Print

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

[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]

Art is dervied from the word 'artifice'

Er, no.

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.

a. F. artifice, ad. L. artificium, f. as prec. [L., f. arti- art] + -ficium making

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]

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

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]

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.

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.

[Jimmy the Squid]

As far as my "Not a great decision" comment goes, I simply mean that I am not that surprised about certain members of the public's reaction to the exhibition.

However I was surprised by the headline "Victory for decency as Child Porn exhibit is shut down." Then I saw it was in the Telegraph and I merely smiled.

[IronOxide]

The question here is how do you draw the line between nude photography and child pornography? At what point does any photography turn into porn? The fact of  the matter is that nobody can draw a solid line. Perhaps when dealing with a matter that can be so potentially damaging, we shouldn't leave it up to chance. Would it be better to have a blanket ban on nude photos of children, or to leave it to the possibly widely differentiating opinions of different judges to decide what is pornography and what are tasteful nudes?

It would be great if there were an indicator that could distinguish pornography from nudes, but as long as some people have different opinions on what is pornography, it may actually be more legally responsible to not leave the definition up to individual prosecutors and judges that would perhaps leave real child exploitation alone and arrest an artist who has done nothing wrong.

[KharBevNor]

Thus, more accurately, "artifice" is derived from the word "art."

Ars facere. It's latin. Neither is really derived from the other but there's such a thing as being pithy. Ars means 'Method or technique', facere is the infinitive form of facio, meaning to do, to make, to cause or to bring about. So an art is a method or technique, 'state of the art'. The OED lists 16 definitions for the word art, including "Skill in doing anything as a result of knowledge and practice" and "Human skill as an agent, human workmanship, opposed to nature", to pick one definition purely to support your own viewpoint is rather circumventing the issue. Besides which, you are wrong. Photography is art. A childs drawing is art. A novelty coffee mug is art. Only someone who has been living under a rock as with regards everything that has happened in the field of art over the last century could possibly think otherwise.

[Tom]

Therefore, being able to keep a good poker face is an artform but not "art" in the oils, wax, synthetic and canvas way.

[RedLion]

He wants people to be dead!

No, I wasn't actually insinuating that people who have been raped/molested should die, or that their lives or meaningless. You're right tommy, I didn't say it right at all. What I was trying to say is that that person will never lead a "normal" life (i.e., one not influenced by the consuming pain of that experience,) particularly if it happens as a young child. Sometimes, it's as if the perpetrator did kill the victim--but only in spirit, in mind, leaving the body alive. What chance do they have? That's an existence that, in some ways, is no better than death.

I hope that clarifies somewhat.

[gardenhead_]

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.

This is ridiculous. Should we ban fast food because some people eat too much and get fat? Should we ban cars because some people might crash? Why should a few socially dysfunctional people ruin it for the rest of society?

[axerton]

You do realise you've just compared people getting fat to children being raped, don't you?
I repeat, if images of child nudity were banned from public display what would we, as a society, lose? A few pieces of art, and some artist have to do a bit more thinking than "Child nudity = controversy. Controversy = money. therefore child nudity = money." and even if the artist isn't just aiming for the controversy dollar, if all he or she can come up with in terms of art is a few pictures of naked children, then maybe they should reconsider their career choice.   

[Spluff]

You do realise you've just compared people getting fat to children being raped, don't you?

The comparison was valid. You're just looking to attack his argument and dramatize it all - he did not, at any point, say that 'being fat is equivalent to being raped!'.

I repeat, if images of child nudity were banned from public display what would we, as a society, lose?

Freedom of expression? The knowledge that you've got a right to express yourself in the way you see fit without getting sued? Australia has already taken away a HUGE amount of our rights (workplace rights & freedom of speech, just to name a few) and I'm going to fight for whatever rights we still have.

[gardenhead_]

You do realise you've just compared people getting fat to children being raped, don't you?
I repeat, if images of child nudity were banned from public display what would we, as a society, lose? A few pieces of art, and some artist have to do a bit more thinking than "Child nudity = controversy. Controversy = money. therefore child nudity = money." and even if the artist isn't just aiming for the controversy dollar, if all he or she can come up with in terms of art is a few pictures of naked children, then maybe they should reconsider their career choice.   

art is subjective. just because you think this isn't art doesn't mean other people don't. and if other people find some form of beauty or meaning in it that isn't sexual or perverted or deviant, who are you/the lawmakers to take that away from them because you can't comprehend that?

I'm with Spluff on defending our rights in Australia too; the government is trying to censor the fucking internet.

[pwhodges]

what would we, as a society, lose?

Our freedom, one step at a time.  It's happened before, and it will probably happen again as we show only a moderate tendency to learn from the past.

Paul

[axerton]

art is subjective. just because you think this isn't art doesn't mean other people don't. and if other people find some form of beauty or meaning in it that isn't sexual or perverted or deviant, who are you/the lawmakers to take that away from them because you can't comprehend that?

I did not at any stage say that I didn't think it was art, I was merely saying that I believe that this one tiny area that art should avoid


I just don't understand why everyone is so willing to throw away their liberties to protect against 'terrorism' and yet seemingly everyone is willing to fight tooth and nail to protect  a few photos and painting.

I'm sorry I don't mean to come across as over-the-top-internet-argument-guy, but it's kind of hard to come up with a dispassionate well thought out argument when this whole subject makes me remember something that causes my eyes to mist over with fury.

[Jimmy the Squid]

Um, I know anecdotal evidence is totally frowned upon in informal conversations but I don't know anyone who is in favour of the ridiculous anti-terrorism laws. Seriously, no one.

[MadassAlex]

I think what some people need to realise (from earlier in the thread) is that people move on from most bad experiences! I almost drowned when I was 10 years old, but I've never really feared water much, even after that. But some people might. That's the nature of being human.

Basically, some people are way out of line* by using absolute views of human behaviour to prove their point of view. Who are you to say that no-one can recover from [event]? Give them some credit and realise that the molestation of a person does not ruin them. It may or may not alter their perceptions, but even if it does it just means that they experience things a somewhat differently from you. Who are you to imply that victims of sexual, physical and mental abuse have a less valid perceptual set than others?

* Have whatever viewpoint you want, but it's extremely arrogant and selfish to use behaviour observed in some victims of abuse as evidence that all of them are something less than you or me. Yes, I know none of you actually said that. I doubt even those who made the posts were aware of that implication and didn't have it in mind, and yet it remains.

I'm absolutely baffled how some individuals try to argue for the sake of abuse victims while at the same time belittling the hell out of them.

I just don't understand why everyone is so willing to throw away their liberties to protect against 'terrorism' and yet seemingly everyone is willing to fight tooth and nail to protect  a few photos and painting.

Giving away liberties for the sake of security is understandable to some extent.

However, the liberties of art are all-important to a society that claims to be free and democratic. If you're allowed to censor art, what good is it to us? The use of art has been, for quite a while, to confront people and explore new ideas. If you removed that capacity from it, in any shape or form, you remove not only the potential for expression in that medium but one of the baser values that our society holds so dear.

Plus, banning these pics in particular is just goddamned over-prudent. Ignore the fact that children have genitals and they will go away! I cannot begin to explain how censoring these images really just reeks of denial and fear without protecting anyone and just harming rights.

[est]

I am more worried about Axerton's absolutely horrible statement.  It's not his call to judge whether someone's better of dead or not.  With time and the right support & help people can get through some pretty tough things.  People can never get through being dead.

[est]

As for the artworks, they're art.  There's nothing sexual about them.  What's the fucking deal?

[pilsner]

Every day on these forums, Est sticks his thumb up the of-age consenting arsehole of truth. 

[Eris]

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.

A lot of photography that is readily available and taken by your average person is generally nothing special (or interesting, really) for the viewer. One could look at it and say "hell, I could do that." But there is also some photography out that incites an emotion from the viewer.  To do that takes a lot of skill, even just to know what will look good in a photograph. They also have to take into consideration the framing of the shot, the lighting (be it natural or set up) and what it is about the shot that they want to capture. Sure, I could do that with my little old camera, but if I did, it would be a massive fluke.

There is a certain amount of skill involved in any form of artwork, be it drawing, or painting, or sculpture or photography or any of it. Just because these photos have naked kids in it doesn't mean there was any less skill involved in taking them, so it doesn't make it any less a piece of art. The photographer has just as much right to display them than if the kids were clothed, because it still has a huge amount of effort put into it. The photos were not just candid shots of naked kids, and he didn't have them naked for the sake of it, so there shouldn't be an issue.

[ForteBass]

I wouldn't exactly claim it's preposterous. He didn't make a blanket statement speaking for everyone. He said that this is the case for him personally. So it is not so much preposterous as it is a difference of opinion.

Pro-tip: Making generalized and/or absolute statements doesn't work for either side of the discussion

[Elizzybeth]

Ars facere. It's latin. Neither is really derived from the other but there's such a thing as being pithy. Ars means 'Method or technique', facere is the infinitive form of facio, meaning to do, to make, to cause or to bring about. So an art is a method or technique, 'state of the art'.

Agreed--this is what the etymologies I quoted said, in essence.  And I can appreciate pithiness; it just bothers me when people trade bullshit etymologies to support otherwise ill-supported arguments.  You obviously know more Latin than that, so I apologize.

The OED lists 16 definitions for the word art, including "Skill in doing anything as a result of knowledge and practice" and "Human skill as an agent, human workmanship, opposed to nature", to pick one definition purely to support your own viewpoint is rather circumventing the issue.

I honestly felt the others weren't specifically applicable here.  "Skill in doing anything," for instance, clearly is describing art in the sense that any profession is an art, e.g. the art of practicing law, Bachelor of the Arts, etc. "Human skill [...] opposed to nature" is more along the lines of what you were claiming, but I again felt it was too broad an application of the term, which was ultimately my greatest problem with your post.

Besides which, you are wrong. Photography is art. A childs drawing is art. A novelty coffee mug is art. Only someone who has been living under a rock as with regards everything that has happened in the field of art over the last century could possibly think otherwise.

Wrong about what?  I simply raised a question.  I agree that photography's art.  I would agree that children's drawings are art.  I would agree that the design of a novelty coffee mug is art; I disagree that each mug is art, simply because they're mass-produced by machine.

Essentially, I'm sorry if I came off as pedantic and ignorant (what a combination!).  I agree with you more than not.

[RedLion]

Giving away liberties for the sake of security is understandable to some extent.

Nah. The phrase has been overused, but Ben Franklin's statement that "those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security" is still dead on, nearly 250 years later. Look at present-day Russia--most of the population there has just accepted that it's better to have a strongman who crushes all freedom of speech, expression and even belief (Putin, now Medvedev) than a freely elected one who leads the country to chaos (Yeltsin.) It's too bad that Russia's only actually vaguely democratic leader was a drunkard and somewhat incompetent.

Anyway, even after all the strong-arming by the siloviki, the FSB, the oligarchs and Putin's goons, Russia is more threatened than ever. Ukraine and George are gradually moving closer to the West, the Baltic states have long since already forced their way out of Russia's sphere of influence, and even though Chechnya has calmed down a lot, Russia's fraying southern Caucasus border, particularly the provinces of Ingushetia and Dagestan, is still a powderkeg waiting to explode.

[Ozymandias]

Russia is, historically, not a good example of anyone doing anything well ever.

[KharBevNor]

I would agree that the design of a novelty coffee mug is art; I disagree that each mug is art, simply because they're mass-produced by machine.

Now, this would actually be an interesting thing to have a discusssion about.

Personally, I would regard both the design and the process of manufacture to be art, and thus the product. The clincher is when you consider printmaking. Outside of monoprinting, printing is really just a form of manufacture exactly the same as the production of the mug. It's not 'fine' art of course; when you take a readymade and put it in a gallery, the reason it becomes fine art is because of the artists conscious choice of object and method of display.

Sorry if I came off as rude! My sleeping disorders been acting up lately and I sold all my Zopiclone to raise some scratch.

[ViolentDove]

Apparently where Bill Henson went wrong was not putting his models inside a novelty-sized pumpkin.

Seriously though, why are nude pictures of babies alright, but Bill Henson's work isn't? Babies have even less ability to consent to being photographed inside a giant tulip, and I'm sure there must be someone out there with a baby fetish.

The only good that could come out of this is the possible banning of Anne Geddes in Australia. That would make me pretty happy!

[MadassAlex]

Nah. The phrase has been overused, but Ben Franklin's statement that "those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security" is still dead on, nearly 250 years later.

I have to disagree with it entirely. Did you know that you can't fly? That is because gravity anchors you to the ground, and thus protects you from its own ill effects, as long as you do not attempt to fly. Or, more applicably, the physical restrictions we have are tools of making sense of our world. Musically, scales restrict your choice of notes to make harmony more, well, harmonious.

As human beings, we're very much defined by the restrictions we place on ourselves. That quote, while applicable perhaps for the times, is small-time in a society with so much cultural diversity and thus a diversity of personal restrictions, all different. According to that quote, no-one deserves liberty or security because we all abandon different liberties according to our cultural and personal values. Your quote is very obviously a war quote, because that is its main application rather than being a practical statement.

That said, I don't agree with many of the anti-terrorism laws at all.

EDIT: My above post concerning the mental state of abused children wasn't having a go at RedLion so much as it was having a go at that line of argument as a whole. I see it a lot.

[axerton]

I am more worried about Axerton's absolutely horrible statement.  It's not his call to judge whether someone's better of dead or not.  With time and the right support & help people can get through some pretty tough things.  People can never get through being dead.

I think I may have worded this what I said wrong. I will explain, now that I have a bit of a cooler head: while sometimes she was the greatest most lively and happy person I knew, there were other times when this completely reversed, and it was this change that would make me - in my darker moments - wonder if she wouldn't be better off dead. Hell there were at least one occasion where she decided that death would be preferable.

She did get professional help by the way, it made her worse.

I wont be coming back to this thread anymore, it brings up to much shit that I would prefer forgotten.

[est]

That hasn't changed my reply one iota, but I won't derail the thread any further.

[Luke C]

Ah the old pornography and art deabte.

Read this:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/
Specifically the points about pornography.

99% of the time there is a clear difference between child porn and pictures/paintings of naked children. It is quite blatant to anyone who is not simply being pedantic about it.

As has been mentioned earlier the case in the UK with the woman who had pictures of her children in the bath was just ridiculous.

A bit similar to this ^

Is a painting of a child neccesasrily porn? No, there are naked children on the ceiling in the sistine chapel! There is a line somewhere and I'm not the one to draw it but I would say a lot of the arguement on both sides of this debate is pointless or misses the point altogether.

[Emaline]

Is this child porn? It's Edvard Munch's Puberty. The girl in the painting(who posed, I believe) is no more than 13. What makes it porn/not porn?

[HellStorm]

Its art, because there is no sexual content

[pi]

I think we might have covered this in parts or in reference, but I would like to consolidate:

I would say that child nudes are OK, and child pornography is not. The difference here is a presence of expressed sexual acts. (if the girl has a finger in her fun hole: bad, if there's a naked man sporting an erection next to her: also bad) I have some more specific guidelines here, but that is not the point.

The reasoning for this is that children are not harmed by merely having their picture taken (though their consent should be mandatory, with the exception of the case where one of the parents is the photographer), but they are harmed by forced sexual acts that they do not understand.

Digitally manipulated images may depict anything they like as they do not directly harm anyone, though they should generally be frowned upon. Measures to ensure that the photographs were truly digitally manipulated, and are not real, should be taken. One possibility is mandating the source materials for any such media be publicly available.

[gardenhead_]

I was talking to my friend about this yesterday, and she said similar thing - that Bill Henson's work was wrong because the subject of the photograph (the child) would be damaged by that and that she couldn't properly understand the implications of what she was agreeing to. But I can't help but feel that it's a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy - society complains that the child is now damaged irreversibly for reasons x, y and z and starts to treat her differently, child hears this and believes that she is now damaged.

[jhocking]

we show only a moderate tendency to learn from the past.

I like this line.

The photographer has just as much right to display them than if the kids were clothed, because it still has a huge amount of effort put into it.

I'm of the "art shouldn't be censored" camp (in case this wouldn't be obvious from my job,) but I've seen a couple people state this point and I want to respond in a devil's-advocate sort of way. The amount of effort an endeavor takes is not relevant to its moral standing. There are a great many things that would take a lot of effort but which you do not have a right to do/display.

[David_Dovey]

The Holocaust was hard fuckin' work.

[KharBevNor]

Aaaaaand we've Godwin'd a fucking thread about CHILD PORN.

Can we get a lock now?

[jhocking]

Don't know why you take that tone of exaggerated ridiculousness, child porn is a much more serious issue than most of the time when I see a conversation Godwin'd. Still over the top though.

Why do we need a lock exactly? Because not everyone is fawningly agreeing with your dismissive comments on what constitutes art?

[tommydski]

[jhocking]

This page is now the Postcount Club.

johnny c, where are you

[pi]

I'm on this page

[Eris]

The amount of effort an endeavor takes is not relevant to its moral standing. There are a great many things that would take a lot of effort but which you do not have a right to do/display.

That is true, and there is also some thing on display as "art" that some would say didn't take much effort to create.

I read an article about a woman who was a model for one of Henson's earlier exhibits. She stated that he went up to her mother (a gallery owner) and asked if her daughter would model for his exhibition. They were both actively involved in the decision-making process as to what the daughter would or would not do, and they were encouraged to explore what was involved in setting up the photos and all that. This doesn't sound like he is exploiting children who don't know any better, they were well informed as to what was going on.


(Oh hey look guys, I'm continuing with the fucking discussion and not being a cockspank! How about we try it for a bit longer?)

[öde]

Is more attention on pedophilia a good thing?

Yes and no. People need to be able to talk about any and all issues with themselves in society. By hiding things away we make many people more comfortable (ignorance is bliss, etc) but the people affected by the issue are so much more worse off because they feel they can't talk to anyone about it. By achknowledging and encouraging openess and discussion about the issue we can not only help the victim, we can start helping the people that are inclined to commit the act.

On the other hand tabloids like the Sun encourage everyone to join their nearest mob to go and beat the shit out of anyone they find suspicious. Surprisingly, enraged mobs don't tend to help.

Noone will hunt you down. Chances are, noone would recognize you on the street.

[KharBevNor]

Why do we need a lock exactly? Because not everyone is fawningly agreeing with your dismissive comments on what constitutes art?

What's eating you? Did I shit in your cornflakes this morning? I think I didn't but I was drinking a bit last night.

My point was not that the thread was trivial, it was that the thread was already about SERIOUS BUSINESS and then someone thought that it would be a good idea to bring the holocaust in, which is kind of like starting a debate about Darfur at your grandmothers funeral. Also, I may not have been being 100% serious, it's something I do sometimes.

[tragic_pizza]

I find it curious that, aside from the family-history kinds of uses already mentioned, photographs of nude children would be necessary at all.

Beyond "art or not art:" why?

[tania]

why not? 99% of what people do isn't necessary but the whole point is that they have the freedom to be able to do it regardless. photographs of naked children obviously stirs up some controversy because it starts to involve other parties and you have to deal with the question of whether or not it harms others, but asking "why" is a pretty cheap way to try to prove something unless you can come up with a compelling argument for "why not".

[tragic_pizza]

I'm not actually trying to prove anything. It's a serious question.

[pi]

I am going to go ahead and ignore my “Danger, Will Robinson!” flags and put this hypothetical out there.

What exactly is wrong with pedophilia?

In terms of physical harm, it is quite possible for pedophilia to exist without inflicting any on either participating party. And in terms of psychological harm, from wikipedia: "The acts themselves harm no one, the emotional and psychological harm comes from the 'after the fact' interference, counseling, therapy, etc., that attempt to artificially create a 'victim' and a 'perpetrator' where neither exists." - David Riegel, pedophile activist [resisted urge for synonyms]

Isn't it possible that in a society less sexually conservative, men, women, and children could make love together, free of today's psychological fanaticism?