Fun Stuff > CHATTER
Child Pornography or Art? Is there a line, if so where?
KharBevNor:
Art is dervied from the word 'artifice' and refers to any object (or 'artifact'), or process designed and manufactured by a person.
Thank you for playing.
Jimmy the Squid:
Bill Henson is actually one of my favourite artists and he has done this kind of stuff before but never before has it received this kind of publicity. Hell my high school art textbooks have some of his works that feature naked prepubescent boys and girls pretty heavily and there is nothing sexual about them and, having seen the artworks that are causing all the hub-ub, I do not feel that any kind of sexualisation was the artist's intent. That said, the artist's intent is, by and large, immaterial even from a critical analysis point of view.
What we have here is photo's of naked, underage girls. They may not be pornographic and, I think, it's fairly safe to say that they probably aren't. They may not be art (or at least "High Art"), but I'm pretty certain that they are. Unfortunately, when child molestation charges are popping up all over the media with more frequency, the paranoia that a paedophile is going to snatch your child off the streets if you take your eyes off of them for even a moment has been increasing and people are getting more and more jumpy at the first sign of anything remotely contraversial and Henson's latest work is maybe the third or fourth sign to overly concerned members of society.
I like Henson's work, rather a lot to be honest but I do think that he's crossed a line here. Not a line of what's pornography or what's art, or a line of what's indecent and what's not, merely a line between what's wise and what's not. I don't think that, in the current climate of jumping at shadows, the photos were a great decision on his part.
Then of course there is the age of consent/exploitation thing which is another can of worms that I am not going to open, it's been covered already.
Elizzybeth:
--- Quote from: KharBevNor on 24 May 2008, 17:16 ---Art is dervied from the word 'artifice'
--- End quote ---
Er, no.
--- Quote from: Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. "art" ---a. OF. art:L. artem, prob. f. ar- to fit. The OF. nom. sing. ars:L. ars, and pl. ars:L. artes, were also in early Eng. use, but without distinction of case.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: Oxford English Dicitonary, s.v. "artifice" ---a. F. artifice, ad. L. artificium, f. as prec. [L., f. arti- art] + -ficium making
--- End quote ---
Thus, more accurately, "artifice" is derived from the word "art." And art in the sense that we've been talking about it is "the application of skill to subjects of taste" (O.E.D.). The question then becomes whether photography requires true skill and whether the subject is one of taste, which is certainly subjective.
ForteBass:
--- Quote from: n0t_r0bert_b0yle!! on 24 May 2008, 03:41 ---Not even someone like Keither or the most potent troll could convince anyone to see any of those photos as even being mildly erotic.
--- End quote ---
1) People can convince themselves of anything. They've been doing it forever. Why do you think watchdog groups exist? Because they are convinced they see and hear things that are perverse, even if no one else does.
2) His name was Kieffer
Slick:
--- Quote from: Jimmy the Squid on 24 May 2008, 17:28 ---I like Henson's work, rather a lot to be honest but I do think that he's crossed a line here. Not a line of what's pornography or what's art, or a line of what's indecent and what's not, merely a line between what's wise and what's not. I don't think that, in the current climate of jumping at shadows, the photos were a great decision on his part.
--- End quote ---
Perhaps that means he should have done it. To repeat words already present in the thread, nudity taboos are kind of weird and are taken too strongly. I haven't seen the works and can't comment further.
As for the better off dead comment, whoa. I disagree. Yup. Disagree. Things can change, help can be had. I'm not saying that it's trivial, but I am saying I've known someone, really well, who was abused, and I was surprised to hear it and see how well they've lived their life in spite of it.
On a side, as a photographer, I take offense at the notion that photography isn't art. I know no one has said that photography isn't art, but I just want to state that photography is art. Digital SLRs are very commonplace these days, but that does not detract from photography anymore than fan art detracts from paintings. I don't see how they're any less artistic than paintings of things. Dull content poorly framed and arranged ruins any art picture, whatever medium. Unless that's what you're going for or something.
I know this was given with the caveat that art is obviously subjective, but I feel the need to respond to comments implied or elsewise.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version