" way.......who was aged in that bracket. That is the question for me, not whether it could/would/should be viewed as porn, but who would allow it as a parent. If you would not allow your 12-13 yr old daughter to be photographed naked and put in public viewing, then theirs your answer:mad: and stop putting up your vieled defenses of this cretin,

Regards

Stevo

D3funct, so that Im clear, you want those of us who have a problem with a grown man taking naked photographs of a girl entering puberty, and to be displayed in public, to "just clam up".

I don't need to see evidence of something to know that something is not right.

I do not agree with you...., and I am a member of the general community, therefore I am shallow minded. Thankyou

ah no Steve, the other fact is that not all consider it the same way as you do.

As I've already said, there is nothing in the 2 pages of google pics that I saw that I would have thought twice about.

If I receive a shoe catalogue, all i see is shoes.

Others see it as a fetish magazine.

It can be as Dirty or Innocent as your mind chooses to make it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gooner

D3funct, so that Im clear, you want those of us who have a problem with a grown man taking naked photographs of a girl entering puberty, and to be displayed in public, to "just clam up".

I don't need to see evidence of something to know that something is not right.

I do not agree with you...., and I am a member of the general community, therefore I am shallow minded. Thankyou

---

You would be a terrific judge to sentence before a trial... never the less, you should play golf more, as you got a Hole-In-One as to what I said...

I'm done with the topic... there are too many people on here with a finger on the trigger, I can see it a mile away already that this wont go to court... they havent got any evidence.
There was no pornographic intent.

Furthermore, when these young ladies grow up, I hope you bow your head in shame. These ladies, if they identify themselves when they grow up, will only ever be looked upon as 'those Henson girls'... the media, and the general public have caused more humiliation, shame and disgust onto these girls than Henson ever EVER could.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by d3funct

You would be a terrific judge to sentence before a trial... never the less, you should play golf more, as you got a Hole-In-One as to what I said...

I'm done with the topic... there are too many people on here with a finger on the trigger, I can see it a mile away already that this wont go to court... they havent got any evidence.
There was no pornographic intent.

Furthermore, when these young ladies grow up, I hope you bow your head in shame. These ladies, if they identify themselves when they grow up, will only ever be looked upon as 'those Henson girls'... the media, and the general public have caused more humiliation, shame and disgust onto these girls than Henson ever EVER could.

---

Sorry mate - don't agree - ENDAT

Garry

On a slightly lighter, but vaguely relevant note.

In a movie, ("A Year of Living Dangerously", I think) , a photographer was worried about whether his photos of a nude female would be seen as art or porn.
The journalist (Mel Gibson, I think) said, "If they're in focus, they're porn; if not, they're art."

If only things were really that simple in the real world.:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by d3funct

I dont know what images you've seen, but the ones I seen blurred through the media... well... you'd be scraping the barrel to come up with something sexual.

Look beyond the nakedness, and LOOK at the nakedness in context of the entire image.
The darkness and vunerability, the loneliness and sadness... then look at the nakedness...

You will then realise its a part of the picture, a part of the feelings the picture wants you to feel.

Remember also, whilst it was in a public gallery, how many of you knew about it? They would have expected no more than 200 art critiques to come through those doors, people with a sense of being that goes beyond shallowness.

The media has exposed his work to every Tom Dick and Harry... no wonder there has been an outcry.

---

Ok I have done this and came to this conclusion

The image is of 12yr old girl being photographed in the nude by a person who's age would be equialent of the girls grandfather, for no other reason apart from the fact "the artist" considered her photogenic.

If the victim, sorry subject were 18 yrs or older. I would not have a problem.


Perhaps driving a County has worn away the metrosexual inside.


If it were your daughter, would you honestly let it happen?

As all of tyou with arts degrees know, and all of you studying arts will find out. In the real world arts are worth nothing and I cannot see this assisting her in a future carreer so why did her parents let any of this happen?

Quote:

---

ah no Steve, the other fact is that not all consider it the same way as you do.

As I've already said, there is nothing in the 2 pages of google pics that I saw that I would have thought twice about.

---

Yes, and that would be the minority.

Quote:

---

the media, and the general public have caused more humiliation, shame and disgust onto these girls than Henson ever EVER could.

---

What rubbish, considering the current environment where the whole issue with kiddie porn, peds etc is a major concern to parents, that the thought never crossed Henson's mind that in the general publics minds eye that what he has done wouldnt cause all of this?? C'mon, give me a break. Take this forum, if someone posted up what they thought were "tasteful" nude pics of their daughter....how long do you think it would take for something from this small community to spread? It would end up on other forums, next we would see it on the news. This is a case of defending the indefensible and considering that common law is based on what the average persons thinks, believes etc, from this thread and any other post I have read, the average person, forgetting on how this pictures maybe interpretted, see's it as wrong. Only a very small, I would say miniscule minority are voicing a defence,

Regards

Stevo