Hensen is no more guilty than Michelangelo for his innocent artistic portraying of nude forms. I don't think he should be a target of abuse.

If the exhibition had not become a media story then it would have been attended by artistic people who go to galleries and that would be that. Nude forms, of both genders and all ages, have been the subject of painting and photography for centuries.

Now Hensen's work is a media story it would be no longer be feasible to exhibit them with artistic innocence, because they would be be a magnet for voyeurs.

Does art, like many other aspects of human enjoyment, have to suffer because of the activities of a deranged few? That's really the question.

How much social freedom in our society should be curtailed to cope with a deranged or lawless minority? We temper our freedoms in order to cope with terrorists and serial killers and house breakers... but where should the line be drawn?

Some are offended by all forms of nudity. They could put good arguments that all nude art is offensive and should be banned. Where do you draw the line?

Naked children are not offensive. All normal parents get sensual pleasure seeing their innocent young toddlers free ranging without clothes. The pleasure they get is not sexual. We should not make derangement a standard for judging everybody.

Art lovers derive artistic pleasure from seeing portrayals of the naked human body. Sex is not the object. There are many art pieces of aged people who are beyond sexual attraction.

Separation of art from pornography is as clear cut as is the separation of parliament from the judicial system. Kevin Rudd should know about that.

Peter,

Thank you for the basic exposition in moral philosophy, which I am sure is very well suited as an undergraduate's presentation in a tutorial in an introductory course on such matters.

I will point out however that you appear to have ignored the well-known criteria of autonomy as a continuum, missing out on the extensive research in developmental psychology which *clearly* indicates that adolescents have mastered the ability to engage in concrete operations and even have the capacity to engage in adult formal operations with their correlates in moral cognitive development.

Further, you fail to sufficiently investigate the motives of artist, parent or adolescent sufficiently which, as you should know, is absolutely essential if you're going to take Kantian deontological system of moral reasoning, as you have done. From all available reports both the parents and adolescents involved in the photography believed that it was the right thing to do. They did so for art, and because they believe that the photograph of these young adolescents can be both beautiful and innocent.

Thus your argument fails an empirical test on the capacity of moral reasoning, and a normative test on the basis of intentionality.

Well said gecko. I agree with you except for your last line. I think there is a continuum between art and pornography and that deciding what is appropriate and what isn’t, isn’t straightforward.

But works such as those of Henson should very clearly be considered to be acceptable…in an art gallery or artistic publication.

Whether they are acceptable in other forums is another question. The Age published one of the key Henson photographs of a 12/13 year old girl with breasts exposed. The Courier Mail published a different photo of the same girl with a big banner across her breasts with ‘censored’ written on it, and her pubic region exposed.

I’d consider these instances to be very strongly in violation of accepted morality. (But I wish we had a much more liberal attitude to nudity whereby they would be acceptable in a newspaper or on the evening TV news.) I have heard absolutely no objection to them!! I mentioned these on another thread on OLO and there was practically no concern expressed. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1831#37015
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1831#37191

I’ve got to say; I just don’t get it; there is outrage from lots of people about these photos appearing in an art gallery, but no outrage about the same appearing in a much wider medium; our newspapers. This absolutely bizarre!

Very silly argument:

"whatever are his objectives, he is using people who have virtually no say, to further his own ends"

Well, yes. Just like ABC Learning Centres (http://www.childcare.com.au/), Mattel (http://www.mattel.com/) and the Wiggles (http://wiggles.com/), to name just a few. Making a living by selling child-related goods or services to adults is not of itself problematic.

Personally I find the objectification of children in Anne Geddes' photography (http://www.annegeddes.com/) much more offensive than Henson's. Why aren't you including hers here, Peter?

And since you're objecting to Henson making representations of people who lack the ability to consent, then you need to include artistic representations of dementia patients http://flickr.com/photos/alfblume/2255334605/ and corpses http://www.koerperwelten.com

well, there go the harry potter movies. and the children of narnia movie. and nicky webster at the olympics. and ... god, this is just too easy.

"The children are being used. What ever the parents’ motives might be, be it an artistic desire, notoriety, or to make money, they are using their children for their own objectives."
Their own objectives? You don't mention that the children involved agreed to it, too. But:
"Society says children can't decide."
Except you've just written/implied that people that can decide - the parents - were 'wrong'.
So 1. you've assumed that the pictures are wrong, and doing harm, and 2. you object to the fact that a family has made a decision, and because it hasn't been put to a nation-wide referendum, it shouldn't have passed...

I was going to pop in and makes the point that children are used by many groups, but jpw and ludwig beat me to the punchline.

The author makes two central assertions, which are neatly summarised in his last few paragraphs. Most of this winding piece can be attributed to this:

1) The harm of this action is difficult to define (no answer here, this is vague).

2) The children are being used for Henson's ends. (Which the author states is less ambiguous, and very clearly immoral).

The problem here, aptly pointed out by jpw and Ludwig, is that by the same token, things like the Wiggles and even educational children's material is therefore immoral if the manufacturer turns a buck.
Our society can't work like this as it stands - any influential and capable organisation in capitalist societies has to be profitable.
If the author's assertion was correct, then childrens needs could not be catered for in a capitalist society as they are incapable of buying things - even the concept that a parent can buy things for them is neutered by this simplistic command.

I'd put it to the author that this second, supposedly clearly defined category is just as vague as the first, and that the real determinant here should be whether harm comes to the children, and at what point we determine expression must be limited.

Why don't we go the step further? Get all the abandoned foetuses discarded at the butcher shops by those incapable of any true human emotions further than their own selfish pity. Make moulds of them, cast up some realistic gelatine dummies a la "Myth Busters" and put them on display with some appropriate captions to enlighten us. It would pass as artistic, would it not?

Let's get real about obscenity though, it is called the National Road Toll, daily its victims die, get mutilated or are changed forever. Society then bears the cost of this through increased premiums, infrastructure, administration costs and such. It is now a burgeoning industry. The crucial issues are myriad.

But where are the howls and baying packs of journo's chasing that one down to tear out its thoat?

Sensationalist "perception management", myths, lies and Fairy tales to spoon feed the masses.

I'd be interested, Dr. Bowden, on your views on the art as an invasion of privacy, and on the idea that it might be stored until the young person is of an age to consent.

I'd have thought that it was not the young adolescent's ability to reason which is in question, but their knowledge of sexuality and of the way others may take the photographs which make them not yet able to freely consent.

As for Piaget's distinction between concrete and formal reasoning, I was under the impression that that was long dead--dispoven by, amongst others, W.V. Quine.

So what should children be allowed to do? On the face of it, if children's own desires don't count, and they should not be doing anything that *may* harm them, then sport is out for sure. Depending on one's definition of harm, religious instruction (or as I view it, indoctrination) is out as well. Watching television? Reading comics?

The argument as presented seemed to start well, but in the end showed it self to be nothing more than a thinly veiled pretext for not allowing children to do things that the author doesn't think they should be doing.

There wasn't even a mention of the possibility that the children might actually benefit from their experience of being nude models.

I don't even have to read the article to dismiss it: The summary is a bald artifice.

ALL advertisers and artistic prodcutions involving children could be characterised as "using children for their own ends".

And the characterisation is rubbish anyway. Children and their parents have given consent and are extremely happy with the work. They defend Henson and blame the antagonists and activists for creating the damage and demonisng them.

Nice to see a near consensus thus far on how dumb an article this is.

It's been done to death - enough "but what about the children" hand-wringing already.

Ultimately, I don't think Aussies like wowsers very much. Back under your rock, Bowden - come back in 50 years.

Yep, it seems like a silly argument to me. jpw2040 makes a bunch of valid points that refute it.

But it is still an interesting article. Rather than calling for Peter Bowden to crawl under a rock, I’d encourage him to keep contributing articles to OLO.

"Ultimately, I don't think Aussies like wowsers very much. Back under your rock, Bowden - come back in 50 years."

This is an uncharacteristically cheap shot on your part, CJ. Peter has outlined an interesting and useful philosophical framework and in so doing has provided a fresh look at what is now a well-worn debate. I don't think he deserves to be dismissed as a wowser, not to mention being told to get back under his rock!

OK - I was a bit harsh on poor old Bowden.

But really, the article is rubbish - the "philosophical framework" is trite, selective and cartoonish.

Do try again, Peter - but try adding some substance beyond the fact that, fundamentally, nude kids offend your sensibilities.

It's really not a good argument, Bronwyn. All the flummery about "protecting children" with respect to this issue only serves to obscure the real issue with Henson's detractors, which is their own discomfort with sexuality in general.

On second thoughts, Bowden needn't have come out from under his rock. He really hasn't contributed anything new or useful.

bronwyn, it's an aggressively worded shot, but i'm not sure it's a cheap shot.

if the guy's not a wowser, i'm not sure how he ended up proposing such a silly argument. ignoring the philosophy history fluff, his argument implies that children cannot be "used" in any manner. that's such a self-evidently dumb conclusion, i feel no desire to fish how he got there.

but i don't think it takes much fishing. he says children have "virtually no say". that is absurd. separate from the legal issue of consent, children obviously have a say.

i'll give you a hypothetical. supposed we had evidence that henson's child models actually hated the photographing, were crying and were brought to henson kicking and screaming. do you suppose in that situation the henson-bashers wouldn't be using that information as a moral club?

of course the children had a say.

my conclusion is that CJ is right, that bowden is a wowser, who decided his conclusion and came up with what argument he could, dressed in nice philosophical clothes.

unfortunately i disagree with Cj on his other point: history says australia does like wowsers, and i don't see any sign of that history ending.

Peter,
I think your article is brilliant. I made some comments on this topic under the "society condones child abuse" thread, from my perspective "at the coal face" - a nurse listeneing to the stories of abuse victims.

What's the difference between canvas and sculpture in the world of art?
Havent we all seen the statue of David? That's full frontal nudity, by the way. My, my,he IS well hung,as a matter of fact.Does that mean women and gay men have been sent away with crotch tingling excitement about to commit acts of gross indecency?Then we should insist under daks be put on to him where ever he is to be found exhibiting his male glory so BRAZENLY.Shame.shame.
And what about all those disgusting statues of chubby little lawbreakers in gardens and garden centres peeing into the fountain.
I mean where does all this stop?
socratease

'Tom Beauchamp and James Childress have developed an ethical thinking process
1. respect for the autonomy of others; how about the 12 year old girl?
2. nonmaleficence (do no harm); child porn doing no harm?
3. beneficence (prevent the occasion for harm); and
4. ensure justice (fair treatment for all). Who decides what is fair?

Another of today’s philosophers, William Frankena, came up with a not too-dissimilar list,
1. not inflict evil or harm; child porn does harm?
2. prevent evil or harm; encourage child exploitation?
3. remove evil or harm; and finally
4. promote good. (showing 12 year olds vaginas and breast does not promote good.

Even by these philosophers own clumsy ethics Henson's pornography fails dismally. So many so bound by their own lusts that they defend this perverted man's pornography. We are a sick society in denial of any decent ethics.

I don't think art-libertarian respondents have been fair to Peter Bowden's disciplined and lucid article. Lev's was probably the most focused and coherent, but it too was unfair in not treating the article on its own terms (acknowledged by Lev) i.e., as "a basic exposition in moral philosophy" relevant to this case. The article's very limited length in OLO obviously prevented Bowden from exploring the philosophical argumentation in enough detail to satisfy Lev's standard here.

The matter of reproduction / redundancy / hyper-production of Henson's photography in the media and online is a relevant concern, but it does not alter substantially from the moral and legal responsibilities in this case. For a loose analogy: if someone made just one large manufacture and export of a dangerously addictive and damaging substance years ago, prosecution for those acts would still be applied even though the product had spread far and wide.

I think the above point contradicts the relativists' jibes about double standards due to Henson's work becoming so accessible and, by implication, material suitable for a wider net of investigation and prosecution. On the one hand, the point actually demolishes Henson backers' protests about a lack of public access to contemplate the works. On the other hand, the fact of such accessibility demonstrates that it is the action and intention that are meant for prohibition and punitive example.

Many photographs display illegal acts or the result of such illegality, but the photographs themselves would only become illegal, impoundable and confiscated where they have been contrived deliberately and directly in a process that is, at some stage, illegal. Such response would be especially applicable to Henson's works, where both public and private exhibition of such photographs involved commercial intent i.e., not in some exceptional "public interest", whistleblowing or dissident context, for example.

mil-observer, sorry but i just don't see it. i read the article again, and i just don't see it. the majority of his article may be disciplined and lucid, but it's simply not relevant. it just doesn't support bowden's conclusions.

there's nothing wrong with setting the framework of "do no harm" and "respect[ing] the autonomy of others". but there's no point in such careful framing if bowden then makes strong and loaded and contentious claims when he gets closer to the actual henson issue.

"Children, in short, are deemed to be incapable of deciding for themselves."

there's nothing "in short" about this. in short, the global statement is absurd.

"Parents who decide for a child on the parents’ preferences are contravening Kant’s second Categorical Imperative".

so, the children are incapable of deciding, and he simply presumes that the parents are deciding for their own preferences? any evidence of this?

"The children are being used."

and so what? does it mean they are not also benefiting, are not also pleased?

the heart of the iss ue is:

"if we were to explore whether Bill Henson’s photographs could cause harm to any of the children, we would come up with a doubtful maybe."

well, argue it. argue the reasons for that harm (is it the photographing itself causing the harm, or the moral outrage of people who disapprove? if the latter, does that matter?). argue why children cannot decide on this issue. compare the risk of harm to the likelihood of the children's appreciation. but don't import a moral stance on child nudity without arguing the stance. don't spend 90% of an article on a lesson of the history of philosophy, just to hide the main issue under a rug.

"Several centuries of moral thinking say that it is wrong."

no it doesn't.

Nicely reasoned bushbasher.

Bowden writes;

"if we were to explore whether Bill Henson’s photographs could cause harm to any of the children, we would come up with a doubtful maybe."

A very doubtful maybe. The connection to any form of harm is just so loose and woolly that it should be dismissed without a second thought.

“But if we combine it with the injunction to respect the autonomy of others, we have a much clearer guideline.”

I can’t see that at all. Parents make decisions for their kids, with or without the child’s input. Parents, teachers, other kids and society overall affect our children in positive and negative ways, as a result of decisions made by parents and completely independent of any decisions.

We can only respect the autonomy of children up to a point. We override their autonomy in many ways, for their own good.

I can’t see how the decisions of parents and their kids to pose for Henson in any way falls outside of our society’s accepted level of respect for the autonomy of others.

No need to apologize bushbasher! I appreciate your frankness.

I get the impression that you took Bowden's words to mean a little more than he intended, and yourself and others seem to interpret Bowden's text as evidence of a passionate opponent of Henson, or super-wowser. However, his argument merely explains the moral basis and rationale for the legal case against Henson, in a strict context of prevailing and precedent judgement leading to this case. At worst, critics could argue (like Lev) that Bowden is too selective or too dismissive of contrary strands of relevant moral philosophy.

Consider the line: "Several centuries of moral thinking say that it is wrong" against your flat contradiction "No it doesn't". Now Bowden's statement asserts merely that there has been much preceding discussion to deny a minor the power of decision over public display of their erogenous body parts. His conclusive sentence is only a simple statement of fact, not the absolutist, iron-clad global argumentative case against Henson in or out of court, in Australia or elsewhere, without possibility for mitigation or contradiction. But your blunt retort indicates that you misinterpreted his sentence to be just such a sweeping and universally absolute statement to the effect that ALL "moral thinking" for "several centuries" would say Henson is wrong.

Bowden's associated comments about Henson using the children, and the children having "virtually no say", are similarly best understood in that same context of legal considerations leading towards investigation and prosecution. Your own counter-arguments could arguably challenge such precedent but, as Bowden's article demonstrates, you would have to make a very formidable case to get such moral and legal thinking changed.

That's why I applaud Bowden's discipline in explaining fundamental elements of the topic in the context of Australian and western jurisprudence. Given his strict adherence to the legal philosophy underpinning the case against Henson, you are incorrect and unfair where you allege irrelevance or absurdity in his article.

Thanks for probing this. I think I now understand better how difficult it is communicating my own more ideological and aesthetic concerns about this case.

mil-observer, thanks for your reply. i'll think more, but a few comments.

1) i agree that bowden does not appear to be a super-wowser. plenty of room left to be a garden-variety wowser.

2) "several centuries of moral reasoning says that it is wrong" has more of the conclusive flavour than you're suggesting, and it deserved to be swatted. perhaps this was merely clumsy wording by bowden, though i doubt it. but my reading is not unfair. minimal moral: pick your last sentence carefully.

3) you are emphasising more than bowden legal notions of consent. i agree that that is a more interesting framing of the question. but you have to be careful of rug-sweeping. kids are not allowed to drive cars, or drink. but i know many 12 year olds who have driven farm tractors, and many will have a glass of wine with dinner. the legal notion of childen not being able to consent obviously has a large moral element and history/basis of moral philosophy. but this has to be teased out much more than bowden has done.

as i suggested above, if henson's models were filmed kicking and screaming as they were hauled into henson's studio, the henson-bashers would be screaming blue murder about (moral) consent. It would be hugely different from what the evidence actually suggests occurred.

i don't see how any of this differentiation appears, or can appear, in henson's moral calculus. and, he gives no credit to the evidence in the actual henson situation - no evidence of harm, and clear evidence of non-harm, of (later) strong and considered appreciation.

4) if we're talking legal, it is worth noting that the actual law which may apply to henson: it seems hugely unlikely that he could be found guilty, to the point that the cops and the dpp seem to be running scared. if the law is thus condoning immoral acts, then why? it doesn't undercut bowden, but it is not irrelevant.

having said all that, you have given me things to think about. more than bowden's article. thanks.

Gecko

"If the exhibition had not become a media story then it would have been attended by artistic people who go to galleries and that would be that."

This exhibition was always going to be a news story and Henson would have known that. From various comments I've read from people within the industry it’s clear that many have felt Henson to be treading into murky territory with much of his work for some time now. Knowing the unease his work was already creating, he would have been fully aware of the likelihood of today's sensationalism driven media honing in on his use of a naked pubescent model. He either went ahead regardless, or he went ahead for that very reason.

Even if the exhibition hadn't attracted media attention, there would still be the unresolved issue of double standards. To me, this sort of display in today’s environment creates an elitist and hypocritical divide, which is not at all helpful if society is to have any hope of reigning in the ubiquitous spread of pornographic images of children. How can any society honestly condone children being photographed naked in the viewing interests of the art world elite and yet condemn the collection of clearly dubious photos of naked children on home computers? Many have and will argue that the two types of photos are different. They might be, but the line is much less clear for some than others, and it is arguably an unhelpful impediment to the formulation of good public policy.

Anyone doubting the rapidity and the magnitude of the spread of child pornography on the Internet should read today’s AAP report relating to Australia's recent Operation Centurion. "The investigation was triggered after a hacker posted 99 child porn images on a European website, which attracted 12 million hits from 150,000 computer users in just 76 hours — meaning 81 per cent of viewers clicked through every image." I don’t think anyone could reasonably argue that this sort of spread doesn’t represent a threat to our children. It clearly does.

To be continued

Continued

Not only does Henson's work have parallels to the ugly trend of Internet child pornography, but it also has strong echoes of the corporate world's equally ugly and damaging exploitation and premature sexualization of children, evident in so much of the media and marketing aimed at this age group. Evidence is emerging to support the argument that this trend is forcing children to grow up too soon and to risk developing eating disorders and other unhealthy acquisitive and body image obsessions. Henson’s use of a child’s photographic image, irrespective of whether it is to make an artistic statement or to advance his own reputation and bank balance, can also be viewed as an extension of this same damaging and commercial exploitation.

I know I've said all this before, and so have others, and that this probably is the thread for a philosophical analysis of the author’s arguments rather than the place to be simply restating the case. But I’m here now and I must admit I'm tired of the deliberate narrowing of the debate. I don't care greatly about the ramifications for this particular girl. She and her parents have made the decision and will have to live with it. I'm much more interested in the broader picture of societal trends and how Henson's choices have fed into it. I think it’s totally disingenuous for his supporters to argue that art is art and that artistic freedom should come before all else. As with all freedoms, artistic freedom should carry an equal degree of responsibility

So all those who made the incredibly stupid (and defamatory) claim that somehow photos of nude adolescents in an artistic context constitute kiddie pr0n can just STFU now.

The game is over. Your perverse urges to define any and all nudity as a "sexual context" was lost.

Posted eight minutes ago.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/05/2266437.htm

Bronwyn, I'm not sure what to type here, or where to start actually... it's a shame to see you using the word ubiquitous to describe all this as it's propaganda, or at least a paranoia/fear. It's truly beautiful actually to behold the susceptibility of the educated human mind to propaganda.

You only have made this post after the recent police operation. You are merely showing how much of a gullible fool you are. I was right about you. ubiquitous for the record, essentially means "omnipresent". Now that is an obscene statement, like your earlier claims I called you on.

And here you are, right on cue with the news, comparing Henson's nude portraits of children to the recent police operation that just hit the news (appearing there in a most sensationalist manner, i note). You are being played like a violin by the media and reactionaries.

Bronwyn>"I don’t think anyone could reasonably argue that this sort of spread doesn’t represent a threat to our children. It clearly does."

Spread of WHAT? What has this got to do with Henson? Are catalogues being traded on these sites? Does that mean they contain child abuse? What are you talking about and why are you in here asserting that Henson's art is the same?

What do you have to say to this:

-=-=
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23797460-2,00.html

"A MELBOURNE artist will exhibit a series of nude photographs of 11-year-old children to protest against the recent censorship of the work of photographer Bill Henson. "
-=-=

Bronwyn>"Not only does Henson's work have parallels to the ugly trend of Internet child pornography"

No, your mind has ugly parallels with it. YOUR MIND.

>"it also has strong echoes of the corporate world's equally ugly and damaging exploitation and premature sexualization of children"

So the "corporate world" are now pedophiles? Are you insane?

>"Evidence is emerging to support the argument that this trend is forcing children to grow up too soon and to risk developing eating disorders and other unhealthy acquisitive and body image obsessions."

Evidence or socialist propaganda? What are your sources? Did they analyse the role of bad parenting? Did they analyse the role of people like you TELLING THEM they are pornographers and sexualised? Look at Keiran's ABC link for an example of this propaganda.

>"Henson’s use of a child’s photographic image, can also be viewed as an extension of this same damaging and commercial exploitation."

Henson's not the only one. Are you going to charge all the others to with this? Are you going to charge filmmakers who use children and farmers who exploit them on their farms? I think Gibo was right about Communism being on the rise. Under the sinophile Rudd, too. Ironic, eh?

Bronwyn>"I don't care greatly about the ramifications for this particular girl. She and her parents have made the decision and will have to live with it."

Ah yes, like a true socialist, you seek to destroy the individual for the "greater good". You disgust me thoroughly. The child and the mother's opinions are the first thing that count here as they are the subjects of this whole debate. And guess what. THEY BLAME YOU

gees, steel, that was pretty harsh. not that i agree with much in bronwyn's posts. but i was just thinking to myself that at least her posts didn't have the usual hysterical tone of those critical of henson. not sure both barrels were required in this case.

bronwyn, i'd like to ask you about one detail. sort of nitpicking but i'm curious for general, non-henson reasons. i'd very much like a reference/link for your AAP quote. it was:

"The investigation was triggered after a hacker posted 99 child porn images on a European website, which attracted 12 million hits from 150,000 computer users in just 76 hours — meaning 81 per cent of viewers clicked through every image."

my interest is in the fact that the figure of 81% is wrong. even assuming no user clicks any photo more than once (which would lower the number of clicks assignable to others), it's mathematically possible that NONE of the users clicked every image. for example, if every user clicked on 80 images, that works out to 12 million hits.

i'm not arguing here the general point made (though i think it can be argued, as well as other aspects of the whole news story). i'm just keen to lay my hands on the documentation of the mathematical mistake.

i've found the rest of the quote in a few places, but not with the 81% conclusion. thanks. BB

lev, don't celebrate just yet: one game is over, but the NSW game is still to be played. in fact, the chances of a henson conviction are so small, i don't think the NSW authorities will be stupid enough to lay charges. but they may do something that stupid, in a desperate attempt to save face (or save it for a while, anyway).

Steely, I think that by your latest hysterical over-reactions you've just made yourself very interesting, but for all the wrong reasons - and possibly to all the wrong people too. I trust that will not make you paranoid; your free diagnoses and advice on mental health suggest that you're already so psychologically and behaviourally sound. :-)

I recall the Pasolini / Salo banning (OK, sorry Henson friends. It's clear you won't find any appealing “aesthetic” in that work. Besides, it depicts abusers, their sickness and victims in very harsh, un-Henson tones). But from the “Salo” debate, I never saw anything like the arousal of passionate and vehement invective as I have seen repeatedly here. Yet the Pasolini work has layers of powerful political, cultural and historical context, along with extensive international fame and critical acclaim, and even the imprimatur of a Catholic institute's official kudos for the director. A tour de force by a recognized genius, and a patriot of such courage that he was assassinated after challenging corruption scandals linked to terrorist incidents.

By comparison, an Australian pro-Henson academic's review of the naked children oeuvre says: “These artists' [including Henson's] photographs offer an insight into a time of life that falls between categories, a chance to witness identity evolving, something to which we can all relate”. Imagine: “between categories” of nappy sizes “crawler” and “toddler”, or “identity evolving” in successive years' school portraits. The banality of such “art criticism” may seem breathtaking, but does it not confirm the banality of Henson's work?

However, we are supposed to believe that Henson's art is so important and justified that its defence could arouse personal attacks against dispassionate criticism. Notice how Bronwyn did not even make criticism of any other commentator, but tried only to inform and give context. Behold the reaction, including Lev's abuse.

What's going on in there guys?

[Quote source: The Australian 4 June 2008 - Kelly Fuery, 'Eye of Beholder']

Bronwyn: << This exhibition was always going to be a news story and Henson would have known that. >>

I disagree completely. Henson has been exhibiting similar works at numerous art galleries for decades, and has never attracted anything like the media attention that this current kerfuffle has. It was only after the publication of a sensationalist scare story by the odious Miranda Devine that St Hetty got on the bandwagon and complained to the police.

After that it was Keystone Cops and moral hysterics. The cops seem to be rapidly pulling their heads in, but some of the hysterics are still up on their soapboxes.

Steel

“Henson's not the only one. Are you going to charge all the others too with this? Are you going to charge filmmakers who use children and farmers who exploit them on their farms?”

As I’ve stated before, I’m not interested in seeing Henson or any other artist charged. I’m critical of his lack of judgement that’s all, and the way his art is giving oxygen to what I see as social trends damaging to children. What have farmers got to do with this debate? There is nothing I’ve said anywhere that would suggest I see a problem with children working to assist their parents, on a farm or anywhere else. As you do so often, you have attempted to create a ridiculously tenuous link that can’t in any way be supported by any statement I’ve actually made.

“I think Gibo was right about Communism being on the rise. Under the sinophile Rudd, too. Ironic, eh?”

The only irony here is that someone who has just used the term ‘propaganda’ four times to try and discredit someone else's views could come up with a line like this one.

“Ah yes, like a true socialist, you seek to destroy the individual for the ‘greater good’.”

Of course I’m not seeking to destroy this girl. That’s just another one of the giant leaps you love to make. My point was that I’m not engaging in this debate to specifically argue over her well being as many have, but in the interests more broadly of all children.

“Ubiquitous for the record, essentially means ‘omnipresent’.”

It can mean omnipresent but it’s more generally used as a synonym for terms such as prevalent, common, widespread, everywhere, universal. It mightn’t have been the best choice of word but contrary to your patronizing little dig there was nothing wrong in the way it was used.

You can rant and rave and name call all you like, Steel. It doesn’t bother me. As pointed out to you by many others now, it doesn’t do anything to help your case.

bushbasher and mil-observer

Thanks.

bushbasher

Your point did cross my mind but I couldn’t be bothered doing the maths to check it out properly! Here’s the link to that specific report.

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/70-arrested-in-NSW-web-child-porn-crackdown/0,130061744,339289601,00.htm

mil-observer

Interesting angle on the substance of Henson’s work. I had thought much the same but was pleased to see someone else making the point. I’ve felt the weight of the high art world come down on me enough just lately without inviting more trouble!

CJ

I hear what you’re saying (and love the way you say it as always!), but I still maintain Henson must have had some idea of the reaction this exhibition would provoke. Others within the art world have been uneasy with the direction in which his work has been heading for some time now. I know artists do lead a rarefied existence but surely his radar would sense this mood from within his own circle. Quite apart from that, is the issue of the public mood which unless you live in a world without media, and I’m sure he doesn’t, you would have to be stupid not to recognize clearly. He obviously didn’t anticipate a police raid, but he would have (or most certainly should have) known his work would create controversy and as a result media interest. I stand by my comment.

I’m interested that this minor point is the only one you’ve picked me up on. I’m assuming you’re either sick of debating the same old points! Or you find enough agreement in the rest of my argument to leave it alone. I’m hoping it’s the latter!

Q. If we said a sexual abuser of children “exploited” or “used” the victims, would steely and friends diminish the meaning, or relativize it by reference to children being “used” also by The Wiggles or a farm, etc?

But just a bit further to Bronwyn's point, I think we should consider an even “bigger picture” around this Henson topic and its timing, which Bronwyn kindly indicated with some details about Operation Centurion.

For background context, Rudd is ex-DFAT, and he would know well various creepy-crawly pedophile scandals – mostly not publicized - from his time with that organization. Rudd knows too that the presence of such people in government compromises the integrity, credibility and authority of the state itself.

Community disgust and anger over pedophilia help make it probably the most powerful tool for blackmail and manipulation of so-afflicted bureaucrats who have access to and influence on state business, including sensitive diplomatic and intelligence processes. It is well known that state intelligence services, including those in Australia's region of interest, coerce key personnel so identified (typically entrapped) for their predilection to such activity.

Op Centurion has only just been sprung shortly before Bronwyn's post, but after the usual long period of surveillance, and domestic and international coordination. This comes not long after the Orkopolos case, and the post-mortem release of detailed allegations against Bob Collins. Those two situations indicate the senior levels of concern and vulnerability within circles of state power in this country.

In this highly charged and high-level political context, we should not be surprised if all this Henson publicity and controversy has been allowed to get served up as a honey trap for more elusive elements of networks targeted for exposure. The scene so targeted would resemble the “Uranians” of Wilfred Owen's little-publicized infamy – a kind of brahmin elite of aesthete-pedophiles.

Please don't over-react to this hypothesis. I appreciate many if not most “pro-Henson” celebrities and correspondents are motivated by ideals of “free speech”.

Oh, but Lev: the “game” ain't over by a long chalk. And it's not a game.

bronwyn, thanks tons for the link.

lev, o.k. NOW the idiotic henson game is over.

mil-observer, i can't make heads or tails of your latest post. in regard to your previous post, i think you have the wrong end of the hysteria stick.

you raise "salo", but "salo" is genuinely offensive. it is a great, unforgettable movie, which should have never been banned. but there is no shock that it is offensive to so many. if henson's photographs offend someone in the same manner, it is only because they are looking to be offended.

this was never about how henson's art was so great, that how dare hetty and co condemn it. the wowsers (let's call a spade a spade) tried to paint it as elitist artists against the rightful community, but it was never about that.

what it was about was the hysterical reaction to henson's photographs: "absolutely revolting" (rudd); "violates the things for which we stand as Australians" (nelson); "offensive and disgusting” (Iemma). and on, and on, and bloody well on.

this was absurd. it was always absurd. and what was so disgraceful is that it was made out of whole cloth by miranda devine and hetty johnston. what was so disgraceful was the lapdog response of the police. what was so disgraceful was that they unleashed this campaign, knowing full well how hurtful and troubling it could have been to henson's models, MUCH more so than the original thoughful and empathetic photographing and exhibition.

what was so disgraceful was that a self-interested and dangerous demagogue like hetty johnston could wrap so many authorities and politicians and commentators around her nasty little finger.

OK, bush. So the real problem here – the causal origin, in other words - comes from child protection campaigners, vice cops, and politicians identifying themselves with the same? Interesting too how yourself and similarly inclined tend to assign specific personalities to the “problem” as you see it: “bad Hetty Johnston...bad Franca Arena...hysterical Rudd/Nelson/Iemma” etc., as with some various degrees of name-calling and other vitriol for myself and Bronwyn, for example.

In your vaguely defined passion yourself, Lev and steely do not even concede the potential justifications for opposing Henson's work, despite extensive reasoned argumentation based on concerns for morality, jurisprudence, aesthetics, ideology and child welfare. Thus, your responses rely overwhelmingly on dismissal (“absurd”, and “i can't understand what you're saying” as Buncle used in a related thread), hostility (repeated claims that “moralist opposition is sick... hysterical... fool... stupid... disgraceful... nasty”, much upper-case yelling), and other inversions about relevancy and the very notion of “child abuse” (censors' alleged harm to Henson models supposedly “scrutinized as pornographers”, etc.). Extraordinarily spectacular, energetic aerobatics, whose psychopathology of consistently unbalanced response could reasonably cause some casual visiting readers to conclude that OLO had actually uncovered a real spiders' nest.

Yes, “Salo” is indeed offensive, but no “buts” or “ifs”: offending viewers' sensibilities was key to Pasolini's mission there. And I'm still unsure whether “Salo” should escape a ban, even though I'm one of that film's most ardent supporters. Our legalistic criteria for defining and justifying “obscenity” seem so under-developed that I agree “Salo” probably fails our society's simple, established tests of moral acceptability. However, I believe Henson's use of naked children and his aesthetic make his art far less morally acceptable, and much less justifiable. I perceive that this paradoxical circumstance exposes serious legal and administrative shortcomings in our country's censorship process.

Bush, would you still describe Salo “offensive” - or more “tastefully middle class” - if Pasolini had sublimated Salo's abuse scenes and depicted abuse victims a la Henson's models, with Henson's focus on Botticelliesque adolescent “vulnerable beauty” in place of Pasolini's brutal clash of social realism with Baroque symmetry?

“After that it was Keystone Cops and moral hysterics”

CJ, odious Devine and Johnson may be, but I think that they were quite within their rights to express their views, as strongly they wished to, and to make a complaint to the police.

The police however, were not within their rights to take the action that they did, in shutting Henson down and confiscating material. They could have acted on the complaint without doing that.

I don’t hold even the strongest and seemingly loopiest views against anyone, and I’ll uphold everyone’s right to free expression of their opinions, and their right to make a complaint. It is police the action that is the really rotten part of this whole affair. As I explained on another thread (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1831#37671), we just CANNOT tolerate a policing regime like this.

mil-oberserver,

1) you address your post to me, but refer to all manner of posters from god knows where. i'll do my best to find and respond to the criticisms of me.

2) people are allowed to react to henson's photographs. i'm allowed to react to their reactions. their reactions were absurd. and hysterical.

3) are there good reasons for objecting to henson's photos? no, i don't think so. certainly not in the thuggish manner that was done. but there are understandable reasons. people are confused and uncomfortable with sexuality, especially budding, adolescent sexuality. but that's an argument for care and self-reflection, not burning torches.

someone (CJ?) linked to a brilliant funny column by emma tom (the australian?). it said it wonderfully well.

4) hetty johnston was important. she's a known quantity. her job is to look for victims. is she allowed to complain to the cops? of course! but she has almost no credibility. and the police have no credibility for giving her so much credibility. they have come out looking like idiotic wowsers, and rightfully so.

once again, think of henson's models. all evidence suggests that henson has MUCH more concern for his models than hetty does. and, all evidence suggests that the models agree with this.

5) don't make "salo" into a straw man. i thought you brought in salo as an example of great art. i replied that the henson case was never about the greatness of his art. are there tough issues of censorship of art? of course. i don't think salo is that tough, but there's a tough line somewhere.

but henson wasn't tough. it was trivial.

Bronwyn: "This exhibition was always going to be a news story and Henson would have known that."

Sorry, Bronwyn, I must add my voice to the chorus pointing out that that is completely untrue. Henson represented Australia at the Venice Biennale, he had a major retrospective at the AGNSW, he has sold worldwide etc etc etc for thirty years using, occasionally, naked models under sixteen. The police received just three complaints about this most recent show. Why do you think Henson would have know what was coming?

"I stand by my comment."

Sure, but please back it up. You talk about a growing unease in the art world. Can you be specific about this unease? For years, both arty types and public intellectuals have pointed out Henson's work is uneasy and difficult. Yet it was continually lauded throughout those years. Why do you speak of a "growing" uneasiness? I have spoken to several people in the art world who disagree with this.

Bronwyn: "How can any society honestly condone children being photographed naked in the viewing interests of the art world elite and yet condemn the collection of clearly dubious photos of naked children on home computers?"

Because society — not just the elite, but people in general — are, or should learn to be, intelligent consumers of art, and emotionally and sexually sophisticated enough to discriminate between art and porn. If we honestly cannot discriminate between art and porn — and, it seems, the NSW Police CAN do so, thank god — then god help us. If we cannot, we cannot protect our children from real threats.

cont

cont...

"Not only does Henson's work have parallels to the ugly trend of Internet child pornography, but it also has strong echoes of the corporate world's equally ugly and damaging exploitation and premature sexualization of children, evident in so much of the media and marketing aimed at this age group."

I know this will sound harsh, but I find this an ugly remark, and one that demonstrates a lack of understanding of Henson's art. The girl and boy in Henson's photographs were naked. Do you see any other parallel with internet child pornography than that? In which case, aren't you simply anti-any portrayal of underage nudity? What Henson seeks to do is DEcommodify childhood — to return it to a natural, uncanny and deeply intimate space. He does not sexualise children from an adult point of view — which I believe defines child pornography — he photographs them as they ARE, as adolescents, as people, as complex, interesting, difficult individuals. His work is the very opposite of the premature sexualisation of children — it is a weapon in the armory with which we defend ourselves against that disgusting intrusion.

Bronwyn: "I think it's totally disingenuous for his supporters to argue that art is art and that artistic freedom should come before all else. As with all freedoms, artistic freedom should carry an equal degree of responsibility"

Then, unfortunately, you have failed to understand the argument Henson's supporters have been making. Artistic freedom should never come before the safety of children. Henson's supporters, and the NSW police force, argue that his work does not constitute a breach of the responsibility you have charged it with.

Bush, I addressed you with the other two because of the similarities of your adjectival judgementalism, though steel and lev are more passionate and even hostile. A conspicuous irony here is that your latest response offers more of the same: further “judgements” (perhaps “labels” is more apt), nearly all unsubstantiated, against Johnston, police and myself. As your text reveals, it is for you “reacting to... reactions”, or an emotional and perceptional free jousting; it is still not a discursive analysis of the intellectual substance relevant to censorship, Henson, Salo, or to the various concerns, especially those related to child welfare, as voiced by Henson's opponents.

It is clear that many of Henson's opponents use sweeping, instinctive judgement to condemn outright his work and his supporters. But such is the corresponding, reactive expression from yourself, many art libertarians and – it would now also seem clear – more discreet and variously pathological pedo-aesthetes. Fire with fire may seem satisfying for you, but the tactic is inappropriate and counter-productive when dealing with dispassionate analysis. I note here that Vanilla's eulogization of Henson carries similarly uncritical description into oxymoron: "deeply intimate...not sexualise children from an adult point of view".

You avoided my hypothetical question about Salo's “offensiveness”. I thereby gather that you would actually approve of a Hensonized, cheezy “Salo”. If so, then that is truly disturbing.

Another irony is that you insinuate “fascism” in my position (“oberserver”). I have described for this forum, in considerable detail, the virtues of Pasolini's “Salo”, perhaps the most incisive and eloquent anti-fascist work of art ever created. I have highlighted too the fact that Nazi art (for example) was often pedophilic and actually “degenerate” by practical definition, with correpondingly unbalanced and hypocritical foundations of homoeroticism. We can be quite sure that true fascists contain a significant proportion of actual or potential Henson aficionados, comforted by the endorsement they perceive from Henson's aesthetic in their proclivity towards sexually exploitative dominance of society's defenceless; just as we can be sure they contain also an aloof gay elite that gain similar reassurance from say Mapplethorpe's photographic art.

mil, i've tried to treat your posts fairly. i'm sorry if you feel otherwise. but i regard your latest post as unfair, presumptuous, and not a little bit paranoid. i'm sorry, but i simply cannot see a point in composing a substantive reply.

Vanilla, well reasoned. I agree with all of your last double post, except perhaps the comments on the NSW police. But I won’t harp on them. I’ve said enough about what I think of the police action.

Bronwyn wrote:

“I think it's totally disingenuous for his supporters to argue that art is art and that artistic freedom should come before all else.”

Who has argued this? Perhaps a couple of extremists might have. But it is certainly not a widely held opinion that art is a free-for-all vehicle for any expression.

“As with all freedoms, artistic freedom should carry an equal degree of responsibility"

Of course. We now at least know that Henson’s works fall within accepted norms (or we have had this reconfirmed, as it has been the case all along up until the recent debacle). But just where the cut-off between acceptability and indecency is, we still don’t know.

As a fundamental part of this debate and legal process, we now need the DPP or someone else with authority to define just what the limits are.

Is there any indication that this is likely to happen? Or are we going to have another artist hauled over the coals for obscenity when he/she is confident that their work falls within acceptable boundaries, before the boundaries are more tightly defined?... and perhaps with that artist's career destroyed and a criminal record registered against their name.

Vanilla

"You talk about a growing unease in the art world. Can you be specific about this unease?"

I heard a regional art director being interviewed on Radio National and she referred to both her own and colleagues' unease. I didn't take any notice of her name and can't remember which program I heard it on as RN's running pretty much continuously when I'm at home. I've done a search but couldn't find it, so I'm sorry I can't be more specific. You'll just have to take me on trust on this one!

As with any group though, I'm sure those in the art world are not an entirely homogenous voice on this or any other issue. As discussions here on OLO indicate, this debate seems to split people along different fault lines to those we might normally sit along. Many who in all other circumstances would defend the rights of the artist, I think have a more nuanced view when those rights intersect with the rights of children.

"Because society — not just the elite, but people in general — are, or should learn to be, intelligent consumers of art, and emotionally and sexually sophisticated enough to discriminate between art and porn."

I’ve never claimed Henson's work to be pornographic. I just think his decision to photograph naked pubescent children is an unwise area for an artist to move into at a time when the society in which he lives is increasingly struggling to cope with problems of child abuse and the sexualization of children. I won't go over the same old ground again. You've seen my arguments before on various Henson threads and on others like the Tankard-Reist threads. You and I agree on a lot of things but this is one area where we view things differently and will just have to agree to disagree I think!

To be continued.

Vanilla (cont.)

"What Henson seeks to do is DEcommodify childhood..."

I think it can equally be argued that his work just reinforces the commodification of children. He’s using children's images to create a product from which he makes big money. No doubt a lot can be read into his work, but I don’t see how it makes any sort of statement about the dangers of commodifying childhood.

"His work is the very opposite of the premature sexualization of children..."

Again, I don't see that. I see his photos as intrusive - as moving into the personal space of a child who hasn't lived enough to fully comprehend the vulnerability of her position. I don't see his work as pornographic, but I think he has created a sexual statement just the same, however innocent or sensitive its portrayal. And because of the age of the children involved, I tend to see it as just more 'premature sexualization' rather than the 'very opposite' of it as you do.

I thought at one stage you and I had established some common ground on this issue, but I must have read too much into that at the time I think! As always though I’ve enjoyed the debate!

Ludwig

When I stated that artistic freedom, as with all freedoms, should carry an equal degree of responsibility, I meant that Henson in today’s environment should have exercised the responsibility not to venture into this area at all. I know you won’t agree with this. I guess once again we’ll have to agree to disagree!

Bronwyn, no one will establish common ground with you, because you are wrong.

Your fixation with Henson is more than disturbing. There is a female artist who is exhibiting photographs of two naked 11 year old boys in Victoria at present, but no one -particularly those most critical of Henson- has said a word about it. No one cares about all the other artists who do this (particularly the female one). The sexism is so obvious it should be waking people up a little to feminism and it's damaging doctrines that have infected thousands of women in our society.

Your constant use of the term commodification is stupid. There are thousands upon thousands of advertisements and artworks that feature children as their models. I often see this term used in an anti-capitalist manner as if somehow commercial enterprise was innately a bad thing... and then unbelievably only when it comes to Henson.

You also cite to regional people to support your claim about unease...again another fantastical exaggeration ("epidemic", "ubiquitous" etc...). Why even bother? Regional people are known to have a tendency toward idiocy. Even a former regional gallery owner however called all this hysteria at the beginning of this witch hunt.

I'm sick of hearing it, Bronwyn. You are wrong. Your ideology is wrong. Just face the fact that you have been suckered in like a fool with some powerful propaganda and reactionary activism.

Q. Vanilla: since Henson's supposed “liberation” of children from the shackles of philistine child protection, should you expect him to relinquish his profits from the enterprise? You claim that he means to “DEcommodify childhood”, but he seems to have made a nice upper-middle packet from the opposite process.

No challenge bush, you've made hardly any “substantive reply” anyway, so you never saw that point. I appreciate how your saccharine courtesies and other lip service could suit the high sleaze and base dishonesty that have continually inspired this Henson enterprise. Yes bush, Salo's honesty is so “offensive”!

However, after my substantiations above and in many posts elsewhere, I can now offer some adjectival judgements of my own...

Henson's photo work is opportunistic kitsch, stylistically echoing those black velvet paintings of Pacific island themes found in some households since the 1950s. Slightly less obvious is how Henson's style is further compromised by his derivative dependency on such precedent portraiture as Caravaggio's and Vermeer's. Such tenuous, superficial historical reference in his work offers no interesting or useful dynamic however, suggesting additionally “uninspired plagiarist” to overall impressions of “opportunist”. The banality of those aesthetic factors betrays the dishonesty of both Henson and many of his supporters. But the photo art's subject matter betrays Henson's unscrupulousness in a market where strenuously stylized poses of under-age nudity attract fanatically ardent admirers in the way excited infrastructure investors cheer state announcements of full privatization for hitherto protected assets from public domains.

I agree fully with these of bush's words though: “the henson case was never about the greatness of his art”. A perceptible core of the case was really about the mediocrity of Henson's art, and the incongruous situation where such mediocrity could be marketed, exhibited, defended so vigorously, celebrated and now, it seems, sanctified.

One disagreement, Bronwyn: I think Henson's combined cheeziness and preoccupations qualify his art as “soft kiddie porn”; Koontz and Cicciolina proved the “art/porn” binary's pointlessness.

It should be banned on social, cultural and ideological grounds. Some of our most reviled criminals perceive the whole genre as validation and encouragement.

mil-observer: << It should be banned on social, cultural and ideological grounds. >>

What a convoluted, increasingly snide and tendentious load of tripe mil-observer has written on this issue. While of course they're entitled to their opinion, calls for banning of art are in fact efforts to impose this wowser's worldview on everybody else.

Bronwyn, while I disagree with your point of view on this issue, I appreciate the calm and reasonable way you've consistently put it.

Ultimately, I think that this is is an issue on which we'll have to agree to disagree.

Q. Some more heavy-duty spider bait: if Henson had instead produced HARD core kiddie “art/porn”, would moralist calls for banning still be deemed an effort “to impose [a] wowser's worldview on everybody else”?

I admit here then that I actually do appreciate some legal porn, especially when away from family for work reasons. I do not take pride in or promote these facts as necessarily normal, and behaviorally or ideologically unproblematic – much less compulsory! – but I feel no hang-up about it, and have not since I was young. Does that still qualify me as a “wowser”?

But imagine the response and comparison if I had made “art” from Hensonized photography of say Halle Berry or Erika Heynatz. Would anyone have been upset when people stated the obvious by saying that my work fell within acceptable limits of mature and legalized “soft core porn”? And on aesthetic grounds, would anyone dare bleat to oppose the label “soft porn” for my kitsch art, or defend self-righteously by conjuring notions of what it could hardly be i.e., a supposedly “empathetic, non-sexualized, non-exploitative, non-pornographic” oeuvre of “true, high ART”?

Our traditional standards of socially just and healthy moral acceptability, within ideological precepts for valuing human life highly (thereby including child nurturing at their core), do not necessarily equate to sexually repressive puritanism at all.

So, to borrow a quote from seasoned art critic steely: who has really been “suckered in like a fool”?

Bronwyn: "He’s using children's images to create a product from which he makes big money."

Like CJ, I am happy to agree to disagree.

I only ask you one thing. If you have friends who are artists, talk to them about how much money they make and have made over their careers. Amongst my friends, the only ones who have made money are the ones who've commercialised — who design or take photos for advertising or telly. If you are still convinced that Henson is IN ANY WAY motivated by money, have a look at some of his other work — his landscapes and clothed figures. I'm not sure where you are, but try to look at the real thing, not on the internet.

Before any of this happened, I really felt Bill Henson's art had made my life richer. I still think so. Many posters have made it clear they find this disgusting — I simply don't care. Bill Henson isnt' particularly eloquent when he speaks — he's an artist, not a writer, but his explanation here, particularly at the end, does help express what he does that is so unique, i believe. http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=re28HkN39MQ

mil-observer: "Q. Vanilla: since Henson's supposed “liberation” of children from the shackles of philistine child protection, should you expect him to relinquish his profits from the enterprise?"

I know you're being sarcastic, but even when I factor that in this question makes no sense to me. I don't think Henson liberates children. I think he photographs them. I don't know what you think I think he is liberating them from. I don't think child protection is philistine — that is not an adjective that has any relevance to child protection. I have spent much time in the last year working on the sidelines of trying to prevent the sexual abuse of state wards, so I understand those issues (though, of course, I wish I understood and could do more).

mil-observer: << ...if Henson had instead produced HARD core kiddie “art/porn”, would moralist calls for banning still be deemed an effort “to impose [a] wowser's worldview on everybody else”? >>

Any kind of pornography involving children is banned already, as it should be. That is because our society has enacted legislation against child pornography, as it contravenes our generally accepted moral and ethical standards.

Bill Henson's art works that were the subject of complaints and seizures have subsequently been deemed by the relevant authorities to be in no way pornographic, as many of us have been arguing since the whole storm in a teacup blew up.

While art and pornography are not necessarily mutually exclusive terms, in this case Bill Henson's images are clearly art that is not pornographic in nature, much to the chagrine of a few who seem to be incapable of letting go of this particular obsession - no matter what its cause.

Steel

“Your fixation with Henson is more than disturbing”

I’m not at all fixated with Henson. He means nothing to me. As I’ve stated many times before I’m only interested in how this brouhaha feeds into the bigger picture. The premature sexualization of children, the commodification of childhood and the rising incidence of child abuse are the themes of interest to me in this debate.

This interest stems from the fact that I’m a mother, a teacher and like all of us here on OLO an active participant in the public debate regarding the problems facing broader society. Read into that what you will but don’t make any more of your big leaps. I’m no more disturbed or fixated than you are. If we totalled the words written on OLO on this issue by both you and myself I’d say you’d outdo me by at least three to one. And if we added up the examples of abuse and screaming you’d beat me ten to one! If I’m fixated, I don’t quite know where that leaves you.

“There is a female artist who is exhibiting photographs of two naked 11 year old boys in Victoria at present, but no-one -particularly those most critical of Henson- has said a word about it...The sexism is so obvious it should be waking people up a little to feminism and it's damaging doctrines that have infected thousands of women in our society."

Again, this is a total nonsense. The issue of debate is the Henson work, which is why I haven’t referred to others in the same genre. Of course I disagree with the young woman’s protest exhibition in Victoria. She sees herself making some sort of grand statement. I just see her as cashing in on the moment. There is absolutely no sexism in my position. I condemn equally the exploitation of girls and boys and whether it’s perpetrated by male or female is irrelevant. It just happens to be fact in today’s society, that it is girls and women who are the greater victims of this abuse.

To be continued

Steel (cont.)

“Your constant use of the term commodification is stupid. There are thousands upon thousands of advertisements and artworks that feature children as their models. I often see this term used in an anti-capitalist manner as if somehow commercial enterprise was innately a bad thing... and then unbelievably only when it comes to Henson.”

Granted, this is an important issue for me, but no, my use of the term ‘commodification’ is not stupid. Commercial enterprise in itself is not a bad thing, but when it leads to exploitation and dehumanisation as many current practices do then yes it is. I’m as critical of the exploitation of children’s images in advertising as I am in art. Your criticism of me displaying double standards, when all along I’ve been very consistent on both these issues, only shows up your own weakness in analysing arguments.

“Regional people are known to have a tendency toward idiocy.”

I thought I’d get picked up on the descriptor ‘regional”, though I didn’t think it would be by someone who in the very same post has just accused me of a similar discrimination! Your arrogant assumption that all people who live and work in regional areas are uneducated country hicks is both ignorant and discriminatory.

“I'm sick of hearing it, Bronwyn. You are wrong. Your ideology is wrong. Just face the fact that you have been suckered in like a fool with some powerful propaganda and reactionary activism.”

Again, I haven’t been suckered in any more than you have. We just hold opposing views on this issue that’s all. I appreciate the courtesy shown by CJ and others. You’ve got a way to go on that score!

Mil-observer

“One disagreement, Bronwyn: I think Henson's combined cheeziness and preoccupations qualify his art as ‘soft kiddie porn’; Koontz and Cicciolina proved the ‘art/porn’ binary's pointlessness.”

I don’t think there’s any real disagreement between us once you introduce the soft/hard distinction as you have here. I’m in strong agreement with all you say, though I wouldn’t have a clue when it comes to most of your examples!

Yes Bronwyn, “soft porn” distinctions are crucial, and we can assume a relaxed solidarity on this. Let's hope that the good among our cops, activists, lawyers and whistleblowers keep their resolve for victory.

As I understand it, “hard core” porn leaves little to the imagination, whereas “soft porn” is that which may be suggestive or objectifying enough for the visualizing into imagined “hard core”, fetish, or even just a reminder of physical form for more fleeting imagining in idle distraction. Nudity is very important in soft porn – and its offshoot of imaginings - because of [1] the symbolic vulnerability and general sensual response made more possible via nakedness, and [2] the specific exposure of erogenous parts. Thus, just as I share wider concerns about exploitation and dehumanization in advertising and elsewhere, I recognize that pornography is not the exclusive domain for sexualized imagination. However, symbolic vulnerability in nakedness has made it a practical definitional limit for “soft porn” in our culture. Of course, those definitions are outside of medical photos, for example, which some dubiously motivated Henson fans in OLO have already invoked as grounds for yet more insult and dull ridicule.

I referred to American Jeff Koontz and Italian ex-porn star Cicciolina who made highly stylized “art” photography of themselves with XXX-level explicitness, in a most emphatic destruction of the simplistic English law-style binary opposition between “art” and “porn”. But it's probably a good sign for your future enjoyment of art if you feel oblivious to most of my arty references: it's exciting to freshly examine works for your interpretations within a discourse, and to identify how factors of style and subject may connect to your social concerns. You might be surprised how easily your interpretations could offer new insight even to veteran artists and academics. Furthermore, your candid admission contrasts starkly with one other's earlier, dubious and irrelevant OLO thread allusion to Caravaggio (obviously token name-dropping lifted from Greer's mention of him), and a similarly vacuous and unconvincing tag for Pasolini's “Salo” i.e., “great, unforgettable movie”, but no comparative comment or other grasp of Salo

except for repeating the basic stated fact of its Australian banning. But desperate inverters of reality would label truthseekers “philistines”.

CJ and Van both avoid my testing question on “hard core kiddie porn”: they choose instead to hide behind the “relevant authorities” for some effortless appearance of “respectability”. In CJ's earlier posts here he also used the “wowser” abuse (with an extra one for Bowden about a “rock”) before the recent simplistic Henson-is-art-not-porn decision. While Henson supporters here mostly betray inconsistent argumentative logic, there is clear consistency between the dishonesty of their separate statements and the fundamental dishonesty of their moral position. The latest stunt poses a glib and obsequious nod to “the relevant authorities”, thereby relinquishing the activity of individual freethinking – all in a forum where Hensonites have made their uncritical “free expression” clichés into an almost overwhelming fanatic's article of faith.

I wasn't sarcastic when I extrapolated logically that following quote from Van's hyperbolic eulogy claiming that “Henson seeks to...DEcommodify childhood”. As with most others posing an “artistic freedom” agenda here, Van self-denies and still avoids my questions, comparisons, analysis, historical and ideological references – in short: avoidance of any serious debate.

Van comments that Henson is ineloquent, though “inarticulate” better captures Henson's deeper problems of self-expression, and thereby explains why his art is so banal and mediocre. It is unnecessarily cruel to condemn the artist for his mediocrity; his rich, dull and/or pretentious supporters are properly culpable in that regard. But its obvious banality carries Henson's art into those light themes – if not vacuum - of “soft porn”.

Again, what of Nazi pedo-art and Pasolini's warnings in “Salo”? The avowedly intrepid taboo-breaking Hensonites cannot touch that apparently sacred ideological nerve centre. By contrast, we are anti-fascist because we oppose the perverse morality which would uphold as “good” the delight in, and wilful dominance, subjugation and debasement of, our fellow humans. We are anti-pedophile because we abhor those yet more cowardly fascistic tastes for exerting similarly oppressive and perverse relationships, but on an individual level and with children.

mil-observer: << CJ and Van both avoid my testing question on “hard core kiddie porn”: they choose instead to hide behind the “relevant authorities” for some effortless appearance of “respectability”. >>

Mil-observer can babble on as much as s/he likes about the distinction between "soft" and "hard" pornography, but the fact is that Henson's images have been determined to be neither by those authorities whose job it is to classify images in the media or to prosecute cases of child pornography.

While mil-observer may subjectively decide that the images are pornographic, that idiosyncratic assessment says much more about mil-observer than it does about the images.

It looks like the ideological path is the one least cluttered by cobwebs and other arachnid matter, so I'll correct a previous posting for emphasis: “By contrast, we are anti-fascist because we oppose the perverse morality which would uphold as “good” their delight in the wilful dominance, subjugation and debasement of our fellow humans.”

I had no space earlier to mention other prominent works offering insight into the pathology of fascism's pedophilic instincts and the pedo-aesthetic within fascist identity. One notable example is the social realist epic by another Italian director Bertolucci with “Novecento” (“1900”). A broad and rich German analysis into the caverns under such ideological rubble was the literature of Klaus Theweleit, whose exploration of fascism's pathological tendencies opened their wider scope of aggression in specific dynamics of psycho-social and sexological symptoms.

I think it's also important to identify much of the pro-Henson “debating” style here, which indicates extraordinarily aggressive sophistry. One consistent tactic is regressive or infantile inversion of the original argument of those demanding prohibition of Henson's artistic kiddie porn. Thus does concern for the very pathology of pedophilia twist perversely so that aggressive Hensonites describe the concerned people themselves as “sick”, “obsessed”, “fixated” or even “pornographic-minded” if regarding Henson's photography for what it is i.e., soft kiddie porn.

Around that effort to invert statements against the person making them – as revealed even conceptually by an admission about “react to...reactions” - are steady torrents of personal abuse. Thus, the aggressive techniques go further still when Hensonites use “straw men”, or largely fictitious notions to misrepresent and smear their opponents with derogatory labels. For example, those who would censor or prosecute over photography of naked children are puritanical “wowsers”, or self-interested to impose themselves on the rest of “us”. Another approach is to depict opponents as anti-art or ignorant, uncultured “philistines”, “regional”, etc.

Then there is the argumentative cul de sac claiming that the debate must be about whether Henson's photography is “art” or “porn”. After these tactics have been discredited or at least exposed, there are vague claims to

elicit sympathy e.g., “I was abused so I know”, “I help abuse victims, so I care”, etc. Finally, in this case, there is refuge in another, seemingly safer cul de sac, resting conceitedly on a notion of official vindication over Henson's artistic porn. However, such righteous attitude is also unexplained, based as it is only on lawyers' decision to abandon prosecution against Henson due to isolated systemic legal considerations about the likelihood of success.

And parallels? From my time working in government I recall one pedophile arrested for his many years of abusing untold dozens of children during official business to various neighboring countries. He was uncovered after carelessly using a workplace computer to store and retrieve over ten thousand images of children, some highly explicit, some of clothed children, and many in between as “soft kiddie porn” of naked children. There remained several months of administrative process to remove the pedophile into surveillance and treatment.

However, during his remaining six months he revealed more unusual behavior when interacting with people who hitherto regarded him as just a rather repressed, but non-criminal, middle-aged colleague. After his arrest and the publicity, he would pass colleagues and state unprompted that he had been abused as a child, and asked for understanding. Weeks later, he started to voice hostility about gay people, including specifically those colleagues who were either openly or presumedly gay. Apparently the pedophile did this to manipulate sympathy from those colleagues known to express anti-gay prejudices; but they too, however, were perplexed in disgust.

From my reading of some criminology I understand that as a category of offender sexual abusers of children are notoriously recidivist and manipulative, and even extraordinarily resistant to efforts at just making them acknowledge the pathology and criminality of their activities. A typical example of pedophile denial is clear around cases of children ensnared in poorer countries' desperate prostitution industry, where pedophiles claim indignantly that their victims actually benefited via pay, food, accommodation or shared holiday trips.

Some pedophiles even describe their contributions to such brutal commerce in language of religious-style salvation.

"Mil-observer can babble on as much as s/he likes about the distinction between "soft" and "hard" pornography, but the fact is that Henson's images have been determined to be neither by those authorities whose job it is to classify images in the media or to prosecute cases of child pornography."

The fact is that it is banned in London as Child Pornography. The Classification Board in Oz, free passes child pornographers as its stock in trade, it's notorious. Henson wasn't the first. Henson is banned from exhibiting that material in several countries.

I was speaking to a Dutch pornographer yesterday, he said (a) it was child pornography (b) it would be impossible to produce anything more like pornography. I refer you to the glass negative material re: 1880s. It was copied from classic pornography, Henson can't even do original! It was retro-chid pornography.

Henson produces child pornography, we all know that, so we should stop being silly. The classification board, couldn't see the sex in naked teens (15 & 16) in a tub surrounded by Meot bottles, they're not being trying to hide their pro-pedophile bent.

Bill Henson is not only a man who produces child pornography, he was the inspiration, for laws to prohibit it, so the Oz position is whacko, it really is, who do these people think they're kidding?

Abnd (lastly) Alison Croggon is the definitive hypocrite.

UNCRC, in case you're not aware, we're talking about a moral panic in Australian society. The UK is another country, with different laws and culture.

You seem to be more than a little obsessed with this issue. However, if your aim is to impose your views on Australian society, then I can assure you that you'll have a long and ultimately unsuccessful fight on your hands.

Aussies tolerate wowsers only slightly more than we tolerate paedophiles, which is obviously not very much. I think you should move to London, where apparently the local laws, customs and art are apprently more to your liking than those in Australia.

Those who seek to protect children in times that are proving the children more vulnerable than ever in history, for that we are being labelled wowsers and worse. What the hell is it with you guys? No children of your own or are you lot simply indifferent to the fate of children? Arent there other things to paint or photograph?There is so much beauty in the world that I cant understand why prurient interests override every other consideration.

Never before has paedophilia been so widespread.Every day there are reports of world-wide networks being busted. It is so prevalent that it must give rise for some concerm surely that even latent and incipient forms of the disease should not be overlooked or rationalised away.Those salivating from the mouth and elsewhere must be cheering the champions of so-called freedeom of expression to launch more aggressive attacks on so-called wowsers on their behalf. They must be so pleased with all these tripy posts on OLO. You are doing them one helluva favour, guys.You should be so proud of yourselves.The rock spiders need all the help you can give them.
socratease

ah but look over to their latest refuge, soc! It looks like a flag...is it a white one? No, it's a big, glittery Oz flag, and I think I can hear a national anthem with it...

Your target is right in the corner now. Don't step on it. Want to use a spray?

Thanks for your post,mill-observer.
These contemptibles have had enough of publicity and manya good spray,for all the good that it'll do.
This topic has had enough coverage,dont you think and it's time to consign the "art" liberators and their clientele to oblivion.No more!

socratease