Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tom]

Bill Henson, a renowned Australian artist has recently had his latest exhibition censored under art obscenity charges. Rudd reacts with finely judged outrage.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/henson-finds-support-over-photos/2008/05/23/1211183097197.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/henson-a-whipping-boy/2008/05/23/1211183060448.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23749123-16947,00.html

In addition to that, there are also links related to the story within the actual article itself.

Basically, this raises a fair number of questions, like the thread title as well as issues generally relating to censorship.

How far can censorship go with out being totalitarian?

Can you suggest an alternative course of action?

What are you views on the matter.

[Lunchbox]

Whoa no, dangerous territory man.




Instead, this thread is about Twiggy the water skiing squirrel.

[Tom]

pathetic

[KvP]

Damn that squirrel can ski can't it.

[Peet]

Is this use of the squirrel art, or exploitation?

[tania]

guys you can't freak out every time someone tries to start a mildly controversial topic and then bitch and whine when inevitably all we have left are stupid list threads. what do you want?

[Tom]

Water skiing squirrels of course

[Cartilage Head]

 I don't know I mean I'm pretty sure children shouldn't be naked that much.

[Ozymandias]

Agreed with Tania. I think I'd rather have heated debates than pointless bullshit on these here forums as long as people stay civilized.

Stay civilized, you assholes.

OTOH, I do think we had a pretty good discussion on the nature of art censorship and how far art is allowed to go not too long ago. It's impossible to judge. The government was elected to make that sort of decision and the did. It's up to the people to decide if they approve of the government making the decision they did and, to be honest, I doubt most people care enough to say "it was intended as art and should not be censored." The apathy of the populace is more powerful than any government and the populace doesn't care about art in general, whether or not this is acceptable in the first place.

[tania]

i don't have a lot to add to this topic right now but maybe i'll mull over it a bit and come back tomorrow. i do find it an interesting one.

pretty much the first thing that came to mind when reading this article was whether or not those kids were able to consent to being a part of this guy's exhibition in the first place. it's a lot like the age of consent, i mean by law in australia a 12 year old can't consent to sex because they're supposed to not understand what sex is so subsequently do they fully understand the repercussions of having naked photos taken of them? whether or not their parents give permission seems irrelevant to me because they aren't the ones who are having naked photos displayed of them. it's not the fact that pictures of naked children are being dispalyed that concerns me but more the fact that they involve real human models who maybe don't understand what they're doing.

[MadassAlex]

I feel that exploiting children is wrong, but I don't think child pornography is necessarily wrong, because it can be created artificially.

This has the potential to become heated really badly so let me put this in really really simple terms to make sure no-one misunderstands me:

- Photographs of naked children = exploitation in a pornographic context

- Drawn or otherwise fabricated images of naked children = A-OK, because no children are harmed or expoited

If you want to debate the logistics and practicalities of this, fine, but I'm not going to touch anyone else's opinions on a moral basis and in return I would appreciate it if no-one tried to shove their personal moral code down my throat.

[Ozymandias]

I was considering that myself. I mean, one aspect of censorship is "is the picture depicting a crime?" Take the following:

Case A:

A photograph of a man having sex with a naked 11 year old girl.

That's clearly a crime in progress. It's generally accepted that it should not exist because the act itself is illegal.

Case B:

A picture of a naked 11 year old girl with a man photoshopped in to be having sex with her.

The picture itself is depicting a criminal act, but no criminal act ever took place. The man is not having sex with the girl and last time I checked being a naked 11 year girl was not criminal. Under common decency, though, it is accepted as child pornography because even though the nothing illegal happened in reality, the photo, I guess, creates its own reality where it did happen and because of:

Case C:

A picture of a naked 11 year old girl.

Which is where we are here. Again, there is no crime here being committed in reality, but the idea behind censorship here is the intent of the viewer. You cannot guarantee that the viewer simply sees an 11 year old girl who happens to be naked. The viewer could commit a crime in thought, in the reality of his own mind, where he is having sex with her. Is this the level of censorship we're comfortable with? Thought crimes?

Furthermore, why is sexulaity and nudity so heavily censored in the first place? You can create an equal scenario for each case related to violence and, in fact, at most Case A (picture of reality) will be censored, if that.

[BrittanyMarie]

Well, yes in other cases the news media pretty much barrage us with the after-effects of the crime, bloody floors and whatnot.

I'm not entirely sure yet where I stand on this issue, but I just wanted to point out that the majority of the photos were from the waist up, which changes this particular case quite a bit in my eyes.

[michaelicious]

Are the adolescents in the pictures put in a sexual context, or are they simply nude photos?

Nudity in photography and nude photography aren't the same thing.

Link is NSFW.

Edit: After thinking about it a bit more, I definitely agree with ephemere's concern about whether or not these young people are able to understand being a part of Henson's exhibition. Even though nude photography is not meant to be sexual it is pretty difficult for it to not carry some sort of sexual connotation and it doesn't really seem likely that too many young people would fully understand the implications of that.

[Tom]

I'm not entirely sure yet where I stand on this issue, but I just wanted to point out that the majority of the photos were from the waist up, which changes this particular case quite a bit in my eyes.

In fact, only one image partially showed a prepubescent vagina without any major emphasis on the fact that there is vagina present.

[Ozymandias]

Prepubescent vagina.

[michaelicious]

Stay civilized.

[tania]

man even little kids have genitals and the fact that we have such a hard time coming to terms with prepubescent vaginas and ding dongs without getting all freaked out and concerned that we secretly want to have sex with children really says something kind of depressing about us as a society cos being naked is pretty dang natural.

[Ozymandias]

That's pretty much something I can agree with to a large, large extent.

What's uncivilized about prepubescent vagina? Why does that phrase even have horrific connotations? They exist. They are existing right now. All around you.

[michaelicious]

I was more referring to the 40pt font. I misinterpreted your post as you doing the thing that ephemere just pointed out about people.

[RedLion]

I think all the hubbub about people being naked being bad is actually harmful to the psyche of an individuals, and society's views on the human body and on sex in general need to be worked over. But anything that could be construed as child pornography, I just draw a line there. To me, the rape, molestation or sexual exploitation of a child is the worst crime possible, moreso than murder, because that kid has been irrevocably damaged by it. Sex is, really, one of the best things in life. But what chance do they honestly have of a fulfilling love/sexual experience?

As far as the actual exhibit goes, I don't know. I still find nude photography of a child to be bordering on exploitative, depending on the age (anything 14 and below, in my view,) but no actual crime is being committed there. To me, it depends on if the subject fully grasps and understands what they're doing, and I find it hard to believe that someone younger than 15 can really do so.

[Pengraffe]

In the U.S. (and in Britain, I believe) even a photoshopped picture of children in a sexual context is illegal. The creation and distribution thereof is treated in the much the same manner that actually molesting a child is. Quality is not a factor (say, whether or not you can tell it was photoshopped.) I don't mind if you want to debate the merits of this particular case or art vs. porn, but if anyone so much as links to any questionable (in the eyes of the law) material, this thread will be removed. I should also add that posting nude pictures, art or otherwise, is prohibited on the forums.

[Bearer]

Hurr Hurr, Questionable Content

But seriously, this is actually a big issue.  Child exploitation is using a child/minor for someone elses personal gain.  The man is making money (I would assume) off of photographs of naked children.  Nude art or otherwise, it just seems a little off.  I suppose as long as the children in question have consented to being photographed then there's no problem, but who says that someone that young should legally have that kind of say?  Shouldn't it be up to the parents?

[Boro_Bandito]

See, maybe I just have a problem with the fact that in our world naked seems to automatically equal sexual. We're born naked people. Like Tania said, being naked is just being neutral, not to mention just a natural state of being.

[Verergoca]

Quality is not a factor (say, whether or not you can tell it was photoshopped.)

Hmmm... This makes me wonder, would this mean that 2 crudely drawn stick figures, with a arrow "ZOMG UNDERAGE GURL!" pointing to one, then count as illegal?

[pwhodges]

I tend to feel that censorship of this sort tells us more about the minds of the censors than anything else.  Some years ago there was a case where a parent in the UK was taken to court for taking photos of their child in the bath - an employee at the photo lab had taken exception to them and reported them to the police.  Note that no element of public display was involved here - only the existence of the photos at all.

I have pictures of my children in the bath; playing naked in a paddling pool, wearing swimming trucks on the beach as teens (these could be cropped to be nude-from-the-waist-up pictures).

There is a form of exploitation that is clearly bad; but there is also a form of prudism which is essentially the inverse of that, and also bad in a somewhat different way.

Paul

[a pack of wolves]

Paul's absolutely right. And like Anyways I'm confused about what the repercussions of a naked photograph of you as a child are as well. There's tons of me. Like a lot of small children I'd whip my clothes off all the time, particularly at the beach or somewhere like that. There's nothing sexual or exploitative about those photographs, nudity doesn't have those sexual connotations when you don't know what sex is. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out one of these pictures had been used for a piece of art at some point and the only repercussion I can think of is a slight embarrassment (and honestly I'd just think it was kind of funny). I actually find the idea of censoring an image of a naked child quite creepy, since it suggests that there's something sexual there when there isn't.

[Thaes]

I find this topic rather interesting, mostly because there has been some intense discussion about the thin line between art and child pornography around here. This was mostly because the government used a gatling gun to prohibit entry into suspected child porn sites, when it should´ve been using a sniper rifle.

In any case, in my opinion (and in the opinions of some others, it seems), whether something´s child porn or not depends completely on the nature of the photo. If it merely contains a nude child in it, with nothing sexual or pornographic elements involved, then it most certainly shouldn´t be branded as child pornography. The same goes for any "photoshopped" pictures. Heck, those kind of pics might in fact lower the amount of pedophilic crimes done, since the people with such taste could relieve themselves through self stimulation, instead of having to resort to less acceptable methods.

[ledhendrix]

I agree with a pack of wolves. If taking photos of nude children is really a crime then most parents around the world would have to be locked up. They are bound to show there photo's to there friends, relatives or whatever and I think that it's very unlikely that any of them are going to go and rape a prepubescent child because of it. If the picture depicts something foul happening to the child then it's probably a good idea that it doesn't get widespread. It has to be a sick and twisted mind that thinks of doing these things to children, It's not the photographers fault, or the photo's it's the person that does the damage to the child thats at fault.

 If nudity was more widely accepted in society this sort of thing wouldn't be such a big deal. People would go about there daily lives and it would be considered normal. It's only when these things are deemed unacceptable that they become desirable to some people. Suppressing something will make people want something more as they think if it's suppressed there must be something there worth having.

[clockworkjames]

Damn that squirrel can ski can't it.

I'm more impressed at the squirrel driving the boat.

I personally feel that children should not be photographed naked and the photographs be called art.

[Tom]

Jens is right. You can't state a blanket opinion, you should always have your ideas backed up by a few points.

Suppressing something will make people want something more as they think if it's suppressed there must be something there worth having.

This is also a common argument of marijuana advocates.

[Tom]

Australian artist Bill Henson is a passionate and visionary explorer of twilight zones, of the ambiguous spaces that exist between day and night, nature and civilization, youth and adulthood, male and female. His photographs of landscapes at dusk, of the industrial 'no-man's land' that lies on the outskirts of our cities, and of androgynous girls and boys adrift in the nocturnal turmoil of adolescence are painterly tableaux that continue the tradition of romantic literature and painting in our post-industrial age. Were it not for Henson's primary, almost devotional need to elicit empathy for his troubled human subjects, there's a feeling that nothing would prevent the black in his photographs from completely absorbing his attention and extinguishing his work.
- Dennis Cooper

Not even someone like Keither or the most potent troll could convince anyone to see any of those photos as even being mildly erotic.

[HellStorm]

I was hardly ever fully clothed as a child, I used to run out in my street whilst getting chased by older kids. And I completely believe that there is nothing wrong with this. And the things with kids in the bath, well, there are plenty of them of me and my sister, amd pretty much every person I know, had atleast one picture of them as a small child in the bath.

[axerton]

To me, the rape, molestation or sexual exploitation of a child is the worst crime possible, moreso than murder, because that kid has been irrevocably damaged by it.

I don't get this stance. You have on one hand irrevocably damaged, and on the other, irrevocably dead. I know which I'd prefer!

Have you ever met anyone who was molested as a child, I have and in all honesty she would have been better off dead.

Personally I'm dead against any form of child nudity pictures being on public display, because while most of us look at it and think 'well it's just (bad) art' there are a few people who are turned on by it, and while it starts out as just looking at pictures for some of those few, pictures will not be enough so they'll go out looking for the real thing. and I know this is a slippery slope argument based off a lot of ifs and mights, but if we ban the art what happens some artists have to do a bit more thinking than "Hurrr, controversy, hurrr'. How is this not a fair price to pay if it means the difference between a child being raped or not.

[Cartilage Head]

 Let me ask you this, though.. should we therefore ban the paintings of artists like Rembrandt or Botticelli?

 Could their paintings of ladies drive a man to sexual addiction?

[axerton]

No, because sexual desire of an adult woman is something that can be satisfied legally.

[ackblom12]

Then how about scenes of murder, rape, torture, etc. which are most certainly not illegal to portray?

[ledhendrix]

Thats true but people are still driven to rape.

Edit: Someone beat me to it.

[axerton]

Why do people always look for a perfect solution. We are in an imperfect world; there is never a perfect solution.

ok, with most non sexual violent crimes there are going to be even less people who want to go out and put it into practice in real life.

Also I don't want to be callus but with almost every crime the victim and their family/friends grieve then move on, unless the crime is murder, but then the victim is dead and it doesn't really matter to them. This is not the case with victims of child molestation, I can't explain it, but unless you've met, and truly cared for someone who was abused you don't understand just how much it affects them.

[Lines]

There was an artist, I forget her name, who photographed her own children naked (non-erotic/pornographic) and people wanted to charge her for making child pornography. The photos do have a weird, unseen element to them, but they are by no means pornographic. Also, if any of you know who Balthus is, he's one of my favorite painters, but his main themes dealt with prepubescent/young teen girls that were either partially naked or completely naked and were sometimes positioned in ways that could be seen as erotic. However, the images are not pornographic, though some people are awkward around his art. There is a difference between erotic art and pornography.

[öde]

If we get rid of children then child porn and paedophilia will be impossible.

[Ozymandias]

If we get rid of children then child porn and paedophilia will be impossible.

This is the best idea.

I vote for Children of Men.

[Cartilage Head]

Colosseum.

[RedLion]

To me, the rape, molestation or sexual exploitation of a child is the worst crime possible, moreso than murder, because that kid has been irrevocably damaged by it.

I don't get this stance. You have on one hand irrevocably damaged, and on the other, irrevocably dead. I know which I'd prefer!

There was a massive discussion at this year's Nordic Light festival of photography about the photographs of Jock Sturges (wiki page), also regarding child pornography vs. art - and honestly, I can't really understand why people would feel any of neither his works not Bill Henson's are child pornography at all. They are naked children. Naked! Oh noes! Naked equals fucking! No, it doesn't. We live in an age where political correctness has gone completely bonkers, where publishing anything even remotely controversial spawns huge protests, while at the same time, we are pushing boundaries in terms of sexualized messages through a lot of mediums, but somehow that is accepted. Can anyone tell me exactly what is wrong with publishing non-erotic pictures of naked children?
People bring up the "repercussions" of having a nude photo of you taken and published when you are a child. Can someone tell me exactly what these repercussions are? I have never seen any of these works published with model names, so as far as I can see it is virtually impossible to track down any of the models. Noone gets hurt, right? They will never miss a job opportunity because the employer saw a photograph of them as a naked ten year old either, I would assume. So what exactly is the problem? Am I being terribly ignorant?

Did you read the rest of my post, when I said that equating nudity with somehow being bad is in itself bad, and wounding to a person, and society as a whole?

As far as your response to one line of my post goes: then you have obviously never experienced it (neither have I), nor been close with people who have (I have.) To be honest, until you reach the core of these people, who have been molested, raped or taken advantage of as a child, and you see the irrevocable pain down there, that eats at them and paralyzes them day in and day out, that affects every facet of their life and interaction with other people... you don't really know what you're talking about in this situation. Believe it or not, I don't like being dramatic, and I tend to actually under-emphasize things. But this is the one case where a person would be better off dead. 

[muffy]

Red Lion: I agree with pretty much everything you've said in your posts - and I'm aware that the subject is getting onto tense ground here, but the last part of your post I disagree with. The trauma of something like that is immense, and it does permeate pretty much every waking thought and action, and it's quite probably the single most evil thing that can be done to another person. But, and I know you quantified it, I still don't think that a person who's suffered that would be better off dead - no matter how damaged the person is, their life is still valid, no matter what they've been through. While I still agree that the crime of child rape and molestation is worse than that of murder (speaking in a very general sense here), I quail at the idea that death is the better option. I'm slightly worried in case I've taken your point too far out of context and got caught up in semantics by relating it to experience, but I read the phrase 'better off dead' further up the thread from axerton in an earlier response, and while I can see where it's coming from, I will defend it.

Edit: Tommydski just said this in one sentence. Damn.

[johnny5]

hopefully he has a pretty good explanation because it looks pretty clear-cut to me.

[tania]

he isn't (i think) trying to say that sexual molestation itself is worse than murder, but rather the long term emotional and physical trauma often associated with it. not to belittle sexual abuse in any way, but some victims for whatever reason are able to cope and move on and others end up so scarred that it could be argued death would not be much worse since they have absolutely no chance at having any semblance of a normal life ever again. there's probably other things that could be just as haunting but nothing at the moment really comes to mind.

[pwhodges]

I can't give any explanations based on knowledge; but I do know some parents who are very worried about Internet access to pictures of their children, because "paedophiles might use them".  I can see that if the pictures were Photoshopped in a nasty way while remaining identifiable, and then became notorious, it could be highly embarrassing; but what, actually, are the chances of this happening for any particular individual?  One parent also worries about some paedophile identifying their child from a photo and targetting the child for grooming simply because of it.

On the other hand, it is easy to make the pictures accessible only  through a password or a hidden URL, which, say, gives the privacy that a letter has as opposed to a postcard, so perhaps we should simply get in the habit of doing this as simple good practice.

But this has strayed a bit from art...

Paul

[Tom]

More pieces to the puzzle, the gallery that was exhibiting Henson's work has just come under fire:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/gallery-under-angry-siege/2008/05/24/1211183177189.html

Another artist defending Henson:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/obscenity-trial-artist-backs-works/2008/05/24/1211183197069.html

I'm starting to wonder if there is an age limit at which people care because, John Elder says in the 2nd article that:

About 15 years ago Henson produced a series of teenage nudes sprawled across car bonnets, in a manner akin to a nightmarish car wreck. Some of those nudes are on show at the Newcastle Region Art Gallery and have barely raised an eyebrow, let alone spawned a scandal.

The original interview with PM Rudd on 2UE, a conservative AM talk-back radio station, in which he condemns Henson's work.
http://media.smh.com.au/?rid=38118

It should be noted that the people arresting and policing the issuse are NSW's police force. Could they be trying save face after the various child-porn issues with a number of high-profile legal people and politicians like Milton Orkopoulos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Orkopoulos)?

[clockworkjames]

Why not?

Because I personally feel that pictures of naked children is not art, just like I don't think alot of other photography people call art is "art".

I used to paint and draw a fair bit, and the whole medium of photography didn't always seem like art alot of the time, neither did alot of my scribbles but then I guess what is one persons art is anothers rubbish.

A kid draws a picture, is it art? Some people would say no but some people would say yes so on a personal level art is - for lack of a better word - relative.