For those who live under the proverbial, in the last couple of days a cause célèbre has emerged in the art world, centering on the work of photographer Bill Henson.

He has photographed young children — twelve and thirteen-year-olds — in the nuddy.

While the PM sees "no artistic merit" in Henson's work, most people who are interested in art do. I have been a fan of his gothic, broody, cut-up images for at least a decade. He's internationally important, he's hung everywhere — I've never heard someone who loves art dismiss his contribution. While there's a sexual undercurrent in his previous work, it was never pornographic or exploitative. While you could sometimes tell his models were naked, they were most dark blurry outlines.

I haven't seen the current work thought, except for pixelated in the paper. I think the pixelation makes it look more sexual than it otherwise would.

On another thread, somebody asked if they would be happy if their adolescent child posed naked for Henson. I know a mother who was in a similar position about a decade. (Not for Henson, but for two other Sydney photographers.) She said yes, because her daughter wanted to, was emotionally mature, understood the art, which wasn't in the least sexual. As far as I know, they have never regretted the decision.

Personally, I agree with the art gallery owner (I think) who said that society is transferring its anxieties about pedeophilia onto this work. Henson's art is about the dark heart of adolescence, it's about as far removed from teen porn as you could get.

Here are some examples of Henson's work:
http://www.pavementmagazine.com/billhenson.html
http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/photography/past_exhns/twilight/henson/index.html

Some meeja articles if you so desire:

Bill Henson's career: http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/career-framed-by-controversy/2008/05/23/1211183097203.html

Our PM turns art critic: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23745396-2702,00.html

Fairfax on Henson as a whipping boy: http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/henson-a-whipping-boy/2008/05/23/1211183060448.html

The Australian on other artists defending Henson: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23749123-16947,00.html

What do you think?

I agree Vanilla. This is classic 'moral panic' hysteria.

It's an interesting twist on the notion of obscenity - works of art being banned because people are frightened that paedophiles might get their jollies from looking at them. I understand that there are some sad losers out there who get their rocks off from Target underwear catalogues... they should be banned too!

What a load of crap.

Vanilla

I practically cried in despair when I heard that Henson's work was being vandalised by the sexually challenged.

As you said, society is transferring its anxieties about paedophilia onto Henson's work.

In a world where our sexuality and bodies were considered absolutely normal, this wouldn't happen. It is appalling that work like this is desecrated while paedophile priests are protected.

I guess that parents everywhere should destroy their children's photos of them (their kids) in the nuddy.

:-)

Instead of reaching greater enlightenment, we are becoming seriously mentally imbalanced as a society.

Are we entering a new Dark Age?

Why?

I have a daughter of this age and I find the photographs offensive.

After all, if the community decided that an underage model should be prevented from being the (clothed) face of Australian fashion week, then these pictures of a naked child are surely beyond the pale.

I have no problem with nudity in art in general, as long as we are talking about adults. But a 12 year old is not, and should not be presented as a sexual being. The same images, if they were found on your computer would result in possible jail terms as pedophilia.

That artists feel they need to push boundaries is understandable. This does not absolve us of the need to have boundaries, however. Just because the artist claims it is "art" doesn't always make it so.

I am an art fan, I worked for a number of years in Fine Arts.Where is the artistic merit in presenting images which sexualise a child and titillate pedophiles? I wonder how the kid is likely to feel at school now, when all the kids will have seen her naked? It has the potential to be VERY challenging and possibly damaging to the child's welfare. We have an age of sexual consent for a reason.

Personally I find this work to be in the same vein, although far more offensive, than those beauty pageants where 5 year olds wear make up and provocative clothes. There is just no need for it.

I would not consider myself a prude and for example, didn't feel Salo needed to be censored, but this is too much. Pedophilia and the sexualisation of children is taboo for a very good reason. I don't see what light the artist could possibly be shedding on this area. And if it isn't saying anything of value then it isn't art, its titillation.

It's tasteless obscenity organised for maximum shock value. Truly, this is "art" madonna style.

That's an interesting perspective Paul, and persuasive. But I disagree with it.

For one thing, "It's tasteless obscenity organised for maximum shock value. Truly, this is "art" madonna style." I just don't see how anyone could get this from Henson's work. Coincidently, I took my husband to the Art Gallery of NSW about two weeks ago, mainly to show him the three or four pieces that are hung there (he'd never seen any Henson before) and we discussed the controversy that dogs him. Just looking at that work again reminded me how I've often wished I'd been aware of him when I was the age of the models that he photographs. Everything he says about adolescence, I understand. I find his work comforting.

I find it comforting and eerie, beautiful and mythic. I understand why others find it difficult, impenetrable, confusing, confronting. But I just don't get why anyone would find it tasteless or obscene. I think it's pretty obvious he wasn't motivated by shock value, and he has nothing in common with Madge.

Paul: "I have no problem with nudity in art in general, as long as we are talking about adults. But a 12 year old is not, and should not be presented as a sexual being. The same images, if they were found on your computer would result in possible jail terms as pedophilia."

The way I read Henson's work, he is presenting children as innocent but latent sexual beings. He's not presenting them AS sexual beings — they look childish, innocent. But they appear to be drifting off into an uncertain adulthood. His figures always look quite tabula rasa to me — it's us who are painting them with a veneer of sexual consciousness.

Paul: "That artists feel they need to push boundaries is understandable. This does not absolve us of the need to have boundaries, however. Just because the artist claims it is "art" doesn't always make it so."

With this I entirely agree.

Vanilla I'm not familiar with his work or the pieces in this exhibition so I can't comment on the specific pieces.

I do wonder about the precedent, will the next step be to remove older pieces from art galleries where they include images of naked children? Are those images OK but newer ones somehow obscene? If so how does that work?

The precedent is concerning because there seems little logical reason to stop just at this one exhibition.

I'd better stop now and see if I need to rip some pages out of any art books on my bookshelves. Maybe we could have a big art and book burning festival to help protect children. Anybody got any prints of old masters that could be mistaken for child porn to contribute to the bonfire?

On the other hand we could get over our religiously inspired body taboo's and develop healthier attitudes to the body.

R0bert

Probably my favourite artist is the sixteenth century Cranach the Elder. (There's was a Younger as well, you see.) His models were clearly underage. See: http://www.artchive.com/artchive/c/cranach/cranach_lucretia.jpg

The Royal Academy in London recently had a Cranach exhibition, and advertised it with this poster: http://static.royalacademy.org.uk/images/372x372/poster-1766.jpg

The London Underground deemed it too sexual, and banned it from tube stations. "Millions of people travel on the London Underground each day and they have no choice but to view whatever adverts are posted there. We have to take account of the full range of travellers and endeavour not to cause offence in the advertising we display," a spokesman said.

I think it was later unbanned, and Venus went on the thrust her proud bosum from the sides of buses everywhere. But not one has mentioned the fact that the girls looks about sixteen years old. She's not around to tell tattletales on Cranach the Elder, I suppose.

I hope that the indignant 'moral' outrage will eventually settle down (I really wanted to say 'peter out', but perhaps I should steer clear of the double entendre).

Even "Piss Christ" has earned its place in Art History.

I'm sure that no-one could find anything offensive in the following image:

http://www.christian-travelers-guides.com/art/art-pics/03v0014a.jpg

It's not all bad - at least it's got people talking about art, not to mention the likelihood of a surge in the market for fig leaves.

Dear Vanilla,

I've studied Art History for more than five years so nudity is not something that would shock me. We've had cries of outrage from the public before -
Norman Lindsay's voluptuous female nudes come to mind.

I have to admit that I'm not familiar with Bill Henson's work - so as Robert said - I too can't comment on the individual pieces.

However, I have to admit that from what I've read, Henson has concentrated his work on children aged 12 and 13 as his subjects and
despite whatever claims are made of the artistic value of his photographs, there has to be considerable unease - showing them in the nude.

I'm not trying to be deliberately contentious here but we live in an
age in which there is an on-going procession of cases involving child pornography on the Internet and child molestation and familial abuse.

We heard about the nightmare and scourge of alcohol and drugs in
remote communities. Shocking crimes are hidden from mainstream Australian Society.

I'm not suggesting we 'burn' art books or anything of the kind. I am
stating that I understand the unease with which some people would view
Henson's work - considering the ages of his subject matter - and the fact that he presents them naked.

I saw the censored versions of a few photographs of one child on news.com, and I thought they were sad. I won’t make any comment on the rights or wrongs of taking pictures of naked children; my moral judgements belong to a generation much before the time of most other posters, and they will have to live with whatever behaviour and beliefs they espouse throw up in the future.

However, my hackles did rise after I discovered that the “young adults” referred to by a supporter of Hanson’s on ABC News Radio were, in fact, aged from 11 years to 13 years. Anyone who thinks that 11, 12 and 13 year olds are adults is a very dangerous person.

There is a male poster here who seems to be quite comfortable about these photographs. Not so long ago (in a totally innocent and unrelated context) the poster revealed that he had a 12 year old daughter.

I wonder if he would care to advise whether or not he would be prepared to have his daughter photographed naked and put on public display

I feel absolutely no need to qualify why I find this 'art' offensive.

I am sick to death of the pretentious élitism that looks at a pile of bricks and calls it art;-a blank canvas;-art,....naked youngsters;-art.

Lets face it;- if one is raped tastefully;-it's erotic art?

NO! It's rape.

A pedophile (no;-I'm not saying wotsaface is),- can express his pedophilic gratification by photographing naked children and adolescents;-framing them; and calling them 'art'.

Does that qualify them as art? By definition it should do.

Frankly, artistic expression has boundless sources. I am contemptuous of a so-called artist having such a narrow field of expression that he has to resort to this.
I feel the same contempt for the pretentious bullshite that not only allows it, but praises it, and condemns those who oppose it.

Artist or pornographer? - maybe neither.

I don't know much about Henson so cannot comment about his own motives, artistic or otherwise. As an amateur student of art I have sketched nude models on a number of occasions without blinking an eye. The human body is beautiful in all its various shapes and forms and I know that those who support the work might place this exhibition in that category. I would disagree.

I find this work to be disquieting to say the least. We are not talking about adults but children and like PaulL, Foxy and Ginx I am uneasy about this exhibition. Images of naked children, no matter how artistically posed or creatively photographed, move into that whole sexualisation of children category that I know you are all so fond of hearing about in other threads. :)

I would not like to comment about the artists's intentions - he appears to have some artistic talent but I would suggest this talent would better be served using another outlet. One wonders if this exhitibiton was meant to shock or if he was naive in his expectations of the public.

In my view, art is often at its best when it is confronting but not when children are exploited in this manner.

It was interesting to note that in tonight's news that 'random' street interviews reflected more outrage from the younger participants than from those more in my age group (the younger late 40s) so I don't think it is necessarily a generational thing.

Foxy: "I've studied Art History for more than five years..."
Pelican: "I would not like to comment about the artists's intentions - he appears to have some artistic talent but I would suggest this talent would better be served using another outlet."

You both seem confident in your artistic judgment. And yet as an "amateur student of art" (Pelican) and someone who's studied art for five years (Foxy), it's a bit weird that you don't know Bill Henson. He's VERY famous. I've never studied art beyond first year uni, but I love it and have tried to learn as much as I can in the past decade and I do go to exhibitions regularly, and I would have thought it would have been hard to ignore Henson in the last ten years.

Fractelle, good points all.

For those people who have heard of Piss Christ but aren't exactly sure what it might look like, here it is. I think it's beautiful: http://lickerish.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/serrano-andres-piss-christ-1987.jpg

Ginx: "I feel absolutely no need to qualify why I find this 'art' offensive."
And, indeed, you haven't justified it, so you have proved that point. Onya.

I responded to this on the other thread, but you've added more to this thread. You mention rape — do you think rape is involved? Are you saying pedophiles can put a frame around sexual pictures of children and pass it off as art? If you believe this, have you any examples? "...By definition it should do." Are you saying putting a frame around a picture defines it as art? How, then, do you define art? Or how do you think others define it?

From your last paragraph, I'm getting you don't like artists who are not broad in their vision, you don't liken art w@nkers, and you feel the argument pro-Henson is "condemnation" of alternative views. Is that it?

Regardless of whether the material ultimately refers pornography or not by context of expression and/or whether or not society is transferring it's anxieties about pedeophilia onto this work, the fact at the heart of the matter is that 12 year old girls should not; (with and/or with out parental consent)be posing nude before any adult, acclaimed photographer or artist or not, for any reason.

Those who do not want it to be called what it is art seem driven by fear.
Yes we fear miss use by pedophiles but we are not talking about that surely?
Surely art is art? the human body is not something strange to us and it is not dirty maybe Christian morals play a part here it is art and unless the kids did not want to take part no crime in it.

There's a big difference between acknowledging that some art makes people feel "uneasy" and demanding that an exhibition be banned and the artist charged with a criminal offence.

I'm quite astonished at the philistinism expressed by some people here.

I’m outraged at this police action.

There is another significant aspect to this, apart from the thuggish enforcement of morals that would be much better left alone entirely.

This is the fact that Henson has had at least one similar exhibition about three years ago with no complaints, after being viewed by some 65 000 people, and has indeed been producing similar stuff for years…which effectively means that the law, police and society had condoned his work as being within the legal boundaries.

It is difficult to determine just where the boundaries are with this sort of thing. But once they have been established, as they are with legal precedents in a court of law, then they need to be adhered to…..and people need to NOT be punished if they are acting within them.

The police would argue that they didn’t act the first time because there wasn’t a complaint. But I doubt that they could argue that the first exhibition was any less infringing of morals or law.

They would have known, or damn well should have known, that this earlier major exhibition was perhaps a little on the edges of legality and needed to be checked out. The absence of a complaint was no excuse.

It is NOT acceptable for the police to have let the 2004 exhibition ride, only to greatly tarnish the reputation of Henson…and the Art Gallery of NSW, and lay serious charges in 08. You can bet that the gallery at least, and presumably Henson as well, would have been very sensitive to the prospect of legal problems. They foresaw none, or at least not to the extent of having the exhibition skittled and charges laid. The history of both the artist and the gallery had led them to believe that all was above board this time.

The police action is duplicitous in the extreme. One of my great bug-bears is inefficient, duplicitous, long-time-blind-eye-then-bloody-big-stick-for-just-the-same-thing approach to policing.

I think the police will be the laughing stocks here, and the reputation of Henson and the Gallery will be strengthened as a result.

Ludwig

'It is NOT acceptable for the police to have let the 2004 exhibition ride, only to greatly tarnish the reputation of Henson'

Your logic reads:

It is NOT acceptable for the police to have let the paedophile Priests be charged because of their upright reputation because they had got away with it before.

Face it, this man is dealing in deviancy. You may call it art. I agree with Mr Rudd for a change. Only sick hearts and minds want to exploit young children like this.

What are you suggesting Vanilla?

"You both seem confident in your artistic judgment. And yet as an "amateur student of art" (Pelican) and someone who's studied art for five years (Foxy), it's a bit weird that you don't know Bill Henson. He's VERY famous. I've never studied art beyond first year uni, but I love it and have tried to learn as much as I can in the past decade and I do go to exhibitions regularly, and I would have thought it would have been hard to ignore Henson in the last ten years."

Declaring that I am an "amatuer" would hardly suggest I am "confident in my artistic judgement" as you claim.

Why does a state of amateurishness immediately negate the right to make a comment about art. I also go to many exhibitions but would not claim that this makes me an expert just someone who appreciates other people's amazing talent and wish that mine could improve to the same standard. It is not also not unlikely that an amateur who leans mainly towards oils and charcoal might not be as well vested with knowledge of photographic art.

Regardless, Vanilla I thought this article was about Henson not about Foxy or my artistic knowledge. We should not be distracted - this thread was about Bill Henson's photographs of nude children.

I am at least willing to give the artist the benefit of the doubt regarding his intentions but it does not change the fact that these photos are highly inappropriate, of bad taste and do nothing to curb the current status quo of media/corporate using children in sexualised images to sell clothes, CDs (via video clips) etal.

I agree with pelican, I am willing to give the artist the benefit of the doubt regarding his intentions (re probably not a pedophile), although it does seem to me he was attempting to shock. That is why I mentioned Madge

Vaniilla, surely you can see that a 16 year old Venus is different to a 12 year old Venus? Our age of consent is 16 in this country. In other words we legally define a 16 year old as a sexual being competent to make decisions regrading their bodies. 12 is too young.

you say>> " The way I read Henson's work, he is presenting children as innocent but latent sexual beings. He's not presenting them AS sexual beings — they look childish, innocent" My point is why do we feel the need to sexualise 12 year olds, even latently?

Robert says >>"On the other hand we could get over our religiously inspired body taboo's and develop healthier attitudes to the body."

Are you suggesting that naked pictures of children on a pedophiles computer should be legal? Because it sounds that way to me. Are we prudes because we object to the sexualisation of children? Because if so i would be happy to wear the label. Indeed i find it extremely unhealthy that people are interested in looking at a 12 year old naked .

Don't attempt to lump this in with some peoples prudish distaste for nakedness of any kind. We are talking about young kids here. They need our protection not exploitation, whatever the aim.

I would like to know whether those who support these pictures ( not those who support the artist ) would be comfortable having their own 12 year old, 9 year old or 6 year old child photographed in this way. Since age is clearly not the issue to the supporters.

Would all those foaming at the mouth with rage at the temerity of an established artist’s TASTEFUL depictions of nude children, please assign some discernment and priority with your disapproval.

The advertising industry, in its quest for your dollars, continues unabated to sexualise our children every single day, yet here you all are disparaging someone who has more talent in his little finger than any advertising executive or editor of magazines.

Consider the following:

“In 2006, the retail chain Tesco launched the Peekaboo Pole Dancing Kit, a play set designed to help young girls "unleash the sex kitten inside."
Perturbed parents, voicing concern that their 5-year-olds might be too young to engage in sex work, lobbied to have the product pulled. Tesco removed the play set from the toy section but kept it on the market...

... you can't keep kids in a bubble forever. As they get older, they're going to be exposed to these things, and the most helpful thing that anyone can do is talk about what's going on in the media with children and offering them ways to maintain distance and be critical of these representations and understanding the selling intentions behind them and all of those things.”

The full article is at:

http://www.alternet.org/sex/85977/?page=entire

And I beg you all to read it before casting any more aspersions on Bill Henson. At least place your rage squarely where it belongs.

If Henson has achieved anything with his exhibition it is that we are still embarrassed by our own bodies and sexuality and really need to grow up.

Pelican,
I have offended you and I apologise. To clarify, I guess I thought that by suggesting Henson’s “talent would better be served using another outlet”, you came across as confident in your ability to judge his talent. Henson’s range is narrow — he is so consumed by a particular low-lit haunted netherworld that it is hard to imagine what other outlet (I assume you mean of subject matter rather than medium) you expect him to find. I also found “he appears to have some artistic talent” rather condescending. It’s like saying Patrick White appears to have some literary talent. I guess it’s my opinion that if you’re going to damn with faint praise or redirect his life’s work you really need to know your stuff. I hope I haven’t further offended you, but do you see my point?

But, back to Henson, you say, “...these photos are highly inappropriate, of bad taste and do nothing to curb the current status quo of media/corporate using children in sexualised images to sell clothes, CDs (via video clips)”

But is “appropriate” appropriate in the art world? Shouldn’t art be brave, take risks, challenge? And what is “bad taste”? Henson’s work is beautiful to look at and respectful of its subjects (or do you disagree?) collected by galleries worldwide — why “bad taste”? And why on earth should Henson help curb the hideous corporate trick of sexualising children to sell products? What’s it got to do with him?

These are genuine questions, if you can be bothered answering them.

Meanwhile, Foxy, sorry, I know I’m fresh from admonishing you on the “Empirical God?” thread, but I’m now going to do it again here and say that I see you’ve cut and pasted some of your post from this editorial: http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2008/05/24/11549_editorial-news.html

With much respect, I think you should observe copyright laws and attribute your sources properly if you are quoting word for word. That is, stick quote marks around them and let us know where they’re from. We want to hear what YOU think, not others.

Dear Vanilla,

Yes, I did cut and paste from the source that you mentioned because it was what I actually thought and being late at night and feeling extremely tired I took the liberty to use something I agreed with.
I had just come from from a very large entertaining lunch, and had too much wine. So, my apologies. It does not alter the fact of my views on the subject however.

You my dear, need to get over the fact that no everyone is going to agree with you on certain topics and stop your rather heavy handiness with people of opposing views at times. As Pelican pointed out - our knowledge of Art does not necessarily make us experts - but it also
doesn't make us ignorant - simply because we're not familiar with
Bill Heson's work. Neither Pelican nor I were judging the artistic merit of what Heson does - we were merely expressing our understanding of why some people would have considerable unease concerning the ages of his subject matter, the fact that they were children and the form in which they were being presented - naked.

You did ask what we thought and we tried to answer you in whatever form we could at the time - I apologise for not having supplied you with a bibliography (or footnotes) of my sources used. I'll try not to let it happen again. Perhaps I'll avoid your threads altogether in the future!

I fear for us all teachers if men can no longer put his arm around a little girl if she is crying.
Todays Sydney press spoke of nude baby's in adds being a help to pedophiles gee will it end?
Just once look at the photos without thinking of sex see the very real art?
See the story each picture tells?
Can you not see the art the true humanity of the thing?
Will our children be covered in that long dress with just the eyes because it may be sexual?
Would we be better asking why 10 year olds dress like 18 year olds? why mums let them have make up and even boy Friends?
It is art not sexual exploitation the world laughs at us

Vanilla,
My photograph, as a naked two year old, stood on my parents’ mantel shelf for many years and nobody ever gave it a second thought, nobody we knew saw it as sinful.
People might as well call this sinful: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/256894/pee_shooter_statue/

I haven’t seen these particular photographs by Henson, but if they are as beautifully artistic as his other work I have no doubt that there is nothing pornographic about them.

Still, I do see the point of people who feel uneasy with the thought of photographing 12-year old girls nude, even in the most artistic manner.

I don’t know how explicit these photographs are, I don’t know the shading was used, but his other work shows very tasteful and he used adequate shading/lighting as far as I know.
How were these pictures different from his past ones of nude bodies?

I'm afraid I can’t fully make up my mind about these pictures simply because I haven’t seen them.
Photographs are, imo, far more personal than other media reflections, e.g. paintings, so my opinion would probably depend on how much this girl was protected by the artist’s use of creative use of shading/lighting.

Belly,

If you can’t see the difference between comforting a child by putting your arm around them, and photographing them naked, then there’s something wrong.

You say >> “Would we be better asking why 10 year olds dress like 18 year olds”

Can’t you see that this is exactly what the artist is doing, framing children in a sexual manner more appropriate for adults. Indeed surely it is less harmful to be clothed like an adult than to be unclothed like one.

If the world laughs at us because we consider the sexualisation of children offensive, I feel sorry for them, and their children, not embarrassed. Being popular and being right aren’t the same, you should know this.

Vanilla,

The importance of the artist and his work is irrelevant. It is almost always an entirely subjective judgement when it comes to valuing modern art anyway. We are talking about the subject matter. You don’t need to be an art critic to do that. Indeed it probably helps if you are not, as I generally find them to be haughty types with no connection to the community at large. A generally left wing elitist bunch

You say>> “ But is “appropriate” appropriate in the art world? Shouldn’t art be brave, take risks, challenge?

This is true to an extent. Are there limits? I would ask in reply. I would argue that there are limits and the sexualisation of young children exceeds them.

You say >> “And why on earth should Henson help curb the hideous corporate trick of sexualising children …? “

I’d say he is feeding from the same trough, making money and reputation using the innocence of children.

Piss Christ, in my opinion, is stupid, says nothing and has no value. Its only point is in offending Christians; otherwise it would never have even been noticed. It’s shock value is all that it possess. But I don’t want to ban it, Christians can look after themselves. Children, however, need our protection.

BTW, I bet there were a few supporters of Hensons’ work who condemned the cartoons of Mohammed.

Paul L

Taking photos of children naked and sexualising them are completely different. Don't you have any family snaps of your kids playing naked in the backyard pool or in the bathtub?

Please refer to my post above in which I discuss where true sexploitation of children occurs - in the advertising media.

Any paedophile can get his rocks off in the local Target Underwear catalogue instead of forking dollars out for entry at an art exhibition.

What is wrong is our attitudes to our bodies and our denial of our sexual natures. If we had better sex education and more open attitude towards something that is completely natural, I believe there would be less people with sexual perversions such as paedophiles.

BTW Since you chose to go off topic; I did not condemn the mohammed cartoons and I very much doubt that people who are broadminded about sex would've condemned those cartoons either. Are you trying to do a 'Boaz' and bring in a bit of mozzie bashing?

Paul.L: << framing children in a sexual manner more appropriate for adults >>

Utter rubbish. If you'd seen these or any other of Henson's works you'd be aware that there is little that is 'sexual' about them, other than the attributions put on them by philistines with sexual hang-ups - including 'perverts'.

<< I would argue that there are limits and the sexualisation of young children exceeds them. >>

So stop sexualising them. The artist doesn't and those who appreciate his art don't. It's hysterical latter-day prudes like you - and paedophiles - who do. That's one thing you have in common with them.

<< I bet there were a few supporters of Hensons’ work who condemned the cartoons of Mohammed >>

Huh? This is a discussion about the distinction between art and pornography, not about Islamophobic cartoons. While I appreciate that Paul is an obsessed Islamophobic wingnut, I wasn't aware that his ignorance extended to art as well. Paul - very few people regard political cartoons as 'art', and I imagine even fewer could find a pornographic connection. Your mind works in interesting ways.

pelican: << these photos are highly inappropriate, of bad taste and do nothing to curb the current status quo of media/corporate using children in sexualised images to sell clothes, CDs (via video clips) etal. >>

Their supposed inappropriateness and bad taste say more about the observer than they do about the art. As beautiful artistic images, in my opinion they are entirely appropriate to be displayed an art gallery. As for deeming them to be in 'bad taste' - that is what this stoush is about, isn't it? It seems to me that it is those who deem naked adolescent bodies intrinsically pornographic who are displaying a lack of taste, rather than those who celebrate their beauty.

And why is it the artist's job to take on corporate entities that do use sexualised images of young people to push their wares? In my opinion, a Bratz doll is more offensive than Henson's photographs, and even then I think the criticism is somewhat overblown.

Well said, CJ.

Though in a somewhat depressing turn, I note that a poll on The Australian's website has 45 per cent saying the pictures are pornography, 40 per cent saying it is art, with the remainder saying it is neither.

I also note that it looks like there's going to be the same farce of a trial that erupted over the release of the novel, Lady Chatterley's lover. Looking back, people came to realise how foolish this censorship was, but until we have that hindsight on this issue, it's going to be another circus.

Paul: “...why do we feel the need to sexualise 12 year olds, even latently?”
But Henson isn't sexualising the kids in his photos.

I'd also add that, as children, we *are* latent sexual beings, whether we like it or not — our sexuality is always there, lurking and waiting to consume us when our internal timetable flicks its switch. At a day old, a girl baby has all the eggs within her that she’ll ever need — the germs of the generation she will produce. The very reason sex exists is sitting inside her. Henson has created a dark, fairytale world where adolescence holds within it everthing that lays in wait — not just sex, but adult pain and joy as well. Henson's work is complicated and the people in it are complicated, it’s weighty. This is art that is supposed to make you uneasy — not “shock” you, but return you to the limbo between childhood and adulthood. It is adolescent-centric, not adult-centric. It has nothing in common with a cheap sexual thrill.

Paul: “Indeed i find it extremely unhealthy that people are interested in looking at a 12 year old naked.”
Why? Aren’t twelve-year-olds beautiful? Isn’t any human being? For a comprehensive look at children — clothed and naked — in art, see: http://art.childrenincinema.com/ And what exactly is it that is “unhealthy” about my appreciation of the art of Bill Henson or Sally Manne? Are you accusing me of getting off on it sexually? Because I really don’t. Or is it something else?

I also love the crinkly, papery skin of the elderly — even in the nuddy. Is that unhealthy too?

If we censor ourselves and our artists because we are afraid pedophiles might find their artwork erotic, then the pedophiles are — quite literally — defining the limits of our art. We cannot let them rule us.

Loved your post Celivia; family photos of kids in the nude are commonplace and a wonderful reminder of what true innocence is. Loved the boy peeing video - I think some people on this forum really need to lighten up.

Whereas the current 'sturm und drang' over Henson's art is absurd given that anyone can key 'child model' into Google and be overwhelmed by deliberate sexploitation images.

I'm betting that by this time next year Henson's thoughtful images will be back on display. Unfortunately I don't think that people will be any more enlightened about sex either

Fractelle,

You say>>” Taking photos of children naked and sexualising them are completely different”

But then you say. >> “What is wrong is our attitudes to our bodies and our denial of our sexual natures.

You are totally contradicting yourself. You just finished saying that the photos aren’t sexualising children and then you suggest we aren’t comfortable with our sexual natures.

Wrong, what most of us aren’t comfortable with is the sexualisation of children.

BTW I bring up the Muslim cartoons to contrast them with the reaction to Piss Christ.

CJ,

You say>> “In my opinion, a Bratz doll is more offensive than Henson's photographs.

Well we all knew you were a moron but it always nice to have the evidence. Whats the saying, o yeah, “its better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you’re an idiot, than open your mouth and prove it.”

You suggest I have something in common with pedophiles by objecting to these pictures? Sorry, I’m not the one enjoying pictures of naked 12 year old girls, mate.

Just because you soft left nancies can’t see the wood for the trees, doesn’t mean they aren’t there. I’ve seen the media images of the photos that the Police took away with them. They are unpleasant and unnecessary.

As for being a wingnut, I take solace that I hold a position that the Prime minister, the Police and a whole host of respectable people have taken. You and the art bunch have the Man Boy Love association and the rest of the pedophiles in your corner.

Regarding the mohammed cartoons, as I said above, I was responding to Vanilla bringing up Piss Christ, which only had value in offending Christians. In discussing the cartoons I was making a point, not about muslims, but about soft left, PC regurgitating, grievance mongers like yourself.

This whole business unnecessarily muddies the waters during prosecution of pedophiles, since they could conceivably argue that what they were doing is Art.

Artists should stay away from sexual depictions of children, its one of the few remaining taboos for very good reasons.

To look at these photographs and see only naked bodies is to miss the point entirely. Anyone seeing only nakedness is only looking for nakedness.

A lot of Henson's work depicts young people dealing with the difficulties of life, which is what this series is about - girls learning to live with their bodies. They're not about your or me or perverts or Kevin Rudd.

We all love yapping on about our own moral outrage, but the photos are asking us to stop and consider whose bodies we're trying to police, why it is that we pile shame on young people already in a difficult stage of life, how hard it is for the owners to live inside their own skins. That so many are prepared to get hysterical about this promotes the idea that young girl bodies are shameful, dirty, pervert bait.

Girl bodies exist. So do perverts who get off on looking at shoes, or elbows, or earlobes, or letterboxes. Apparently we should ban imagery of girl bodies in case perverts see them. Maybe if there hadn't been so many photos of the twin towers it wouldn't have occurred to anybody to fly planes into them.

Henson's an artist. It's up to the viewer to understand the message. Clearly that's beyond some people.

Very well said Chainsmoker. I think that's really the core point here.

" responded to this on the other thread, but you've added more to this thread. You mention rape — do you think rape is involved? Are you saying pedophiles can put a frame around sexual pictures of children and pass it off as art? If you believe this, have you any examples? "...By definition it should do." Are you saying putting a frame around a picture defines it as art? How, then, do you define art? Or how do you think others define it?

From your last paragraph, I'm getting you don't like artists who are not broad in their vision, you don't liken art w@nkers, and you feel the argument pro-Henson is "condemnation" of alternative views. Is that it?"
Posted by Vanilla, Saturday, 24 May 2008 11:57:39 PM
______________________________

I don't think I've got all the quote I wanted, but I'm too exhausted to care.

Let me make one thing crystal clear to you, Vanilla. I find you to be the most pseudo intellectual poster on the forum, with the most condescending attitude to those who have the temerity to disagree with your lofty smart ideals.

Just who in the hell do you think you are talking to with that last paragraph??
Jeez!; you really are up yourself.

I wish I had the time to respond as I'd like at this moment, but I cannot.
I have somewhat of a tiny little problem that must be addressed immediately.

I have a tad more to say on this subject, and feel certain that you and I will engage further.

That is a given.

This will have to suffice for both threads. I have to go

The assumption of people like Gibo and PaulL is that normal men and women in Australia are pedophiles. That fallacy is the basis for their argument and it simply falls flat on it's face. Normal people do not have sexual reactions to children. It's an asinine proposition, much like saying a heterosexual male will be aroused by a naked man.

Adolescent girls and boys bodies exist and they are beautiful, however adolescents should be left alone in the activity of exploring their expression of that beauty just as they should be left alone in the activity of exploring their expression of their sexuality.

It's not up to adults to deem naked adolescent bodies intrinsically at all.

Tell me what peadophile doesn't consider their actions to be celebrating the beauty of an adolescent or child?

Adolescent's are not supposed to be naked in front of adults. To allow for that situation 'in the name of art' or anything else is to allow any peadophile the opportunity they seek to abuse any adolescennt, or child allowed in that situation

There is no risk to a naked adolescent or child in front of an artist who is not a peadophile but there is every risk to them in front of the artist who is a peadophile.

How does one distinguish the difference? Trust?

Trust is exactly what many a peadophile achieves in order to establish their opportunity to abuse an adolescent and/or child.

Adolescents experience enough confusion about their sexuality and if, when, how, why, where and/or with whom to safely express it and they certainly don't neeed to be further confused about whether it's ok for adults to observe their bodies for certain types of pleasure in certain types of circumstances.

Increased confusion only serves to increase opportunity for a peadophile to take advantage of that confusion.

Adults looking at naked children for whatever their type of pleasure may be (i.e. beauty and/or porn) is not ok in certain types of circumstance (such as in the name of art) or any circumstances at all.

"Adolescent's are not supposed to be naked in front of adults. "

Well that's rubbish. It's the natural state of humans to be naked.

It is natural for humans to be naked.

Just as it is also natural for humans to fornicate.

It is not natural and/or lawful for adult humans to derive pleasure from naked images of children humans.

Just as it is also not natural and/or lawful for adult humans to derive pleasure from fornicating with children humans.

Hi Vanilla

I was not offended by your post, just arguing my case is all. :)

In response:

I am not sure I would say art "should" be brave but it CAN be brave and confrontational and take risks. It can be all those things. I am not asking Henson to take responsibility for the corporate world's exploitation of children to turn a profit - but he is doing similar - using kids to promote his art in the most unsavoury way. This is not brave - but confrontational it certainly is.

I have looked at his work, I am not a great fan but can see the artistic merit and why it might appeal. His work is a bit dark, a bit too shadowed in parts but that can be effective if the subject is suitable. It certainly has a brooding haunting quality which seems to be his trademark.

Photos of consenting adults is not the same as photos of underage children. I just cannot approve of using children as nude subjects. It just really goes against the grain for me - no matter how unpopular that stance might be. Having photos of your own kids nude in the bath within the security of your own home is hardly the same as displaying them for all to see in an art gallery.

No matter how you dress it up, giftwrap it or spin it, these pictures are inappropriate. That is my opinion and I don't expect everyone to agree.

TRTL
As far as I know Lady Chatterley's Lover did not include any sexual scenes involving children. To compare this kind of 'art' to censorship of books like LCL is to minimise valid concerns.

Afterall we are a long time an adult - nothing wrong with preserving childhood for the wonderful stage of life it is. This does not mean keeping our kids in a bubble but assuring as best we can that they are exposed to experiences as their maturity and development allows and that they are not exploited along the journey.

“It is NOT acceptable for the police to have let the paedophile Priests be charged because of their upright reputation because they had got away with it before.”

Runner, this is not a parallel example to the Henson case.

Henson’s reputation had nothing to do with the fact that the police didn’t act on his exhibition in 2004/5. And so it shouldn’t have. Their failure to act was based entirely on the content of the exhibition, which was deemed to be above board….with the help of public opinion which was totally supportive, with not one complaint out of 65 000 viewers.

Just a tad different to the extraordinary pedophilic priests phenomenon.

Those who molest children are well organised
statistics reveal one in 4 children get molestered

They are very clever , and very organised[just going down the listed postings any TRUE childmolester would take heart that he could send some filthy pictures and expand his [or her ] network.

Many will have heard how to boil a frog to death [apparently the same procedure with child molestation small steps [heat the water gradually

That is the danger of this mild form of porn
it begins to cross the clear line , thus NOT with under-age children

Has this 'talented ''artist photographed old people ?[age is supposed to be just as 'beautifull']

or even legal aged models look fine [and would be fine
[but a clear line must be made here and no further]

we have a legal age ,those who get off on these pictures have made them selves known ;if only to each other ,
we have set bounds for good reasons

If you ever looked at art [say a landscape , and imagined , you must realise that those who gaze at nakid children are getting off on the same imagining ,

Except imagining being in a land scape isnt the same gazing on a child[no matter how 'good it makes you feel ,its perversion]
live with it

if you want to photo nakid people use appropriate age models
art is art
porn is porn

no matter how soft
children isnt art
times change
and children are off the menu
get over it,

peddeling nakid pictures of children gets you jail time
what you chose to call art others know is the first step into perversion

Anne Geddes had better watch out now. All her cute calendars and greeting cards may have to be recalled and her work isn't even regarded as "art" as much as entertainment.

If some people can't look at anything without seeing sexual overtones then why haven't her saccharine-sweet baby photos been classed as sexually provocative yet? Is it a matter of age or a matter of taste?

What next - stubbies on Michaelangelo's David?

Having seen a post from one under God signed by the head of TAPP I ask who is posting this time?
PaulL can it be you are not aware a man not the father can not put his arm around a girl no matter how upset she is?
That people with dirty minds have driven many male teachers from the job?
This fact is hurting us all religious nuts are having far too big an impact on our world.
A pedophile any pedophile should be imprisoned for a very long time, forever in my view.
Bleeding hearts care far too much for them and far too little for the victim.
But to say a nude is dirty? to ignore the true art is blindness and strange as it sound those same people complaining often call for lessor time in prison for the criminals.
I will bet my last dollar most who complain have not even seen the photos.
And never seen or understood the mans work.

To all.....

I find it quite noteworthy that the most sophisticated defenses of 'artistic licence' appear to be connected to the 'artistic use of sexualization' and 'breaking boundaries in the area of sexual mores'

I still don't know how henson depicted these kids (except the Viet)..but in 'PRINCIPLE'.. Paul L has it on target.

-Repuation
-Money

If you find those 2 dark hands at work in the artist..then "beware* of any use of sexualization which is described as 'boundary breaking' 'innovative'....'challenging'...

cos..people...it's "ALL ABOUT THE MONEY"

and of course, THAT category of people were the ones hunted out by Jesus from the Temple. "you have made my holy place a den of robbers and thieves"

There are many 'temples' in life, and Sex is one of them. Yes..it CAN be 'pure/holy/wonderful'... but it ALSO can be 'prurient, depraved, distorted and used for base purposes'

So, all interested parties need do is asses Hensons work with these things in mind.. and in spite of Vanilla's spirited (but which spirit?) and eloquent defense of his work.. see it for what it appears to be in terms of (to use the common legal basis) 'what a normal reasonable person' would see.

It said 'normal reasonable person' see's SMUT...then.. no matter what else is said.."IT IS SMUT" :)

PAUL L...notice how you, as an atheist (as far as I know from your writings) get quickly 'slotted in' with we 'fundy, loony, nutter' Christians :) just because you have some reasonable opinions about the sexualization of children.

Hmm who mentioned 'mozzies' in this thread? me? Oh wait..it was Vanilla :)

But don't worry dear V... just blame me anyway.. it always feels better that way doesn't it? :)

Paul.L asks
"Are you suggesting that naked pictures of children on a pedophiles computer should be legal? Because it sounds that way to me."

What I'm saying is that I think unhealthy attitudes about the human body caused by religiously inspired body taboo's are a significant contributer to sexually deviant behaviour.

Deviant behaviour is behavious which does not respect the other party, behaviour which is about seeking your own gratification above the welfare of the other party.

R0bert

FASCINATING.... the atheists are turning on each other :)

Ginx is having a feeding frenzy on Vanilla!

Peace..peace u lot.."blessed are the peacemakers"

disagree, but try to be more friendly about it k :)

Just deal with facts... not emotions.

Ginxy..careful mate, you will make 'me' look farrrr tooo 'good' here. (but thanx anyway)

Robert.. I never cease to be amazed at your convoluted and extensive reasoning when it comes this area of life.

"The heart of man is wicked and deceitful, who can know it?"

(Jesus.)

The assumption that these images are for some kind of pleasure is wrong. They're beautiful in the artistic sense that photos of anything can be beautiful, but there's none of the hair, make up and provocative poses we associate with photos for pleasure or desire. They're nothing like the ones in KMart and Target catalogues.

For the kind of person who has trouble keeping their eyes on a woman's face they would be rather disappointing.

Where clothing catalogues are concerned there is a real argument about the sexualisation of children, but with Henson's images the sexualisation is going on in people's minds. Since so few people have actually seen them it seems some are capable of sexualising the mere idea of something, which is very clever of them. At least a table leg or pepper grinder can be said to look like something. Seeing sexualised body parts in thin air is really quite amazing.

Chainsmoker, you are a bastion of excellent sense.

Boazy, 1. No one goes in to art photography for the money. After thirty years, Henson is justly celebrated, but I doubt he makes much money. 2. When did I mention mozzies? I was pro the publication of those cartoons, which I've said a million times — is that what you're talking about? Someone else brought that up. 3. "the atheists are turning on each other" Atheists are not a homogeneous block, Boazy, and if there are three in a room there'll be four opinions, no doubt.

Pelican, thanks for responding & for your good humour. I think we're at agree-to-disagree stage — I just can't agree with that Henson is "using kids to promote his art in the most unsavoury way".

I think perhaps Lolita is a better literary equivalent than Lady Chatterly — although Lolita is actually about pedeophilia, whereas Henson's pictures aren't.

Ginx: I'm sure you're right in your personal assessment of me, although I can safely say, and I'm sure you'll heartily agree, that I'm not an intellectual, genuine or otherwise. I've barely got a undergrad degree. But I am passionate about certain things. Particularly about the hypocrisy of religious and secular moralistic bookburners, like our PM and the NSW police force, who ban art, then do nothing about the real causes of child sexual abuse.

Belly: "I will bet my last dollar most who complain have not even seen the photos. And never seen or understood the mans work."
I'm sure you're right, Belly. The war cry of the banners seems to be, "I don't have to see it to know it's wrong!" Can anyone tell me why they think that? I know the bible is wrong, but at least I was polite enough to read it first.

Dear Pelican,

I fully agree with you. There is no question that Bill Henson is a
talented photographer and I too can now see where his work would appeal to many. However, it goes against my grain as well in this instance - I too don't consider images of underage naked children as being appropriate subjects. But that's just my opinion and as Pelican said, I don't expect everyone to agree with me, nor will I go out of my way to destroy the credibility of those who don't.

Your lack of logic is one constant in this ever-changing world of ours, Boaz.

>>FASCINATING.... the atheists are turning on each other :) Ginx is having a feeding frenzy on Vanilla!<<

It probably doesn't occur to you that atheists can actually disagree with each other. Typically arrogant, you assume that every atheist thinks the opposite of godbotherers, and therefore must form the same opinion amongst themselves.

One of the really liberating things about non-religious people is that they are able to make up their own minds, and not have some stranger who claims divine inspiration make all value judgements on their behalf.

I feel particularly sad for Catholics, in situations like these. They are told what to believe by people who are the least able to bring any human perspective on the issues, celibate priests.

So fight on, Ginx and Vanilla. I respect your right to both have, and voice, your own views.

Foxy, I believe that last phrase was directed at me. As I have said on the last couple of posts I've directed to you, I have great respect for you. I would like the opportunity to explain to you why I've posted what I've posted in more detail, preferably privately. If you are up for it, please email me at butwehavegotworldenoughandtime@gmail.com — there's no pressure, of course, and I won't expect anything, but if you are up for it that would be great.

There is a male poster here who seems to be quite comfortable about these photographs. Not so long ago (in a totally innocent and unrelated context) the poster revealed that he had a 12 year old daughter.

I wonder if he would care to advise whether or not he would be prepared to have his daughter photographed naked and put on public display
Posted by Mr. Right, Saturday, 24 May 2008 9:29:59 PM

You know who I'm talking about, CJ Morgan. Do you find the question all that difficult to answer?

I think the over-riding issue here is not necessarily one of artistic merit but one of ethics .

A child of 11, 12 or 13 simply does not understand the latent sexuality they possess. Nor are they able to legally consent to the taking of these photographs. So based on this premise alone it is inappropriate that these photo’s are considered for public viewing.

Sometimes in life a line has to drawn in the sand on what is acceptable and what is not. Despite the possible good taste this collection exhibits it is never O.K. to exploit a child in the name of art.

Therefore the principle of the matter needs to be protected- No photo's of nude children. That is simply common sense more than anything else.

Mr Right: << You know who I'm talking about, CJ Morgan. Do you find the question all that difficult to answer? >>

If Mr Right bothered to read other people's comments instead blowing his odious trumpet, he's be aware that I've answered the question. I would have no qualms about my daughter posing nude for a reputable, bona fide artist, if that's what she wanted to do. However, I very much doubt that she'd want to.

Do you find that answer difficult to understand, or do you have a reading disability as well as a propensity to sexualise naked children?

I guess the next steps will be:

1. Put all naturist clubs out of business.
2. Blindfold parents bathing/dressing their kids.
3. Ban all sex-education in home or at school.
4. Bring back the chastity belt.
5. Start a fig-tree plantation - invest in fig leaves now, major opportunity.
6. Bring back the stork, plant cabbage patches.
7. Ban cameras, pencils, charcoal, paint-brushes - too much potential for sexploitation.

Anyone have other ideas to contribute to my list? Because you'd better post them soon, the next thing to be outlawed will be imagination.

Dear Vanilla,

It's allright - I'm over it.

I was feeling pretty vulnerable and quite "down" when I read your post directed at me on the "God" thread last night.

It actually made me cry.

However, I've replied to that post this morning - and have now moved on.

I don't want to make my email known (please understand). It's nothing personal. I prefer to keep my email private.

But I Thank You for your kind offer. It is greatly appreciated.

Who are you belly
a man or a woman
either way why do you try to personalise attacks on me and my identity

tell me belly
how many times have you heard it said about some mass murderor or rapist that they started out by enjoying hurting their pets , or begain their carreer of stealing by stealing from their mothers purse?

things change gradually

It has often been said [and i agree it is a trueism]
that those doing minour deviations get hardened in time
and need an higher level of fix to get the same high

it is thus with porn

i was raised in the sixties where a climps in the mens magazines was of a pair of panties or the garters [nipples were airbrushed out]

In time breasts and nipples became 'acceptable'though the hairy bits were air brushed into a dense mat,[it is also noted most wrere fat and older type woman]

This progressed to an ever younger 'type' of female ,till today we get gynocological shots that have computer enhanced sheen added on teens.

BUT it happened gradually

Those who previously were satisfied with the artists work have unknowingly been sucked in till now the path of his perversions has become revealed

like boiling a frog in hotwater

like a junjkie needing ever more and stronger booze to get his hit
like the boy who starts by killing his pet cat [because it bit him >to the adult who murders his rape victim because he pre-ejecculated

This debate has revealed how many have been led towards the path of perversion ,guys its not yet too late, mothers if you have been paid [or worse let your children become perverted by deviants AND you are living off imoral earnings, or stand to loose your child

Noting the figures quoted in any phone up poll have been skewed by perverts multi-calling [even so to 45 percent its still petty porn

I wondered if the photographer was into witchcraft?
Its well known amongst the committed christian churches that modern art, drugs, porn, sexual perversion and the occult are interlinked.
I look at the Lord Mayor of Sydney at times and wonder what she gets up too.
Clover Moores look is always towards goth and she has an inclination to support sexual immorality in the form of the gay and lesbian movements.
She even wanted an increase in X-rated bookshops in Sydney as if sex crime wasnt bad enough.
Cops would do well to look into the photographers relationships and where he may just hang his hat from time to time.
The occult frequently pick on young girls and seduce them into their covens to do sexual acts with them.
Ive known this for years and years and years through many testimonies from christian bookshops and through actual action against witches (*The Glen Innes NSW "sacrificed chickens at the standing ring of stones" incident of 2005 which finally got exposed in the Glen Innes Examniner 30/6/2005 through my help and with the help of two local christian ladies).
Cops need to be aware of the many modern artie folks who concentrate on kids.

Mr. Morgan,

"Do you find that answer difficult to understand, or do you have a
reading disability as well as a propensity to sexualise naked children?"

No. I have no trouble reading, nor do I 'sexualise naked children'. You seem to have a gift for catty remarks.

I'm very glad that you doubt that your daughter would want to pose,and that she has higher moral standards than her father, which also allows you to make statements that you know don't have to back up.

By the way. I don't attribute human traits to inanimate objects, you odious little man.

Hi,

My own background is of an education of the sort which knows that we do need to assert that the photography in the exhibition is about beauty and not criminal social deviance, HOWEVER, I have a big however statement to make.

Over the past five years, through a sequence of bizarre turns in my life story, over which I had no control, it has happened to me that I have been made aware of how the illegal child pornography industry imagines it is able to cover its tracks and get away with actual child rape. Exhibitions like the one of Bill Heson, are perceived by real criminal social deviants, as no less a crime than their own criminality, in which they seek to excuse their own behaviour. It needs to be openly opposed for that reason. For the reason that there are criminal social deviants in the world who are just too far gone to care, and of whom, it is an abuse to let them see the body of a naked girl, because of how their attitude to her and her family, could influence the rest of her life.

The full story is that we need to be able to both criticise the world in which the naked body has been caused to become a temptation for criminal concepts, and assert that the real beauty inherent in a naked child, has a sanctity that can not be estranged from the child's own belief.

FRACTELLE SAID:

"In a world where our sexuality and bodies were considered absolutely normal"

For the Christian.. "Normal" is.. at an age of maturity, to find a life partner, marry her/him, and enjoy wonderful sexual intimacy in that framework.

"Not Normal" as well as hurtful, and harmful, is the man or the woman sleeping with someone outside their marriage relationship.

Now.. in 'incest' and 'adultery'.. we have 2 very easily identifiable behaviors which are hurtful and harmful.. agreed?

So, the issue is not the normality of sexuality, but the "use" of that normal, natural drive.

It should be clear in terms of common sense and reason, that we as a society, should be seeking to uphold and strengthen all values which result in less harm and less hurt in the area of sexual behavior.. agreed?

Now.. for me the next step would be to take this agreement, and convert/transform it into something by which we can actually see a result.

Unquestionably, IF.. we do this by legisltation "Adultery is illegal" for example.. there would be many people who would raise a hue and cry "Oh noooooo..the end of the world.. a new dark age"

Ok..alternative, we mutually encourage each other by way of media and education, to inculcate such values into our children....?

OH NOOOOO say the adulterous teachers, those living in 'sin'.. and Julia Guillard (and 2 of my children) is at the forefront.. no?

Without question there are 3 things we may draw from this:

1/ There MUST be agreed limits to sexual behavior.
2/ We SHOULD seek to enculturate/socialize the succeeding generation with values which reduce harm and hurt.
3/ No matter which way we seek to acheive this, SOMEone or some group, will be up in arms and whine and winge about moral oppression, wowserisim, "imposing 'your' morality on us" and so on it goes.

Now.. if we conclude that we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.. it rather suggests 'JUST DO IT' :).. i.e.. LEGislate.. this way or that.. because we ain't gonna make every1 happy.

Virtually every post in the thread objecting to the pictures is religious in nature. If you people want to keep your religion, it would seem wise to keep it private, and not project it onto others lest mainstream society crushes it once and for all for the disease it is.

Threatening children with eternal damnation and teaching them lies is the most abusive exploitation of their nature.

Steel,

"Virtually every post in the thread objecting to the pictures is religious in nature."

I'm glad yous said 'virtually'. I am not religious, but I believe that children have to be protected.

Do you have a name for non-religious people who disagree with you?

Branding people is a favourite passtime of people who don't like to hear opposing opinions.

Dear Steel,

How are my posts on this thread religious in nature?

Either retract your statement or -

Please explain Sir.

All this indignation and outrage while thousands of other children are being exploited (sexually and non-sexually) all over the world.

I suspect that real paedophiles wouldn't be visiting art galleries for their satisfaction.

If you're worried about being somehow personally titillated by such things or suspect that somebody else seeing them will be and then suddenly become a paedophile, then things are probably far worse than you think.

How many posters have actually seen these photos?

You two can answer this. How is this teenager harmed by these photographs? It was consenteed and agreed by all parties. Try to keep it concise.

As for my grouping the religious people, Mr Right.,

Mr Right>"Do you have a name for non-religious people who disagree with you?"

Ignorant?

Mr Right>"Branding people is a favourite passtime of people who don't like to hear opposing opinions."

Religious people brand themselves.

Thankyou Steel,

I now know that anyone who disagrees with Steel is either a religious zealot or ignorant.

As a person who cannot answer a question without being rude and derisive, nothing you say can be taken seriously or treated with any respect.

To begin i havnt been to any church more than once
what i say has nothing to do with 'religion'
but simply morality

i would like to comment on this post
[my reply will be in brakets -following each qustion/statement]

All this indignation and outrage while thousands of other children are being exploited (sexually and non-sexually) all over the world.....
...[we cant do anything about that , we can however work here and now][but please note what your saying ''INDIGNATION and OUTRAGE'']
[bought on by our seeming helplessness as the perverts get ever more bold and obvious]

''..I suspect that real paedophiles wouldn't be visiting art galleries for their satisfaction.''....

....[SUSPECT,?
you cant even honestly state it as a certainty ,
..yet dare to defend it?..[even one pedophile getting 'satisfaction [or comfort from it is TOO much]

.are you even knowing your showing aid and comfort masked as concern ''for THEIR statsfaction''.

.THEY deserve no satisfaction , deserve no peace of mind , deserve nothing but being locked away as the real and PRESENT danger they really are]..

''...If you're worried about being somehow personally titillated by such things or suspect that somebody else seeing them will be and then suddenly become a paedophile, then things are probably far worse than you think''.....

[no dear much worse than you dare acknowledge]

...How many posters have actually seen these photos?..

[they have been forced on me via 5 news reports on tv , plus even made the way into my news papers]..[i can only hope police are doing their duty to check out those visuiting the links some posters are intent on putting up [to defend thier support of perversions giving aoid and comfort to child molestors ;

noting pedophile means simply 'child lover ' boy thats a terrible name to call perverts isnt it ].

[my response to rache ends ; as posted by ]
Posted by rache, Monday, 26 May 2008 2:37:17 PM

one under God welcome to the forum under one of my posts say this one, click on the little human left hand side
Is it female or male? you will find I am male not bigoted just male.
Look down any street on any weekend and you will see ten year olds dressed like well just look.
Have you seen these photos?
Done any book burning of late?
Even a Christian must know the human body is not evil?
A book full of story's about humanity is to be found in these photos the trials of becoming a teenager much much more are there .
Funny no not really but sex did not enter my mind on seeing them.
Anyone else find it strange religion often brands the human body evil?
Tell me just what you saw in these photos please that made up your mind about them?

Rache said:

"If you're worried about being somehow personally titillated by such things or suspect that somebody else seeing them will be and then suddenly become a paedophile, then things are probably far worse than you think."

Too right. So much of this is people saying 'I'm not a pervert but other people are', then claiming to understand the inner workings of the paedophile mind. Personally, I can't begin to imagine how a paedophile thinks or what they might find titillating. I have a great deal of trouble trying to imagine what's so sexy about a lot of things other people find sexually suggestive, including real pornography.

So I ask how it is that I see a photo of your average kid and others see pornography or paedophile bait? I find it alarming that some otherwise ordinary people seem to have spent a lot of time imagining how paedophiles might see the world. That, to me, is far more disturbing than nudity at any age. Why would any normal person want to become so familiar with the way paedophiles think that they can know what a paedophile would find arousing?

Police, psychologists and other specialists have to understand those kinds of minds and they're worth more money for the horror of it all, but why anyone else would want to enter the paedophile mind is beyond me. In my mind kids are kids, whether they're dressed or not. I find it difficult to understand why anyone would want to see them any other way.

Are we having fun yet? :)

Some of these posts are getting a bit out of control don't you think.

Why is it that people (not just in this thread) make sweeping generalisations about people based on a lone opinion about one particular subject.

One's opinion on the Henson saga does not define a person in totality. There are many reasons why people think the way they do.

People of various persuasions - atheists, feminists, Christians, socialists, libertarians, Conservatives, circus performers, origami teachers etal do not always agree.

To summarise:

According to the pro-Henson lobby the detractors are: prudes, right wing bigots, religious nutters, prudish feminists, uneducated, perverted, deviant, artistically and/or intellectually challenged.

According to the anti-Henson lobby the pro-Hensons are: elitist, left wing bigots, pedophiles, perverted, misguided, bourgeoise, chardonnay drinking latte slurping lefties, artistic snobs and deviant.

Tell us what you really think. Why are people so insecure about their position on this?

There are not many people arguing that Henson is a pedophile (if any) nor will he probably be charged as I am sure his intention was not to make and distribute child pornography.

ok-belly [i-will-use my-last post-for-you
[YOU-WROTE}
''you-will-find-I am male-not-bigoted just-male''......

{OK-FAIR-ENOUGH ,so-you-named-your-self-after-your-fetish?]

''Look-down-any-street on any-weekend and you-will see ten year olds dressed like well just look''
.....
[I-have-no-inkling-to-look-for-one-
i dont wander the streets on saterday looking for kids]

[for the other it just proves my point[they have been led by peers to dress like the starlets they-see-on-tv]
[who-get dressed by-perverts-in the hope of selling the-kids on selling them-selves short]

[have you seen what kids are watching on abc-its pathetic demonology-cccrap]

Have you seen these photos?[i-have-seen-copies in media [im-not searching them out like im presuming others have been]

''Done any book burning of late?''...

[i-own-25,000-books-]
[i have restored many
[book-burning-isnt-my-way,
nor is -child-perversion-
children-must-be-allowed-to-grow-up ,in a certain safe-environment]

let-them-believe as their concious-choses to-believe
[untill they fall into potential danger
[THEN ITS UP TO GOVT AND THE FULL-WEIGHT OF THE LAW TO PROTECT THEM

[not police them
[but-to-police-those-who-would-[those who will] prey-upon them and their innocence]

''Even a Christian must know the human body is not evil?''...

[im-not-an x-tian[nor a muslim], i-thought-i-told you allready

[i believe in god , thats where it starts and ends]
religion has become poluted
[I dont turn the other cheek]

'''A book full of story's about humanity is to be found in these photos''' ...

[A -FULL_story,from a 12/13 year-olds body[your sick my bro]

{LOOK bro grow up,
being child curious is a thing children are allowed to do ,
BUT NOT ADULTS

[YOUR own body tells you much more about the ''FULL' story of humanity'']

[hear-your-own-excuses-bro SO_LAME ]

[YOUR grown up now]
[use a mirror if you want to be amased about bodies]

''the trials of becoming a teenager much much more are there''...
.
{SSSEEETTT dude listen to you ,[you need to remember your own trial'sss ,not fantizise about some little girls trial's]

..''Funny no not really ''..

{no SAD REALLY}

'''but sex did not enter my mind on seeing them''....
.
[I didnt say it did dude, but can-you
ASSURE US-that ALL-who did ARE-AS SANE AS-YOU?}

[RESPONSE to belly as ]Posted by Belly, Monday, 26 May 2008 5:40:28 PM

Please, let's all lighten up a bit here.

Show a bit of civility.

This is becoming bizarre to say the least.

Let's all agree to disagree (or whatever), and leave it at that.

As Pelican said, we're all individuals with diferrent perspectives - and each of us is entitled to our opinion. This does not make some of us right and the others wrong. It just makes us have different points of view.

We can't always agree.

Foxy's right, of course. My comment is at

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1830#36618

It's a bit silly having the same conversation on two threads isn't it?

Bill Henson should have given his snaps a title other than 'untitled'- might have stopped the fevered imaginations of the public; its a photo finish between Gibo and Steel to see who can be the most extreme.

My question is 'don't we daily accept blanket laws that may not cause self or others harm if we flout them then and there, eg speed restrictions, for the somewhat nebulous greater good; or because someone, somewhere has harmed themselves or others?'

How is it different for Bill?

Gibo I see you've hit hyper-drive here at OLO- can I borrow the spaceship for the night?

Vanilla, thanks for starting this thread. I specifically looked to see if anyone had started one.

The saddest aspect of this furore, not just the issue of censorship, is how many people immediately equate nudity with sex. How uncomfortable to be like that. Having to fight of sexual urges the minute somebody exposes a body part.

That's why once upon a time women wore long dresses and men had to go up the stairs before her, lest he'd be overcome with lust from a glimpse of her ankles.

Soon children will be expected to cover up with burkas, lest somebody gets erotic thoughts from seeing long bare legs going every which way or pretty collar bones at the base of a lovely slender neck, and golly gosh if she has cheeky eyes looking straight at you.

I'm not a visual artist, but as an observer of people from babies to old age I find young teenagers most interesting human beings. The same would have to be true for any visual artist who observes humans.

I agree with Vanilla, that Bill Henson's work is doing just that. The work did not just focus on a young girl, but also a young boy. Although, from much of the comments, it seems it's the girl that everybody is stressing about. Very curious, seeing the predilection for young boys of many pedophiles. Probably if he'd stuck to photographing young boys there would hardly have been a peep from the self righteously horrified.

There may well be pedophiles lurking about, if pictures like this could be appealing, shaded as they are, but does the rest of society need to adjust itself to the lowest form of life?

This angst about naked bodies is driving me to a nudist colony

Hey OUG? can we dump the dude stuff? the bro thing too?
I was there for the sixty's and do not have the time to re invent them now.
Just maybe some of your ideas in this thread are in my view inventions too.
I think our conversations will be limited but can assure you I am no threat to children.
That slur about Saturday and children had no class or direction.
I am baffled that a quick look in the street would on some days find children dressed like adults rather tacky adults,
And wonder if any of their parents are offended by these photos?
Art is not always good but it should always be interesting these photos are Innocent good and purely art.

Very nicely put yvonne.

Yvonne....

<<lest somebody gets erotic thoughts from seeing long bare legs going every which way or pretty collar bones at the base of a lovely slender neck, and golly gosh if she has cheeky eyes looking straight at you.>>

hmmmmmm.. does anyone else feel a bit stuffy.. its rather hot in here no? (loosens collar) :)

I confess.. 'long bare legs'..... yep.. they are a turn on... I guess that makes me some kind of pervert :)

Ok..have fun with that.

Vonney... the problem with your 'ethereal other world' reasoning is that most of life is structured and defined by the opposite. MTV.. writhing pulsating, thrusting bodies in all directions, showing as much leg and breast and butt cheek as they can...-held back only by the law......now.. surely you don't consider they do this for 'nothing' do you?....

I'll say this though, the ONE thing which can turn 'lust' for a great pair of legs/breasts/hips/face into something wonderful, is love.
It has been my experience in life, that we meet various types of females.. some say only one thing to us.. "I'm here for 'me' and I'm here for sex" (with my selfishly selected partners that is).. and by the way.. looook at my cute this and that.. ain't I just so hot..doncha wish ur girlfriend was "hot" like ME....

Yep.. leaves me UTTERLY cold.

But... oooh yes.. BUT.. meet someone who is both beautiful, shapely and has a humble heart, a gentle spirit, a selfless outlook, and what could have been 'lust' can quickly become all embracing loveof the total person, and that without the slightest hint of 'sexual desire' apart from its appropriate context of marriage.

So, I conclude that there are 2 sides to all this.

1/ The way the 'package' is presented and it's content.
2/ The values which we personally hold dear, and by which we interact with other people of the opposite gender.

Well well this is where moral relativism has got us. Some defend girls and boys being displayed naked because they claim to be purer that the Lord Himself. They are quick to deny the adamic nature but display it everyday in their arrogance. They insist their are no moral absolutes and then even try to correct my spelling errors and grammar. It is a pity they are so blinded by their stupid failed philosophy.

We certainly live in a day when every man does what is right in hid/her own mind. No wonder we have people defending deviants and deviant work.

Yvonne

You say >> “Soon children will be expected to cover up with burkas, lest somebody gets erotic thoughts.”

That is ridiculous. It’s like me saying everyone who goes to see these photos will turn into a pedophile.

The whole point about the photos is that they are of children who are in the early stages of puberty and are discovering their sexuality. To suggest that there is NOTHING sexual about them is really stretching credulity.

In our society we don’t give 12 or 13 year old children the right to make decision which will affect their long term futures. That’s how it is. You don’t get to decide whether you go to school. You don’t get to decide whether you can drive, vote or get a tattoo. And you are not considered old enough to give legal consent to have sex. Why do the Henson supporters believe that the “models” are capable of giving their consent?

This kid is going to have to go to school with other kids who have seen her naked and the potential is there for real problems.

Fractelle,

You’re not the only one who seems to want to lump all nudity/sexuality into the one category, but I’ll start with you. Can’t you see that a naked child is in an entirely different category to naked adults, who have the capacity to understand and process both the short and long term moral, ethical and social ramifications?

I’m not trying to stop adults from getting naked or f@cking in public for that matter. What I am interested in is the welfare of children.

Your list is absolutely ridiculous. You seem to be saying that because we object to the sexualisation of children, we want to ban any and all sexually explicit activities.

CJ,

We aren’t the people who enjoy checking out naked children. If you want to see pictures of naked children, you have kids, take your own.

I wonder how many of you would be comfortable with pictures of your own children in these poses hanging in your house, or those of your neighbours.

I had really said all I'd wanted to on these parallel threads (how do OLO editors make their decisions?) However, I think Paul L has been confused by one of my posts and needs my help. See post below, I thought it was obviously tongue-in-cheek

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1831&page=0#36556

Anyone (except for Paul) who has read my posts know that I DO make a very clear distinction between nudity and sexuality - THAT has been my entire point throughout this thread. It is people like Runner, Philo and Boaz who associate nudity with sex.

BTW

On Henson being charged as pornographer - doubt very much that he will be for the following reasons:

The childrens' consent was informed and parental consent also provided. See below:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/05/25/1211653846181.html

The subjects were simply nude - not even erotic, let alone pornographic.

Finally, the goods news is: Bill Henson has probably expanded his fan base to people who were not aware of his work at all.

:-)

Fractelle writes

'Finally, the goods news is: Bill Henson has probably expanded his fan base to people who were not aware of his work at all.'

Sick people attract sick admirers. No doubt you are right. Every deviant in Australia will know where anything goes in the name of 'art'.

If you believe children are mindless zombies you are really insulting children and treating them like animals, which I think is damaging for their self esteem and self image and alienating them from older generations, and potential role models.

If you cared about children, runner, you would not indoctrinate them with your religion and you should be totally against threatening them with damnation if they didn't believe you.

Religion is the real crime against children, doubly so if they are raped on holy ground and in the care of god's chosen representatives.

runner: << Every deviant in Australia will know where anything goes in the name of 'art'. >>

As it happens, I know quite a few artists personally. They do tend to be interesting characters, but I have to say that none express ideas as "deviant" as those expressed by runner and those of his ilk.

Paul.L: << If you want to see pictures of naked children, you have kids, take your own. >>

Does that mean I have to throw out my art books, not to mention our print of "Chloe"?

I truly feel sorry for those poor repressed souls who are frightened of not only their own bodies, but also those of others. They truly need to 'grow up', in a Freudian sense.

fractile makes-a likely delusional [and legally wrong-statement]
''On-Henson-being-charged-as-pornographer - doubt-very-much-that-he will-be-for-the-following reasons:

The childrens'-consent was-informed-and-parental-consent-also-provided ''...

response
Children can-not give informed-concent
[thus we-have a legal-age of-consent]

Parents have a duty-of-care
[if they can-be-found in deriliction of their parental-DUTIES ,we have laws that can-be enforced FOR THE CHILDRENS OWN-protection

just as we have laws against solicitation ,
and living off the earnings

[and have any one of hundreds of laws designed to protect the innocent or gullable from those who would prey upon the moral innocrence of minours ,by giving them the impression that its all just fine [just kosher]
[when clearly it isnt, its clear and present danger]

i hope he taped the-concent, when he live taped his photography session ,it-will-be-proof-of-collusion.

why do docter's [so-trusted] need a nurse present ?,
yet a perveyor of mild porn can do it alone
[and if-not alone then prove-it

[knowing lying to protect a criminal act is guilt by assosiation
[Thus gets the same puntitive-punishment

[considering the free-publicity he has gotten his press better give the same-time to his-conviction

No doudt the pervets who 'procured and produced the photo's will at his trial bring in many 'good and ''upstanding'' citizens who will testify to his ';'good character''

[is it not strange how many with this type of trial expose them selves to standup for perverts [last one i heard of got 40 good and true to speak on his behalf [he still went to jail]

no doudt this trial will flush out [expose a few more in this web that preys upon the innocent

giving them little information upon which to base their 'concent' ,to satisfy perverts sick titilation's]

why-am-i so-upset [cause it happend to me]

[this perversion is just that]

pervets needing their latest fetish satisfied
[in whatever-way they can ,

preferably via trained innocents thinking they have to concent
[to get their parental recognition]

then the 'do gooders' step out of their shadows ,defending WHAT?
freedom to pervert innocence

[how many beauty contestants get forced to resign for doing such photo's ?]
[informed concent [BULLSSSHHIIITTT>

Shhh! Don't mention Chloe, or the morality police will be breaking down the door of Young and Jackson's! Like the Mohammed cartoons, issues like this are dormant for years until religious nutters start feeling starved of moral outrage.

CJ,

Mate that is truly pathetic. How old is Chloe?

According to young and Jackson she is 19. I don't have a problem with anyone over the age of consent posing nude for photos/paintings.

Your and others attempts to recast this issue as being either for, or against, nudity of any kind, shows how uncomfortable you are talking about this rationally. We aren't talking about nudity/sexuality as a whole, we are talking about children. If the subject of the photo was 19 there would be no OLO general discussion. For me, if she was 16 the issue would be irrelevant. But she is isn't, she's 13.

The whole point of his pictures is that the children are in the early stages of puberty and are discovering their sexuality.

So don't pretend that there is NOTHING sexual about it. Its just not true.

Paul your comment doesn't make sense. THose two points have nothing to do with one another. All parties consented to the artwork and felt liberated and happy in doing so. This has been the case for all children in art for decades. It's very telling that:

Objections to the work are (generally):
- religious.
- only of the present time, suggesting a politically reactionary context. the artist (and others) have been doing this for 25 years without issue
- are media driven.
- all those who never complained or had any problem are never counted

- are emotional and lacking in reason, if they present one at all.
- generally assume normal adults are pedophiles...absolutely ridiculous, in other words
- assume the teenager is a mindless entity unable to act on their own or understand the world
- assume the parents are irresponsible.
- think a child's body is inherently 'sinful'

most of these are required to believe this is 'wrong'. If you do not subscribe to any of them, then you must have a censorship agenda

"generally assume normal adults are pedophiles"

And that's the crux of it. Because some people are excited by underage girls, it's somehow assumed that the masses will suddenly be furiously masturbating in art galleries.

I wonder how many of the people who see defacto pornography in Henson's photographs also believe that homosexuals can recruit heterosexuals to their "lifestyle"? Both accusations suggest that the accuser is more attracted to the object of their outrage than they'd like to admit.

I'm totally with PaulL. on this.

It seems to me that there is not much point in further discussing this exhibition if (some) of the pro-Henson lobby are making this into a nudity issue. Where has anyone said that adults cannot pose nude if they choose to and where has anyone said we should all start wearig burkhas?

I think this is an unfair generalisation and interpretation of why some people are not okay with Henson's picturs and the argument is misleading.

Nudity in itself is not the isssue nor is it the thrust of the discussion. It is the fact that the subjects of these photographs are children who are not of legal age and it does not matter one iota if the intent of the artist was pornography or not (I suspect it wasn't).

I am at a loss to understand how that fact is easily forgotten while some of you are pursuing quite a different issue (nudity in general) on a completely different tangent.

I don't know how you can type that out like that Pelican.

It is unresevedly about nudity. Just look at the *original complainant*. Their statements alone indicate it is beyond question.

If it were really about children, and not nudity, then you are suggesting that no child could ever appear in art, clothed or otherwise. That anyone who sees a child in a gallery setting, should be imprisoned. Not even the worst dictatorships and despots on the planet are that insane.

Boazy, ethereal? That's a big word for you. Not too sure what point you want to make with it, but it will no doubt be perfectly logical from your perspective. At least you got what I intended with the paragraph you quoted.

You seemed to get something erotic out of it.

Paul, an adult portrayed naked, or near naked, can be erotic, but not always so. See the many near naked depictions of Christ on the cross, just to give one obvious example. His near nakedness is not to titillate.

Having said that, on the issue of exploitation, it is disturbing how many people think that a young adult woman cannot be exploited (remember Bill Clinton and Monica? It almost got him impeached).

As for children not being able to make decisions or have understanding at a sophisticated level at any time makes me wonder whether some of you have ever had an actual conversation with a child.

The debate that these photo's have caused says much about how many of us feel about nudity and sexuality.

It also says much about how we feel guilty at our failure to protect child victims from adult predators. We look for a scapegoat: if it weren't for the likes of Bill Henson there would be no abused children. Or at least only very few.

The vast majority of abused children are not victims of lurking pedophile strangers turned on by work hanging in an art gallery, but by the very people who are known and should be trusted by them.

What we need to acknowledge is that that is what is so disturbing about child sexual abuse. It happens in the family. The very place where children should always be safe.

Stopping Bill Henson from showing his work is not going to alter that one iota, but we can all feel so much better for caring and seen to be 'doing' something about the shocking fact that there are adults, more often than not known to the victim, who prey on children.

Steel

I was referring to posters who are turning this discussion into a discussion about nudity (ie. all nudity, adult nudity) and covering our bodies etc.

For me who is comfortable with nudity, this is not the same discussion.

Even democracies enact laws to protect children and thus have to make distinctions based on suitability vis a vis children on a number of fronts.

Those who are interested in this topic may wish to know that ABC1 TV has a feature about Bill Henson on Artscape tonight at 10pm.

On the 7.30 Report this evening, Hetty Johnson, Executive Director of Bravehearts vehemently wants to see Bill Henson charged, because she reckons he has clearly broken the law.

I’ve never had much time for Johnson, despite Bravehearts being an honourable organisation in its primary motives…and I certainly don’t here.

A clear infringement of the letter of the law, if indeed Henson’s pubescent nude photos do constitute as much, is not enough to demand that charges be laid.

Why not?

Because what is accepted as being lawful, by the police and society, and what is strictly lawful are often quite two different things. Eg, speed limits.

Henson’s earlier major exhibition and indeed his whole career (see ABC1 tonight at 10pm) have been along a similar theme to his latest work. As I said in an earlier post, the Art Gallery of NSW and Henson himself would have been sure that they were on firm legal ground, after monitoring where they stood with the law over a period of many years.

OK, son there might be a need to undergo a bit of re-evaluation of just where the boundaries lie with this sort of art and what is in some peoples’ minds pornography. But there is NO need for the police to be involved or for charges to be laid.

Indeed, for the police to take such heavy-handed action when they have in the past let such exhibitions go unchallenged is duplicitous and quite frankly, totally outrageous.

It is the same sort of thing as allowing drivers to do 10 kmh over the stated limit and only booking people for doing 11 or more ks over, and then changing their policy without any notification and booking everyone that is doing 3km over….when they have effectively trained drivers to travel at a cruising speed of about 5kmh over.

I’m outraged at this sort of policing. But it seems that no one else is interested in this aspect of the issue at hand.

So are the police now going to charge the ABC for showing Bill Henson’s pictures of nude adolescents, beamed directly into peoples’ living rooms, reaching a more diverse and probably wider audience than any art gallery?

I agree Ludwig re the police and charges. Remember though that the police were just acting on a complaint - that is their job.

I think it was the Art Gallery owner who said that there obviously needs to be public debate over what is appropriate and where to draw the line but that there are no need for charges to be laid in this instance.

Henson may be naive and remiss in his duty of care but from what I can glean, this case does not constitute an 'intent' to make and distribute porn no matter how inappropriate the material.

Perhaps we can view the issue of child nakedness from a different perspective.

A report this morning, (one of must many that filter through) speaks of WIDEspread sexual abuse of vulnerable victims of natural disasters by UN and AID groups.

This is suggestive of a flaw in our natures which seeks to capitalize on sudden 'power' in ways which exploit people in weakness desperation.

Of course.. all the 'No..not me' among us, may be speaking truth, but widespread.. means widespread. Many.. not 'a few'..but many.

Perhaps given that human nature is not determined by 'race', it is valid also to say that 'widespread' potential abusers lurk among us, and with this in mind, maybe it's better not to pander to such people with exhibitions which appear to portray vulnerability?

Maybe.. such things are better confined to the groups which think alike and more appropriate for 'in house' art communities than open for all the public?

Don't know.. just floating ideas.

Ludwig,

THe SBS in particular has gotten away for decades with showing perversion. Like Henson they just rename the shows 'documentary; or say its in the 'publics' interest. They could not say it is in the perverts interest although that would be closer to the truth.

Steel,

Your arguments just don’t stack up, and you don’t offer evidence for them anyway. Whilst some of the objections are coming from Christians, many more are not.

Your pathetic judgment that, if I’m not opposed religiously to these images, I must have a censorship agenda is so juvenile and anti-intellectual it’s not funny.

This is not a debate about nudity. No matter how much you soft lefties want to have that fight, it just isn’t going to be with me. I don’t want to stop women sunbathing naked. I don’t want make women do anything with their bodies they don’t want to.

But we aren’t talking about women, we are talking about children. That you cannot see that there would be NO debate if the woman was over 16 is a sign of your unwillingness to look rationally at this issue. The issue of Chloe is typical. Chloe, being 19, is "of age"; end of story.

It seems not to disturb these soft-left idiots that images with exactly the same composition by a non artist, would be considered pedophilia by law.

So I have a question for you Steel. Are you suggesting that it is OK for a pedophile to have photos of naked kids in the same poses as Hensons.

Yvonne,

I have a 13 year old daughter myself and if any pervert came asking to take nude photos of her he’d be drinking through a straw for a few months

So I guess runner didn't see the doco about Bill Henson last night. A pity, because actually having some knowledge about the subject might have allowed him to post something other than his usual ignorant, prudish drivel.

Boazy: << Maybe.. such things are better confined to the groups which think alike and more appropriate for 'in house' art communities than open for all the public? >>

No Boazy. That may be an appropriate approach to pornography, but Henson's work is art. In fact, whether or not an image is suitable for public display is probably the essential distinction between them.

“Remember though that the police were just acting on a complaint - that is their job.”

Pelican, it is their job to assess a complaint and act on it if they think it is warranted. There was no obligation on their part lay charges, or to act on it in any physical manner, or to act on it at all, even if they had deemed the law to have been broken. They have sweeping discretionary powers.

A few years ago I made number of complaints to the police about dangerous drivers, about five in as many years. I only bothered with incidents that were really quite serious. Do you think the police acted on any of them? Nope. I haven't bothered since.

“…this case does not constitute an 'intent' to make and distribute porn…”

This is another major problem with the standard of policing in this country; very often there is no distinction made between what is obvious unlawful intent and accidental or benign infringement.

And a third major problem is that the police rely on the courts to sort it out, but the courts all too often just run with what the police have decided, as magistrates think that the police were in a much better position to make a judgement! This is especially so with minor matters.

It is all pretty rotten.

I am very interested to see where these charges against Henson lead.

Pelican: "It seems to me that there is not much point in further discussing this exhibition if (some) of the pro-Henson lobby are making this into a nudity issue. Where has anyone said that adults cannot pose nude if they choose to and where has anyone said we should all start wearig burkhas?

I think this is an unfair generalisation and interpretation of why some people are not okay with Henson's picturs and the argument is misleading."

Your comments got a bit lost, Pelican, but I just wanted to agree with what you say here. As far as I'm concerned, we're all against child porn, and this argument is about whether Henson's work constitutes it.

The name-calling means that it's difficult to have that discussion on this forum.

One of the most prominent arty farties of recent times was Michael Jackson. He loved having young boys in pyjamas over night for sleeps. It is all very innocent! Of course he had the boys and the parents consent. It is okay though because he is a respectable citizen and is really just expressing himself. The ABC has also run a few specials on what a fine outstanding citizen he is and Cate and Elton John agree. They have written to the US President saying how this man has been victimized and misunderstood.

Almost as prominent as all the adorable, boy-raping Catholic priests. What's your point, runner? That because parents aren't always able to protect children from abuse, we should return to Victorian prudery and sexual paranoia?

runner: << The ABC has also run a few specials on what a fine outstanding citizen he is and Cate and Elton John agree. They have written to the US President saying how this man has been victimized and misunderstood. >>

Come now runner. It's one thing to repetitively spout fundy religious nonsense, but it's another to tell outright porkies.

I put it to you that the above statements are fabrications - or in other words, lies. You should provide some evidence, or retract them.

Runner, I too have been perturbed by some of the stuff I have seen on SBS over quite a few years now. Some of it strongly oversteps the mark of what I think we should be exposed to on our televisions sets… that our kids could easily see, that anyone watching TV could see if they flicked channels and inadvertently lobbed into the middle of a program with much stronger imagery than Henson’s exhibition.

How the hell can they deliver some of this stuff (I particularly remember a very sleazy program on the penis) within the moral and sexual boundaries that our society generally accepts? Yes, these boundaries are highly fuzzy, but some SBS programs just so clearly over step the mark.

How anyone can accept this and then be outraged by Henson’s stuff, which he presents within the relatively tight confines of an art gallery (compared to the very broad audience reached by a mainstream television channel), is beyond me.

BTW, not one of Henson’s works, as shown ABC1 last night did anything for me. Extremely bland and uninteresting stuff IMO…including what I would consider very ordinary nude shots. But I will maintain his right to produce it, if it is working for him, by way of appealing to the tastes of a lot of people. And I’ll uphold his right to display it, in the right forum….which an art gallery certainly is.

CJ MOrgan

If you can't see that I was showing how pathetic the arguments have been in defending photographing nude 12 year old girls then it is no wonder that you would allow your daughter to do the same. Call my credibility in question as much as you want but this article was about a pervert who is supported by others with at least perverted views. The ABC running a special on someone by no means validates the character of a person in case you did not get it the first time.

PaulL., read this !@#$ing thread and the news for 'evidence'

"Your pathetic judgment that, if I’m not...,then I must have..."

I never said that. Learn to read.

PaulL>"This is not a debate about nudity."

What are you smoking, mate? Do you really think there would have been a complaint had the model been clothed?

=-==-=-=--==-=-

Ludwig, I found you prior post about the police interesting and agree with it. There are serious problems with law enforcement that will not be going away without a new governing class.

However, this one about the SBS is bizarre. Honestly, if you have some hang ups then keep them to yourself, because others don't have them. Many people consider breastfeeding sleazy and offensive. Indeed this was a mainstream opinion in Australia at one point (still is judging by the hordes of frigid, prudish bigots in the electorate). Does that mean breastfeeders are? Similarly female legs were once considered offensive because people were repressed by their own ignorance and puritans/prudes. It’s just a nonsensical, needless position that infringes on others who don’t share the hang-ups.

And please stop appealing to the children for emotional reasons. It's one of the diseases of society to trumpet children with that slogan and assert their 'needs' over the rights of adults in society. It's sick. If your child is watching material you think is inappropriate for them, then that is your own fault and responsibility. it beggers belief that most of the apparent 'centrist' opinions here are so out of touch with the mainstream that they are more extreme than the laws of the country that millions of Australians accept. Not only that, they are off the planet in the context of Western society.

Both Europe, the UK and the USA produce adult content that is illegal in Australia. If you can't see how backward it is that hundreds of millions of adults overseas have a legal right to something that is perfectly acceptable to their society, then you are a cultural infant (like most of the governing class of Australia) whose living under a rock.

Ludwig you are right about the discretionary powers and I hope the police do use them wisely in this instance as regards charging. As far as removing the photos...well I guess someone must have made that assessment that they were crossing the line.

"Your comments got a bit lost, Pelican, but I just wanted to agree with what you say here. As far as I'm concerned, we're all against child porn, and this argument is about whether Henson's work constitutes it."

Thanks Vanilla, you have it exactly. You seemed to have copped most flak on this issue and I am sorry that happened to you.

Back to Henson:

I missed the later ABC show last night but did catch a bit of the 7.30 Report piece. I actually think Henson would be quite an interesting man to have around a dinner table but still remain unmoved by the argument that these photos are 'just' Art. Art like anything else does not stand alone, it is merely one part of the fabric of society/ culture and overlaps with every other part.

My final word on this is that we cannot argue that photos of nude children are inappropriate on one hand and then propose if they are hanging in an Art Gallery and involve some creative lighting that it is okay. Two of the photos I saw definitely crossed the line for me, others were not as bad but I would still lean towards excluding them.

Henson made a comment on the show that he finds that transition from childhood to adolescence an interesting time in a person's life and indeed it is, however one can't be so removed from reality to believe that these photos are not sexual in nature. For me, this should not be the subject for artists when children are involved even if the artist is trying to be poetic.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s2257270.htm

I can understand how a childs body is “beautiful”.

I would hate to live in a world where, for the sake of political correctness, children were indoctrinated with self-loathing to prevent them feeling the attention of pedophiles.

Art is about many things. Some find aspects of it pornographic. I recall many decades ago, a young art student had her work hung in the local civic art gallery. She did some self-portraits of herself naked, with legs slightly apart exposing her vulva.

The locals screamed “porn” and her efforts were taken down, regardless of the ‘skill’ which she had used to execute the work.

I recall the 1960s magazine OZ when Neville & Co published it in UK, one edition contained pictures of pre-pubescent girls.

Pictures of kids do nothing for me sexually.

My daughters were and are beautiful, although to me, not in a sexual way.

If we are to be told what is good and what is bad by government leaders, where is respect for our own choices?

I have not seen the images which are being complained about but I would say

Simply because the subject is a child does not mean the work is evil or immoral.

Simply because that child might be naked or partly naked does not mean the work is evil or immoral.

We are in the realm of subjective values and no subjective value is ever absolutely good or absolutely bad. Most subjective values are irrelevant to everyone except the person who holds them

When we start to judge people by their subjectively held values, we limit the rights of others to diversify from us.

We accept the intolerance of the pack.

We are all lessened

Values imposed upon us are worthless because they are not our values, they are only those which are tolerated by the pack.

That is not a life worth living.

It is merely existence through compliance, at the discretion of the pack.

Steel

You post >> “Objections to the work are (generally):- religious., emotional, … lacking in reason ... . If you do not subscribe to any of them, then you must have a censorship agenda”

Youre the one who needs to learn how to read. When I say it is not about nudity I have clearly expressed a number of times that adult nudity is not part of this argument. This is about nudity in respect to children only, not nudity in general. The number of you Henson supporters who want to pretend we are opposing all nudity is overwhelming. Just because you people can’t see the difference between photos of nude adults and nude children for public consumption doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

I notice you refused to answer the one question I asked. Gutless.

How do you even bring breastfeeding into a pornography/pedophile thread. You guys are just grasping at straws trying to wiggle out of the fact that you support the publication of images of children which would be enough to send a non artist to jail if he took them himself.

You think It’s prudish to be opposed to the sexyualisation of Children. I suppose by that standard you also believe it is prudish to be opposed to pedophilia.

Your argument seems to be that because something was once considered to be taboo (breastfeeding in public) and now is not, therefore all taboos are inappropriate. Is that your feeling with regard to pedophilia?

You all seem to be arguing about anything but why it is you believe that its OK for 13 year old children should be photographed naked. Breastfeeding, legs showing, adult nudity, burkhas, its all smokescreen for the fact that you are arguing for the rules which apply to adults to be applied to children, against the law. Don’t tell me why its ok to see adults naked in art. I agree. Don’t tell me why its ok to breastfeed in public, I agree, Explain to me why its OK to for 13 year old children should be photographed naked

Pelican,

well put.

PaulL.>"The number of you Henson supporters who want to pretend we are opposing all nudity is overwhelming."

What are you talking about? I demand you read every post I have made to date and tell me where this was suggested! Prove it.

PaulL>"How do you even bring breastfeeding into a pornography/pedophile thread."

You better shut up mate, and go read my comment. I was responding to LUDWIG'S COMMENT SPECIFICALLY AS INDICATED. GO READ IT.

PaulL.>"You think It’s prudish to be opposed to the sexyualisation of Children."

How is nudity sexual? Are you that repressed? How do you find naked child sexual? Are *YOU* a pedophile? I said many posts ago and I know you read it, that you must assume all Australians are pedophiles to reach your conclusion. You totally ignored it, and here you are again saying the same thing.Your bias is old, mate and it's affecting your reading ability and comprehension.

Steel,

You seem to be getting a little heated, settle petal, All those capitalised sentences are beginning to scare me.

Firstly there is Fractelle, who says because we object to the sexualisation of children, ie Hensons work that

>> “ the next steps will be … Put all naturist clubs out of business. Etc”

Yvonne says>> The saddest aspect of this furore, not just the issue of censorship, is how many people immediately equate nudity with sex. …That's why once upon a time women wore long dresses and men had to go up the stairs before her…,”

CJ says>>´Does that mean I have to throw out my art books, not to mention our print of "Chloe"?”

Finally you say>> “It is unresevedly about nudity. Just look at the *original complainant*. Their statements alone indicate it is beyond question.If it were really about children, and not nudity, then you are suggesting that no child could ever appear in art, clothed or otherwise”

So, I think I have shown that many of you want to believe that we are somehow ant-nudity, when in fact we are against the sexualisation of children

You said>> “Many people consider breastfeeding sleazy and offensive. Indeed this was a mainstream opinion in Australia at one point (still is judging by the hordes of frigid, prudish bigots in the electorate).

Please explain how you are not repeat NOT discussing the changing morals regarding breastfeeding in the light of this debate about pedophilia.

You ask “am I a pedophile” Hey mate, It’s not me who wants to see naked children. If the cap fits …

You haven’t answered my single question. Are you suggesting that it is OK for a pedophile to have photos of naked kids in the same poses as Hensons

If you can’t answer that one question don’t bother expecting any more replies from me.

I asked you to prove where *I* claimed it Paul. Those examples you gave of others prove nothing. They are good arguments and are not invalidated by this. None of them claim "it's about all nudity" or that "you object to all nudity".

When I said it is about nudity, I did not say it was not about children. I also said it in response to you who explicitly claimed it wasn't. Again: *You* are the one who made the *explicit* statements about this *not* being about nudity. No one else made any absolute claims like that. No one (including me) claimed it was not about children, for example.

And you are going on about my breastfeeding comment. Read the surrounding sentences. Honestly, do I have to explain the context to you and that I was addressing a comment of Ludwig's....AGAIN?

And yes *YOU* should really be concerned whether you are the pedophile here. No one else thinks a child being nude is sexual. No one thinks of children that way except you who said, "You think It’s prudish to be opposed to the sexyualisation of Children." And this is a discussion about nude models in a photograph. Apparently the naked model is automatically sexual. If you see naked children this way then you are the pedophile. Normal people do not think children's naked bodies are sexual. But you do.

Btw your question is a classic "loaded" question fallacy.

“Honestly, if you have some hang ups then keep them to yourself…”

Deary me Steel. What you are really saying is, ‘if you have a view that I don’t like don’t express it’. Yes?

Well gee, having read all your posts on this thread, I actually didn’t know that you would disagree with that (:>(

I basically agree with your position as expressed on this thread. But you still managed to find something that you reckon we don’t agree on and go a long way towards alienating someone with whom you probably share a great deal of common ground on this issue. Hmmm.

You’ve jumped to a totally incorrect conclusion that I have a problem with anything presented on SBS per se. What I object to (and I thought I had made it quite clear) is the presentation of stuff on television that is blatantly outside of our society's accepted values of what should be seen, what can be shown in a public place, what can be displayed on a magazine rack in a newsagency, etc….and apparently an art gallery!

I want our stodgy attitude to sex and nudity to greatly soften just as you apparently do. I wouldn’t have a problem with a whole television series on the penis, or on the intimate detail of human sexuality, if it was accepted practice and if images therein could be readily displayed all over the place, including art galleries, newspapers, television news, etc.

I particularly want our society’s confusion and duplicity over all this sort of stuff to be resolved.

Paul.L: << Are you suggesting that it is OK for a pedophile to have photos of naked kids in the same poses as Hensons >>

I've seen the pictures, and they could only be construed as 'pornographic' by someone who projects their own warped sexuality on to the images. If a paedophile was only in possession of images similar to those produced by Bill Henson, then I imagine that they would be very hard to convict on the basis of that evidence alone, since they are not pornographic images.

If, however, the paedophile was also in possession of actual child pornography, as well as a collection of Target and K-mart catalogues, then I imagine that the Henson-type images might be supporting evidence of an unhealthy obsession with children (or at least images of them).

Paul.L seems to me to be protesting just that little bit too much about this issue, as opposed to more reasonable people who have expressed their reservations about Henson's art somewhat more temperately. He's not a religious fundy like others who are similarly hysterical, so I'm wondering what his problem really is with this art.

Paul has said that he'd have no problem with 16 year-old models posing nude, but as far as I'm aware they are classified as children in all Australian jurisdictions. Why is it OK for them to pose as nude artistic models when it's not for 13 year-old models? Is there some basis for this beyond Paul's arbitrary assessment?

Ludwig that wasn't my intention. We are bound to be in disagreement on some things and I do not mistake when people disagreeing with me on something agree with me on others. I accept it as a rule in fact that most people will agree with only one thing i may say, but i do hope that they firmly believe in that one point. What I meant was in my response, it is better to come from a private perspective and acknowledge that others may disagree with you. In other words, what you said is unacceptable -for yourself- and that's fine. But it sounded to me as though you believed your private concerns and beliefs should be carried over to SBS policy and enforced on everyone...then no one who disagreed with you could see the content they feel entitled to see in a pluralist democracy. They can't opt in if it isn't available in the first place. But you can certainly opt out at any time by turning off the television; buying one that can be programmed and locked, for example. There are solutions to these problems that don't have to infringe on others.

The ABC programme on Henson was very interesting for those who missed it. His work is beautiful. Very moving.

The beauty and heartbreaking vulnerability depicted in those photo's, I felt, portrayed so well how as a parent I've looked at my now adult sons when they were that age and now my 13 year old daughter.

Yes, it certainly stirred up feelings, a mixture of sorrow, the age of their childhood is almost over; and anticipation, what kind of a woman or man will they grow up to be.

Would sensibilities be less disturbed if Henson used paint instead of a camera to create his pictures?

Yvonne i have no doudt that bill has done some work that stirs people, isnt it great how people can be 'stirred; by images, thats fine BUT taking and making earnings from a 13 year old to make a living is morally bankrupt

Heson defenders have made intresting distractions ,but the fact remains they are defending the right of perversions to be called art

Think of it this way [his defenders brought in religion ] so i will talk about perverted priests ,no one is saying they molestered every child they came across [nor the fact they did much good work as priests ,in caring for grieving or the poor etc [whatever good priests do

BUT when they molestered the children they crossed out all the good they PREVIOUSLY may have done [just like a rapist MAY well have been reasonable ALL his [or her life , BUT he is in court fot that one single rape that he did as well.

Think of a rabid dog ,that only bites ONE person getting the needle,

Or the good samariton killing only one person

Its that step too far ,That last straw ,that line that gets crossed

We are talking about photo's of a nakid child ,

Anyone who thinks that is a good thing is only excusing their own feelings about the matter
[not the child who must live with a trick adults played on her before she reached the age of concent]

Photo's are arround forever ,
children are only young once[and yes foolish once]

To think full concent can be given by a living art work in process is perverse

One day in the name of art we will document a rape
[will it be art
[NO]
seems anything goes if its in the name of art
well it dont

live with it
get over it
the line was crossed.

Do the crime
Do the time
just like any kid caught with a joint
ignorance is no excuse

CJ,

Your answer to my question was not even remotely to the point. Are you saying “Yes” its OK for a pedophile to have photos similar to those Henson takes?

So you would be OK with your neighbours taking pictures of your daughter naked if she was OK with it? Is that right?

Your target and Kmart catalogue reference is just more evidence of your inability to discuss the real issue. Like your pathetic remarks about Chloe and your art books.

Less than half the people surveyed by the SMH thought that Hensons work was acceptable. So you can pretend, if you want, that I am in a minority position. It is irrelevant to me anyway. I don’t want to be popular I want to be right. http://www.smh.com.au/polls/national/results.html

I think that it is you who is protesting too much. And that you are the one who wants to see nude photos of other people’s children. Steel is getting so uptight with his and his capitalized sentences that it appears he is nearly apoplectic

Whilst I don’t suggest that these photos are “pornographic” as such, I do feel that they are inappropriate. The artist himself admitted that the reason that the photos are interesting is that they are capturing a time in a child’s development when they are becoming aware of their sexuality. So your pretence that there is nothing sexual about these pictures is demonstrably false.

The state considers that a 16 year old is old enough to decide for themselves whether they want to have sex. I therefore think that if they are old enough to have sex, then they are old enough to decide for themselves whether they want to be photographed naked. I wouldn't be keen for my daughter to do it, but I wouldn't oppose anyone else.

My point is that a 13 year old is still a child, legally speaking, and therefore can't actually give real consent.

Paul.L: << So you would be OK with your neighbours taking pictures of your daughter naked if she was OK with it? Is that right? >>

Paul.L is either being obtuse, stupid, or something else... If my neigbours happened to be reputable, bona fide artists, then yes. I've said that before a couple of times.

<< So your pretence that there is nothing sexual about these pictures is demonstrably false. >>

I didn't say there was nothing sexual about the pictures - I say that they're not pornographic. All humans are 'sexual' - at no age is any normal human androgynous nor asexual. There's nothing wrong with art that explores the transitional stage between childhood and sexual maturity, as long as it does so tastefully, which Henson's art does in my opinion.

<< The state considers that a 16 year old is old enough to decide for themselves whether they want to have sex. I therefore think that if they are old enough to have sex, then they are old enough to decide for themselves whether they want to be photographed naked >>

Paul seems confused here. Why is the age of consent for having sex relevant to that of models posing nude for a reputable artist? They are subjects of works of art, not partners in sexual activity. Paul has claimed that this issue isn't about nudity, then goes on to equate "nakedness" with having sex.

At any rate, I think he'll find that he's actuall legally wrong if he bothers to investigate the matter rather than trying to shout down hysterically anybody who disagrees with him - 16 year-olds can indeed consent to having sex under certain conditions in most jurisdictions (but only heterosexual sex, and not with adults), but they are still legally children.

Can I point out that any poster accusing another poster of being a pedeophile sounds ridiculously childish. And no, "he started it" is not an adequate defense. There is no one on these forums who has given any indication of pedeophilic tendencies. If you honestly believe someone has indicated they are getting sexual enjoyment from looking at pictures of minors, report it to Graham and/or the police.

No one wants to encourage pedeophiles. As I have said a gazillion times, the argument is about whether or not Henson's work is art or pornography, if the young boy and girl could give consent or not, etc.

Paul: "Are you saying "Yes" its OK for a pedophile to have photos similar to those Henson takes? So you would be OK with your neighbours taking pictures of your daughter naked if she was OK with it? Is that right?"

I think what CJ is trying to say is that context matters. I could take a picture of my child naked and put it in a photo album. If you child came over to play and they went skinny dipping together, we could take a photo for both our albums. If my next door neighbour was taking photos through a gap in the fence, that would not be ok. If my husband put them on our family blog on the internet, ok. On a forum for pedeophiles, not ok.

What is appropriate artistically is different from what is appropriate in other arenas. Realistically, no pedeophile is going to collect Henson prints. For a start, they are prohibitively expensive. Secondly, you may insist they are sexual, but they are certainly not sexy. Thirdly, there's no genitals involved — an underaged nipple in shaded light is the extent of it.

If you have time, please read this blog entry by an excellent Australian blogger called "TigTog".

http://viv.id.au/blog/?p=1773

Vanilla, you stated "Realistically, no pedeophile is going to collect Henson prints. For a start, they are prohibitively expensive.. ."

Thats making the quantum leap and assuming pedeophile's are poor or cannot afford expensive art. Come on- you are smarter than that- you know Pedeophiles transcend social-economic lines. Try again.

“Thirdly, there's no genitals involved — an underaged nipple in shaded light is the extent of it.”

Not entirely true Vanilla, as shown on the ABC documentary a couple of nights ago. But I agree; sexual but not sexy.

Ludwig: I know there's nudity in his previous work — the work that's still hanging downstairs at the Art Gallery of NSW, for example! But I thought the current exhibition was waist-up only. However, I was wrong — this is from The Age: "Most of the shots were taken from the waist up, although the genitals of the female model were visible in one image."

Tammy Jo: You're quite right. However, as I understand it (and I am no expert) people who are into child pornography tend to hide their attraction to images of children, and stockpile lots of images. Paying $20,000+ for one blurry image seems unlikely behaviour to me. I agree with you that I was wrong to say it wouldn't happen, but I still think it's unlikely to happen.

My point is that Henson does not have the hallmarks that it appears pedeophiles are attracted to. He is frequently compared to Caravaggio — who used naked child models himself: http://www.christusrex.org/www2/art/images/caravaggio24a.jpg. Like Caravaggio, his images are dark, complex, disturbing, whereas child pornography is usually clear, simple, well-lit.

Of course, it's not a blanket rule. And it is of course possible that pedeophiles might buy Henson's work and become aroused by it. Pedeophiles find erotic content in many things — Target and David Jones catalogues, Dolly magazine, their children's friends, their local beach, and, as Catharine Lumby pointed out the other day, the movie The Sound of Music. We cannot ban everything that might turn on a pedeophile — to do so would be to put the lunatics in charge of the asylum.

Um, by the way, The Age has reproduced the photo that has been seized here: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/05/24/1211183189567.html

Surely that isn't legal? I'm ringing my journo friends to find out.

Last I checked Vanilla there were genitals of children displayed in the Sistine Chapel. Really, you seem to be all over place in the last couple of posts. For example, the only problem with someone photographing your naked child in your private yard was that there was no consent to do so. The photograph or the child in it doesn't magically change into something else depending on where the photograph is placed or who took it.

CJ,

I’m not being obtuse, I’m merely pointing out that you are admitting that taking nude photos of children should be limited. Your limit is clearly that the picture taker should be an artist. So after all you do recognize that a line must be drawn somewhere. I just draw it in a different place.

You say >>” I didn't say there was nothing sexual about the pictures” Thursday, 29 May 2008 10:27:00 AM,

Yet you also said,

>>” If you'd seen these or any other of Henson's works you'd be aware that there is little that is 'sexual' about them, other than the attributions put on them by philistines with sexual hang-ups” Sunday, 25 May 2008 4:14:48 PM

Well make up your mind CJ. You are blatantly contradicting yourself.

You say >>” All humans are 'sexual' - at no age is any normal human androgynous nor asexual”

Well I’m starting to see why you are so confused about this whole issue. Most normal people would agree that with puberty comes sexuality. The idea that babies posses any kind of sexuality is ridiculous.

You say >>”Why is the age of consent for having sex relevant to that of models posing nude for a reputable artist?”

The adoption of an age of consent acknowledges a level of maturity in those concerned that I believe should be a minimum requirement to make a long term decision regarding your body. Be it tattoos, plastic surgery or nude photos. At no time have I equated nakedness with having sex. Again, you’re just making that up.

You say >>” At any rate, I think he'll find that he's actuall legally wrong if he bothers to investigate the matter rather than trying to shout down hysterically anybody who disagrees with him -16 year-olds can indeed consent to having sex under certain conditions in most jurisdictions (but only heterosexual sex, and not with adults),”

You just don’t have a clue! You just made that up didn’t you? I dare to try and prove that!! You might like to start here. http://www.afao.org.au/library_docs/policy/Age_of_consent_briefing_paperJune06.pdf

I made a resolution to leave OLO, but this is just too funny not to share.

They're old but some may have missed them...

Self-styled vigilantes attacked the home of a hospital paediatrician after apparently confusing her professional title with the word "paedophile"...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.society

Brass Eye

From Wiki...

Celebrities including Gary Lineker and Phil Collins appeared in videotaped interviews, in which they endorsed a spoof charity "Nonce Sense" ("nonce" is a common British slang term for a sex offender), Collins going so far as to announce, "I'm talking Nonce Sense!" Tomorrow's World presenter Philippa Forrester and ITN reporter Nicholas Owen amongst others were tricked into explaining the details of "HOECS" (pronounced "hoax") computer games, which online paedophiles were supposed to be using to abuse children via the Internet.

Viewers were also told by the then Labour MP Syd Rapson that paedophiles were using "an area of Internet the size of Ireland", and by Richard Blackwood that internet paedophiles can make computer keyboards emit noxious fumes in order to subdue children (Blackwood even sniffed a keyboard and claimed to be able to smell the fumes, which he said made him feel "suggestible")

The Capital Radio DJ Neil "Doctor" Fox, for example, informed viewers that "paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than they do with you and me", before qualifying his remarks with "Now that is scientific fact - there's no real evidence for it - but it is scientific fact".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7jVnrfoZD8

The show caused a furore among sections of the British tabloid press. The Daily Star printed an article decrying Morris and the show next to a piece about the then 15-year-old singer Charlotte Church's breasts under the headline "She's a big girl now". The Daily Mail featured pictures of Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, who were 13 and 11 at the time respectively, in their bikinis next to a headline describing Brass Eye as "Unspeakably Sick". Defenders of the show argued that the media reaction to the show reinforced its satire of the media's hysteria and hypocrisy on the subject of paedophilia.

Paul.L

The scary thing is that the likes of CJ could be lecturing your kids at university. No amount of reasoned argument will get through to those who are blinded by their own dogmas ( the very thing he accuse others of).

Vanilla, thanks for the link. It's a great blog by the way. I've visited it a few times before.

Especially Laura's really disturbing experience and her response is very sobering.

CJ, I always enjoy reading your reasoned, and especially non-hysterical, comments.

Paul, children of all ages are sensual beings. That is why they are vulnerable to abuse, especially by those close to them, those they should be able to trust.

There is a world of difference though between acknowledging children's sensuality and equating this with a suggestion that children are part of the adult sexual world.

Vanilla, from what I've seen, Henson's work is Art and definitely not pornography

Paul, you're grasping at straws (and being typically waspish about it).

<< Well make up your mind CJ. You are blatantly contradicting yourself. >>

Asserting that there is little attribution of a value to something is in no way the same as saying that the value is absent. There is no contradiction in what I said about that aspect of Henson's work.

<< The idea that babies posses any kind of sexuality is ridiculous. >>

There is a huge corpus of psychological lierature on that very subject, Paul - going back decades, if not centuries since at least Freud. While some of the interpretations of that research and theory may have at times been ridiculous, I don't think the idea that children exhibit nascent sexuality is.

<< You just don’t have a clue! You just made that up didn’t you? I dare to try and prove that!! You might like to start here. >>

Mea culpa. The situation's somewhat more complex than I suggested - I confess that I wrote from past experience rather than from more reliable sources. Although Wikipedia is not authoritative, its description

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Australia_and_Oceania ]

seems to me to support the gist of what I was trying to say. That is, that the age of sexual consent is not 16 everywhere in Australia, particularly if the child is homosexual.

<< I’m not being obtuse, I’m merely pointing out that you are admitting that taking nude photos of children should be limited. Your limit is clearly that the picture taker should be an artist. So after all you do recognize that a line must be drawn somewhere. I just draw it in a different place. >>

Paul, that was a great start to your post, but it just went downhill from there. However, the fact that you can be reasonable (however fleetingly) is why I continue to interact with you. However, it becomes incredibly boring when you go into attack mode - as you usually do.

Tip: try to write a post without using the term "soft left".

Cheers :)

P.S. thanks to Vanilla and yvonne, and welcome back to Usual Suspect, who should stick around, I reckon :)

Runner will undoubtedly be pleased to learn that my academic days are probably well over. I haven't given a lecture in nearly a decade.

Your kids are safe ;)

Vanilla

“Surely that isn't legal? I'm ringing my journo friends to find out.”

Yep, there it is, in all its glory; Henson’s portrait of a nude 13 year old girl. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/05/24/1211183189567.html

Enough to get him into all sorts of strife…..enough to be ‘blackbanded’ (presented with a large black band across the girl’s breasts) on the TV news and current affairs on all channels……but the Age gets to print it in full!

How duplicitous is that?

Two days ago on this thread, immediately following the ABC's documentary on Henson's art, I wrote;

“So are the police now going to charge the ABC for showing Bill Henson’s pictures of nude adolescents, beamed directly into peoples’ living rooms, reaching a more diverse and probably wider audience than any art gallery?”

No one has been interested enough to address this question.

How on earth can Henson have any case to answer if the exact stuff that he is in trouble for can be legally reproduced and distributed in the general community…to a much wider audience than his exhibition would ever reach??

Everyone is concerned about the divide between acceptable art and pornography/paedophilia. But hardly anyone is in the slightest bit interested in the absurd duplicity of the law and/or its regulation.

I’m most interested to know what your journo friends have to say about this Vanilla.

Ludwig has a brilliant point here. Any takers? Are you going to call the police onto the newspaper and indict it's editors for distribution of "child pornography"? Where are the police? Why haven't they taken action? What about all the people who have shown this work in the past 25 years and the people who make the documentary on his work? You people are socailists and fascists of the worst kind.

Vanilla

Thanks for the link to Hoyden... I could really identify with what tigtog had to say about her experience.

When I looked at Henson's photos of the 13 year old girl, I was immediately transported back to my adolescence. In his photo I saw some of the 'almost anger' as my body changed despite how I felt about it... and how I was perceived differently by adults. I recall feeling that I wasn't asking for this new form of attention and I certainly wasn't comfortable with it. Perhaps if I'd been a part of a nudist colony like tigtog, I would've been more comfortable.

At my last counselling session, I asked my psychiatrist if he encountered many people with mental or sexual issues due to growing up in naturist clubs. His answer; no.

I understand this is anecdotal, but it does indicate the extent of discomfort the rest of us have with our bodies and sexuality. A young person with a strong sense of self and knowledge about their body is far less likely to be victimised by anyone including paedophiles.

Hiding away from our natures causes most of our sexual problems. Some can look at a naked body and see it as disgusting is a sad state for our culture and future. We urgently need to accept ourselves as we truly are. Children sense immediately if an adult is uncomfortable or ashamed.

That is not to say that 'anything goes'. The issue of informed consent both by the subject and parents is crucial. Some children are confident and fully supported and others aren't.

As some posters have noted, there are people who see Henson's work as horrid/pornographic, which reveals more about them and their sexual issues than about the artwork.

Henson's art is stunningly beautiful and we would be poorer without this beauty. The same cannot be said about true porn - it exploits our sexuality. I know this is a generalisation about porn; I am trying to make a distinction between it and the work we see in art-galleries.

Art makes us think, porn makes us hungry.

Fractelle,

I wonder who it is you are referring to when you suggest that some contributors think that the childs naked body is disgusting?

I'm yet to actually see anyone suggest that.

What I find highly distasteful is the desire of a 40 year old man to take photos of a naked child for his and others enjoynment/entertainment.I'm not saying that the work is neccessarily pornographic, although a pedophile who has photos similar in composition should be vulnerable to prosecution. Arts role in pushing boundaries is to find the limits of acceptable behaviour and push them a little to see if they are appropriate. The broader community seem to be saying that in this case Henson has gone too far

All that stands in the way of prosecution of Henson, and the media outlets who have printed the photos, is the fact that it is supposed to be art.

The arty types seem to be suggesting that if something is supposed to be art, it cannot be also be pornography, or pedophilia, or propoganda or polemic. I think they are clearly wrong. Just because it is art doesn't automatically make it acceptable.

The content of a picture does not change depending whose hands are on it Paul. If that is the case, perhaps they should be imprisoned for having any pictures of children at all.

You want thought crime? ok, line up with the nazis and communists.

"All that stands in the way of prosecution of Henson.........is the fact that it is supposed to be art."

No. It was fully consented and the model is perfectly happy with this. Can you explain how a naked child's body is innately offensive and indecent, to the degree it is considered pornography? And if it is so, how can you explain the history of art, which is full of naked adolescents?

Paul.L - "The arty types seem to be suggesting that if something is supposed to be art, it cannot be also be pornography, or pedophilia, or propoganda or polemic. I think they are clearly wrong."

And I think they are right. Pornography is specifically intended to provoke a sexual response in the viewer, and few - if any - alternative readings are possible. Henson's work is clearly not intended to advertise the girl sexually. If a particular viewer sees the girl in the photo as a sex object, then that is a peculiarity of the viewer, not the work.

See Fractelle's post above for an expression of the depth and range of feelings Henson's art provokes. If someone can see nothing but pornography in Henson's photos, it suggests a profound lack of emotional depth and/or a moral hysteria hair trigger.

There are actually people in the art world who are uneasy about this photo. It's time to end the artificial divide, created here and elsewhere, between on one side an informed and art-loving elite and on the other an ignorant and fearful bunch of philistines. Many who are critical of Henson's latest work would actually fit more comfortably on most issues in the former rather than the latter group.

Steel, the history of art might be full of naked adolescents as you say, but any work of art must be considered in its historical context. It is only now, not in any former time in history, that we are facing an unprecedented epidemic of child abuse. Like it or not, a photographic image of a child today in our culture is not the innocent portrayal it might have been in other periods of history or indeed still might be today in other cultures.

I lament this every bit as much as do you and other supporters of Henson's work. It's no use hand wringing now and crying over lost innocence. The damage is done. It's been happening slowly and relentlessly for a long time now, due largely to the aggressive corporate sexualization of children and the explosion of general accessibility to all manner of written material and visual images that the Internet has provided.

Henson has crossed the line here and he should have anticipated the negative reaction this photo would invoke. No matter how haunting or poetic his work might be, his judgement here was badly lacking. And this girl will live with that for the rest of her life. Even had the photo still been hanging unremarked on a gallery wall, the chances are high in my view that she would one day regret exposing herself so vulnerably to a camera lens and the curiosity and hostility of the outside world.

Steel,

You say >>” The content of a picture does not change depending whose hands are on it Paul”

I very much appreciate you making my point for me. These pictures, were they not the work of a renowned photographer, found in the possession of an adult other than perhaps the parents, would be considered incriminating. That is, they would be considered to be possession of child pornography. That’s why the police are investigating.

You say >>” You want thought crime? ok, line up with the nazis and communists” I’m not the one making the distinction between art and obscenity. I’m saying that if it is illegal for a pedophile it should also be illegal for a photographer. You’re the one who thinks there should be different rules based upon how a person thinks. I’m for a single line for everyone not to cross.

You say >> “It was fully consented and the model is perfectly happy with this”

I’m saying that most 12/13 year olds are not old enough to understand the full ramifications of this decision and are not therefore capable of giving proper consent.

You say >>”Can you explain how a naked child's body is innately offensive and indecent, to the degree it is considered pornography”

What is offensive is the adults who want to view this for their own pleasure/enjoyment. Not the child herself.

As for the history of art, all I can say is that I’m quite sure you, as a pleb, don’t want to go back to the morality and law of ‘ye olden days’. Back then the rich did what they pleased, and the peasants paid for it with their blood and sweat. And your brand of liberalism would have been considered absurd. Equality of all men wasn’t on, let alone equality of men and women.

Bronwyn,

You have put your point very eloquently and I must say I entirely agree. There has been far too much name calling and hysteria. This is about protection of children, not the rights of adults who already have enough rights without responsibilities as it is

I think the point has been made before that any pictures of children in a pedophiles possession are "incriminating" in the sense that they only may indicate that the person has an 'unususal' obsession with children (eg. department store catalogues). Nothing else. Do police raid department stores because these catalogues would be seen as incriminating in that hands of a pedophile?No. Are they enough to prove someone is a pedophile?No.

You missed the point about the history of art. How do you explain all of the naked adolescents to date? Are you going to retroactively label all of them as producers of child pornography? The idea is so ridiculous it is almost hilarious in it's stupidity. It's a characteristic of fascism for police to do such a thing for political reasons (where before such things have been perfectly acceptable). What you are seeing is the definition of child pornography *expanding* to include innocuous and normal pictures of naked children.

PaulL.>"I’m saying that most 12/13 year olds are not old enough to understand the full ramifications of this decision and are not therefore capable of giving proper consent."

How dare you presume to speak on behalf of the teenager and her parents. Like other adolescents, that is why you don't see them running stark naked around the city. They know full well what a photograph and what other people seeing a photograph of them means (that's what they see all the time in advertising and media). They did this and are defending the artist. Young people know what crime is that is why they aren't running about the city breaking things and stealing from every shop they go to. They are expected to understand more complex things by society already. I'm going to go back and cite my earlier list I made for flawed assumptions that must be made before you can see the photographs in this way. You are assuming these adolescents are mindless zombies, which is incredibly demeaning. The harm here is coming from the 'bravehearts' screaming at the young people and calling them irresponsible and mindless.

Steel

Your have enough straw men in your last post to make yourself your very on set of straw warriors.

1. I don’t accept your point about the catalogues. Anyone who makes the point that Target catalogues are somehow the same as hensons work is “retarded. If the Target catalogues had naked 13 year old girls in them then maybe, but they don’t. You just can’t help bringing in all sorts of red herrings can you? The rest of your argument, which rests upon your own ridiculous theory, and not anything I said, is therefore irrelevant.

2. I didn’t miss the point about the history of art at all. I’m not going to retroactively do anything, another straw man. What I said was that they had different values back then and that we don’t live by the same values now, nor would we want to. Your argument in a nutshell is that if it was OK then why is it not ok now? Besides being so childish and inane, you forget that kids were married at 12 and 13 only a few hundred years ago.

3. I dare to speak on behalf of all children. Partly because I have a daughter of that age, but also because it is everyones responsibility to look after child welfare. It truly does take a village to raise a child.

4. Young people may know what crime is but that is irrelevant. We aren’t talking about child criminals and I have no idea how you even bring that into this debate

5. I find it rather alarming that you consider it "normal" to have pictures of other people’s naked teenagers. I can just about understand those who can tolerate it in the name of art, but “normal, that’s just off the charts.

Bronwyn you are a fool. Let me show you why. It's really funny actually, have you not read a single post here? Your post is like a regrown hydra head in this thread. It's the one that represents the ignorant bigot and it's amazing how many times it regrows and with such ease.

Bronwyn>"There are actually people in the art world...who are uneasy"

Idiots exist everywhere. This is irrelevant.

>"It's time to end the artificial divide"

The divide is not artifical it is a natural divide created when an ignorant fascist walked into a gallery and called a naked child pornographic in nature.

>"Steel, the history of art might be full of..., but any work of art must be considered in its historical context."

A naked child is a naked child. Period. And how is the historical context different, from say last year? This is hilarious....Also, explain the historical context of last few years, when this was never a problem.

>"It is only now, not in any former time in history, that we are facing an unprecedented epidemic of child abuse."

I WANT A !@#$ing CITATION. thankyou. I've seen that socialist slogan many a time and i never see the proof. You really think during the laissez faire period of the 19th century and earlier, or under feudalism that child abuse was less than now?!?? Really? You must be supremely delusional to believe that. Child abuse was a way of life. How is that for historical context? Well, at least you've proven your opinion is based on propaganda and not simple application of logic and reason. Your statement reveals a guarantee that you can not or have not thought critically on this but are merely regurgitating propaganda of the socialist organisations. Regardless, whether or not child abuse is prevalent in society is irrelevant, but that is another fact I will explain later.

Fractelle: "Henson's art is stunningly beautiful and we would be poorer without this beauty. The same cannot be said about true porn - it exploits our sexuality. I know this is a generalisation about porn; I am trying to make a distinction between it and the work we see in art-galleries.

Art makes us think, porn makes us hungry."

Beautifully put. That was a great post.

Vanilla

That was very kind, I was inspired by the link you provided.

Bronwyn

I respect you very much, while I do understand your concerns I am disappointed to think how negative you are about our current sexual climate.

For example, we are far more enlightened now, than back in the Victorian era, when the mere sight of a woman's ankle was considered erotica. I can understand that in many ways it appears that a Pandora's Box of sexual licentiousness has been opened since we became more tolerant - media, advertising and pornographers are definitely exploiting our weaknesses and fears. However, I believe this is just a part of the maturation of our species. I like to be positive and think that there will be a time when we are so accepting of our human selves, that our sexual desires cannot be so easily manipulated, and, therefore, exploited for lust or profit.

Then we will look back and admire the art of people like Henson and wonder what the fuss was all about.

And porn will be much classier too.

;-)

Vanilla- I would also like to thank you for your informative links. I can clearly see you are trying to present a well rounded view of this issue.

Bronwyn- I completely agree with your take on this issue. Thank you for articulating this.

Steel- Get back in your box.

Bronwyn>"I can clearly see you are trying to present a well rounded view of this issue."
TammyJo, this is for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_ground (false compromise)

As for supporting Bronwyn when i've shown there are severe contradictions and flaws in her statements, well, what can i say? It's either a willful denial or a deference to ignorance, which is rather silly. Perhaps you should get an education.

Now back to Bronwyn's post:
-=-=-
Bronwyn>"a photographic image of a child today in our culture is not the innocent portrayal it might have been in other periods"

Excuse me, but you don't speak for anyone but yourself. How you presume to speak for others is both arrogant and disingeuous. If you see something sexual in pictures of a naked child then you are a pedophile by definition. Furthermore if you truly believe this then you must remove all images of naked children immediately from the public record. Why? Well, your comment here suggests there can be no innocent portrayal of a child and hence all existing images are sinful/constitute child-pornography.

>"The damage is done.....due largely to the aggressive corporate sexualization of children..."

You are right about the damage, but wrong about the cause. Advertising and the media have nothing to do with it. They are not mind control. You socialists really have a problem understanding that, don't you? Ok I'll play though. Why aren't all these children killing people because of what they see in movies and games? Care to explain? Well i can: media and entertainment ARE NOT MIND CONTROL.

>"And this girl will live with that for the rest of her life."

She was perfectly happy to do this and has defended the work, as has her mother, who has accused you people of doing the damage. It's all your fault for reacting like fascists and forming a lynch mob.

>"the chances are high in my view that she would one day regret"

She regrets nothing and has said so. No model has regretted it. Get a clue and listen to the models rather than imposing your own imagined pain onto them.

Steel

"You really think during the laissez faire period of the 19th century and earlier, or under feudalism that child abuse was less than now?!??"

Yes I do. Besides which a photo of a naked 13 year old girl hanging on a gallery wall in the early ninetenth century would have been viewed by a very small percentage of the population and it would have been the educated genteel class at that. Today such an image can travel the world and find its way onto millions of computer and mobile phone screens and be viewed by who knows who and for who knows what purpose. It might start its life as high art but the artist soon loses control over its use or misuse.

"If you see something sexual in pictures of a naked child then you are a pedophile by definition."

I myself see nothing sexual in photos of naked children but unfortunately millions out there do.

Fractelle

"while I do understand your concerns I am disappointed to think how negative you are about our current sexual climate."

I'm not negative "about our current sexual climate" as it applies to consenting adults, but I am concerned about the rampant levels of child abuse. I just feel it's time we questioned the widespread acceptance of imagery sexualising children. I know it can be debated ad infinitum whether or not the photo in question fits into this category, but in my mind it's very presence is an unhelpful blurring of the boundaries and just further feeds into the whole exploitation and commodification cycle.

The adult world today in my view is impinging heavily on the freedoms of childhood. His use of the term "revolting" might have been wrong, but I agree with Kevin Rudd's plea to let children be children and enjoy their childhood.

Steel- you reply:

Bronwyn>"I can clearly see you are trying to present a well rounded view of this issue."

Oh for heavens sake Steel- why don't you and your self masterbating intellect try to quote correctly.

You further state:

>As for supporting Bronwyn when i've shown there are severe contradictions and flaws in her statements, well, what can i say? It's either a willful denial or a deference to ignorance, which is rather silly.. .

I am more than happy to defer to your ignorance.

Now, go back in your box!

“Hiding away from our natures causes most of our sexual problems. Some can look at a naked body and see it as disgusting is a sad state for our culture and future. We urgently need to accept ourselves as we truly are.”

Absolutely Fractelle. The whole concept of nudity being offensive is just so incredibly artificial… and absurd. The requirement to wear bathers on a public beach rather than go au-naturale is just completely spastic. The inability to go naked on your own property if you might be seen by neighbours of passers-by is beyond ridiculous.

It is this requirement to cover up that is perverse. It does indeed lie at the root of much of our society’s sexual dysfunctionality.

We desperately need to free up.

“…I believe this is just a part of the maturation of our species. I like to be positive and think that there will be a time when we are so accepting of our human selves, that our sexual desires cannot be so easily manipulated, and, therefore, exploited for lust or profit. Then we will look back and admire the art of people like Henson and wonder what the fuss was all about.”

Yes. There should be whole lot more nudity in art, and exposure to non-pornographic nudity in the general community. Let’s demystify the nude body and make it perfectly normal and acceptable. The work of Bill Henson, Sally Mann http://www.google.com/search?q=sally+mann, etc should be celebrated, and not looked at sideways with any sense of inappropriateness.

Of course, we shouldn’t go over the top. So those who don’t agree, don’t jump to the end of the spectrum in your responses. We just need to shift the balance a considerable distance towards more openness – to a point that would well and truly accommodate the work of Henson and Mann.

Stuff the paedophiles! They can get all the imagery they want these days, very easily. We shouldn’t in any way be held to ransom by them.

Great posts Ludwig and Fractelle.

What I think Bronwyn is saying, and I think she has a point,is that this is a furore here now because of the exposure in the last few years of children being abused. There is a real climate of looking for the paedophile bogeyman in every adult who might look at a child, or even touch a child. Though I doubt very, very much that child abuse is more prevalent now. It is now openly acknowledged that it happens, in the past it remained hidden.

As I've said before, I think this is because of a feeling of helplessness and guilt many of us feel that this is happening and apparently so prolifically. The point though, is that paedophiles are not created by looking at pictures of naked children. We should not have to tippy toe around because there are people around like that. To my mind that legitimizes their 'victim' status, they can't help themselves so the rest of us better make sure there are no 'triggers' around that might make them 'bust'.

Children are rarely sexually abused by complete strangers. This is what makes it deeply unsettling and distressing for us as a community. What can we do that would make children safer in their own homes, their own environments? Child sex abuse is not going to be stopped or lessened by banning work from legitimate artists like Bill Henson.

His works depict the human body as beautiful, mysterious and for some unsettling, both in the case of adults and children. They do not exhort to commit depraved sexual acts.

What I find deeply distasteful is the immediate exploitation of all the media of the tittilation factor by displaying photo's, supposedly pornography, ad nauseam, as news. That was pornogrpahic. As Ludwig wants to know, why aren't each and every one of these TV channels and newspaper people put on notice?

The ABC programme, on the other hand, warned what the subject was about and it was televised late at night, so adults had a chance to make up their own minds.

BRONWYN :)

fascinating to see the interaction between you and Steel.....

Your arguments are 'very' "conservative".. you allude to a nude 13 yr old in the 19th century... and how it might be regarded....

*BINGO*.... exactly... "things" have changed.. yes indeedy..but how.. and why?

Steel has a stab at it:

<<Advertising and the media have nothing to do with it. They are not mind control.>>

err.. COUGH.. SPLUTTER... CHOKE...GAG..... COLLAPSES.. recovers.. (an hour later)...and now..am able to resume this post!

Dear Steel.. you MUST resume taking your medication AND go back to your therapist :)

The media have EVerything to 'do' with it.

They DO exercise 'mind control'...but in subliminal ways. I mean..after all, they have convinced 'you' that they have no impact on you..

Now..tying this together with Bronny's post.. and wondering why Bronwyn is now espousing very 'conservative' ideas, yet apparently without any Christian conviction? (B, you can put me straight there)

...I just hope Bronwyn will be more sympathetic to those of us who cry out against the commercially driven media.. and this includes the overflowing pornography now available at every petrol station.
Are they not 'media'?

More and more local papers are including, or providing 'Personals' which in many cases are really just ads for hookers and deviates.

It has to do with out VALUE SYSTEM..which is shaped by the Media and by pressure groups. INCLUDING Artists and their supporters.

MIUAUG.. down...down...ever downward.. not up.

SOLUTION?

Just as I am, poor, wretched, blind;
Sight, riches, healing of the mind,
Yea, all I need in Thee to find,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Lets all goto "Him".. in faith.

Brilliant post Yvonne.

Ludwig and Yvonne

Your reasoned articulation of the true basis for society's sexual confusion and disfunction was clear to anyone not blinded by narrow definitions of sexuality.

"Yes. There should be whole lot more nudity in art, and exposure to non-pornographic nudity in the general community. Let’s demystify the nude body and make it perfectly normal and acceptable. The work of Bill Henson, Sally Mann http://www.google.com/search?q=sally+mann, etc should be celebrated, and not looked at sideways with any sense of inappropriateness."

While we continue to see sex as dirty and pass that prejudice on to our children, we will continue to be exploited.

As Yvonne pointed out, most child abuse occurs by people the child knows - not some seedy stranger in a long coat. Children brought up to respect themselves and are aware of their rights to their own bodies are less likely to be preyed upon.

I don't believe that the levels of child abuse have increased - just that we know and talk about it more; part of the enlightenment I was talking about. And we should be grateful for that. Whether you approve of artists like Henson or not, his work has incited a necessary debate and a timely look at ourselves and how we teach our children about sexuality.

I really urge people to check out Vanilla's link to a succinctly written blog of an experience by a woman when she posed nude for a photographer as a young girl. Think about the difference between children brought up to be comfortable with their bodies and those who are taught that their bodies and sexual feelings are shameful.
Who are more likely to be exploited?
Who are more likely to develop sexual disfunctions?
Who are more likely to hold distorted ideas about the opposite sex?

http://viv.id.au/blog/?p=1773

One absolute, non-negotiable aspect of this debate is one of Age of Consent. Either a young person can give legal consent or they can’t. It is simple and clear cut.

In support of the legal arguments relating to the issue of consent there is also vast scientific proof that the developing adolescent brain is not able to make well informed and safe decisions. It has been scientifically proven that the part of the adolescent brain ( the pre-frontal cortex) that is responsible for making sound and well thought out decisions is not fully developed yet.

This is evident in the risk-taking behaviors that are characteristic of the teenage years. The pre-frontal cortex is responsible for "executive" functions—planning, setting priorities, organizing thoughts, suppressing impulses and weighing the consequences of one's actions. This means the part of the brain young people need the most to develop good judgment and decision-making develops last! ”

Refer to these links for more information
http://www.medinstitute.org/content.php?name=teenbraindevelopment

http://www.brainconnection.com/topics/?main=news-in-rev/teen-frontal

What is non-negotiable is that the young ones are not in any position to give consent- informed or otherwise. So, perhaps the parents of these young individuals photographed have lost their moral compass in providing their approval for the photographs to be taken- that’s another argument really

This is indeed a truly interesting discussion. I particularly like the approaches of Vanilla, yvonne, Fractelle and Ludwig to what is clearly an issue that affects many people surprisingly deeply. I don't think Steel is doing his case many favours by his approach to those who differ, even if they are 'wrong'.

Fractelle: << I don't believe that the levels of child abuse have increased - just that we know and talk about it more.. >>

Yes. It's been a while since I've seen any reliable figures on this topic, but I seem to recall that most reliable sources suggest that it's not the incidence (or prevalence) of sexual abuse of children that's increased in recent years - but rather that we're more aware of it because it's being reported more often. Again, this is a subject about which there's a large body of peer-reviewed literature, which is ignored by the 'moral panic' - of which this case is a classic example.

TammyJo: << The pre-frontal cortex is responsible for "executive" functions—planning, setting priorities, organizing thoughts, suppressing impulses and weighing the consequences of one's actions. This means the part of the brain young people need the most to develop good judgment and decision-making develops last! >>

I understand that recent research indicates that this process isn't fully developed until about the age of 25. Clearly, people shouldn't be allowed to have sex until that age. Sorry, but that's a really dumb argument.

As is the conflation of the age of consent for having sex with posing as a nude artist's model. Posing for an artist is not the equivalent of having sex, no matter how some people associate them subjectively.

Steel>"You really think .....that child abuse was less than now?!??"
Bronwyn>Yes I do.

Children were basically slaves. You should learn some history before talking about it.

Bronwyn>"Besides....would have been viewed by a very small percentage of the population"

For the nth time, a picture of a naked child in one place, is exactly the same as in another place. The amount of reproductions of said picture has no impact on it's content.

Steel>"If you see something sexual in pictures of a naked child then you are a pedophile by definition."

Bronwyn>"I myself see nothing sexual in photos of naked children but unfortunately millions out there do."

Roflmao....there are millions of pedophiles out there? they won't even fit in our prison system....Do you even realise how ridiculious that amount is? .....talk about hysteria, paranoia and fear. If that shameless statistic has come from these ngos then they need to be investigated for fraud.

BOAZ>"The media....DO exercise 'mind control'...but in subliminal ways. I mean..after all, they have convinced 'you' that they have no impact on you.."

yes, but mind control? I am supposed to believe here, that the media make people into pedophiles and furthermore, would 'make me' assault someone depicted in them. (This is why these people are saying there is an inherent 'danger' in even showing these images...'they will manipulate people) That's the reasoning here. In other words, advertising could make me a gay man. If you are a decent parent you have nothing to fear anyway. Interestingly you give an example:

BOAZ>"...commercially driven media....the overflowing pornography...at every petrol station....'Personals' which...are really....hookers and deviates."

Of course, if advertising is mind control, then there is a perfectly good existing reason to redact and control ALL forms of media and entertainment in society, so that "the children aren't harmed". This would make Australia nearly equivalent to China, and a de-facto theocratic state (which is the Australian Christian agenda). Luckily (or not as facts and logic is often ignored in these cases), they are demonstrably not mind control.

CJ,

You really are a piece of work. You whine about the insults of others whilst insulting whoever you like.

Tammy-Jo’s argument has a lot of validity. Far more than your pathetic suggestion that those who wish to protect the child in this instance are in a moral panic. There is nothing remotely “dumb”about suggesting that a 13 year old has a less developed brain than an adult. And your obtuse suggestion that somehow a 25 year old is equivalent to a 13 year old because they may both have underdeveloped pre-frontal cortex’s is illconsidered and tiresome. Further, the language you use in your attempted negation of this highly valid point is offensive. There is nothing at all “dumb” about the argument Tammy-Jo made. What is dumb is your inability to stick to the issue and raise objections in a reasoned, deliberate and polite manner, rather than just slag people off. Especially given your predilection for calling others to account on this issue.

I would like to see your evidence to suggest that the abuse of children is not more widespread now that it was in times gone by. We live in the age of instant gratification and the primacy of rights over responsibilities. Anything goes. The vapid and selfish cultural revolution of the sixties made doing whatever YOU pleased into an artform. We live in a time when individual selfishness and self importance is greater than in any time in our recent history.

You say >>” As is the conflation of the age of consent for having sex with posing as a nude artist's model. Posing for an artist is not the equivalent of having sex, no matter how some people associate them subjectively.

I’m not aware of anyone suggesting that posing nude is the same as having sex. That’s your spin on the issue. What a number of people have suggested is that when it comes to making long term decisions about your body, like getting a tattoo, plastic surgery or posing naked, the age of consent seems like an appropriate point to draw a line.

TBC

cont

You have admitted you wouldn't allow anyone but an artist of Henson’s stature to photograph your child naked. Whilst I find this unpleasant it seems you accept that there needs to be a line drawn somewhere; that it isn’t normal or natural for people to take photos of other peoples naked teens.

Even you would surely acknowledge that there is a point at which a child doesn’t have the ability to consent to this kind of permanent exposure. Be it 13, 9 or 6. That you can castigate others for drawing a line for good sense and good taste which differs to yours, just shows your contempt.

This is NOT about what paedophiles think of the pictures. It’s NOT about whether it turns them on. I don’t imagine there are millions of paedophiles, or that viewing the picture will turn people into paedophiles, it’s about protecting the child from a decision which may have long term and unintended consequences. And about unambiguously drawing the line so that no paedophile could take advantage of the “its art” defence

steel says >>” Children were basically slaves. You should learn some history before talking about it.”

I’m ROFLMAO at this. Mate you really should take your own advice. Whether children were slaves or not, that doesn’t provide any evidence that they were sexually abused on a similar scale to that which children are today. There was no net, no phone, no way for paedophiles to organise in secret to abuse children the way they do today. Further, only a few hundred years ago children of 13 years of age were considered of marriageable age. Your point that because it was OK back then it should be OK now is inane and extremely short sighted.

Steel says >>” The amount of reproductions of said picture has no impact on it's content”

This is another furphy. In the past Art was the realm of only the very wealthy, who often had entirely different moral codes to the plebs. Further the morality of the plebs was irrelevant to those who ruled the state.

CJ Morgan- you state: " . . . clearly, people shouldn't be allowed to have sex until that age. Sorry, but that's a really dumb argument."
As is the conflation of the age of consent for having sex with posing as a nude artist's model. Posing for an artist is not the equivalent of having sex, no matter how some people associate them subjectively."

O.K. smart ass- could you please logically and calmly point out where I was even refering to sex in any context. It was you my friend who read something into my post. And you don't think you have a problem?

TammyJo (and Paul), if adolescents are presumed to be unable to consent, then why do parents (and others) consult with them at all? "They can't give informed consent", remember? I can expand this if you want to argue ;)

-=-=-
Paul>"Whether children were slaves or not, that doesn’t provide any evidence that they were sexually abused on a similar scale to that which children are today."

Where is the citation I asked for that you and Bronwyn have not provided?

1. I used the term child abuse and so did Bronwyn. Learn to read?
2. Assuming sexual abuse only, it's still nonsense. It ignores what is probable. The fact that children were practically slaves indicates the attitude and rights afforded them. It's guaranteed they were routinely sexually abused.

Paul>"There was no net, no phone, no way for paedophiles to organise in secret to abuse children the way they do today."

No, instead there were the common streets and venues... The centralisation of the internet and phone arguably actually reduce the prevalence, because every pedophile doesn't require 'their own child'.

Paul>"Further, only a few hundred years ago children of 13 years.....Your point that because it was OK"

I said nothing about that.. What's funny is, if you consider that child sexual abuse, then you are disproving your own claims you began with at "I'm ROFLMAO....that doesn't provide any evidence that they were....". You disproved your own comment.

Paul>"In the past Art was the realm of only the very wealthy, who often had entirely different moral codes to the plebs. Further the morality of the plebs was irrelevant to those who ruled the state."

How do moral codes change the content of a picture....you didn't address this. Or do you assert that the "plebs" had the "correct morality"?

Lastly, to those claiming an epidemic without citation and presumably their reference point is the time mid-last century when there was no reporting, it is a fallacy. In other words... Just because more people are reporting them does not mean the incidence are increasing. the only thing increasing are the reports.

Truly bizarre, but I guess we're discussing issues that transcend rationality for more than a few people. That Paul.L's latest rabid spray at this stage of the debate is so angry and aggressive indicates that he's one of them, as does TammyJo's charming attempt to score a point:

<< O.K. smart ass- could you please logically and calmly point out where I was even refering to sex in any context. It was you my friend who read something into my post. And you don't think you have a problem? >>

If TammyJo would care to google the phrase "age of consent" she'll quickly realise that the term usually refers to the age of legal consent to sexual activity, which is the sense in which the term has mostly been used in this debate.

If it's not sex that's bothering the wowsers, censors and hysterics about this storm in a teacup, then what is it that upsets them so about this art? Those who say it's about protection from child abuse are also fundamentally concerned about sexual abuse, as are the crowd who claim that Henson's art is pornographic.

This is a classic example of a moral panic, and some people seem only too happy to be sucked into it.

In yesterday’s Courier Mail there is a large article on Henson accompanied by a half-page-length colour photo of one of his 12/13 year-old female models, fully nude, with a red band across the breasts with ‘çensored’ written on it, and…..wait for it….the pubic region fully exposed!!...just partly obscured only by the shadow of the girl’s arm and the dim lighting.

What the ….??

Since when has it been appropriate to print large frontal nude photos in a newspaper?

What is the Courier Mail trying to tell us here? That practically anything goes in the name of news and that restrictions should only apply to art??

Talk about DU…PLICITY!!

I also note that neither this photo nor any mention of the article appears on the CM website. Huh? Why not, given the very high profile of this issue at present? Every other major news item is covered there.

It seems that the newspapers; the Age first and now the Courier Mail, are very strongly trying to push the boundaries to the point where they WILL be charged and placed in the same position as Henson….perhaps in a show of support for him, and the notion of much freer expression of nudity.

If that be the case, I would support it in principle....except that it must surely be blatantly illegal!

So where’s the police action on this? How can they possibly allow this stuff to be put in our newspapers, when they have taken such strong action against exactly the same stuff in an art gallery? Have the police realised the folly of their actions against Henson?

Fascinating!!

Steel,

You say >>” if adolescents are presumed to be unable to consent, then why do parents (and others) consult with them at all?”

That isn’t a negation of our claim that children of 13 are unable to consent. Parents consult very young kids on things to include them in the decision making process. It is evidence of nothing other than inclusion. You can expand all you want on this topic but it is highly unlikely you will be able to come up with anything coherent.

There is an age at which children are not responsible for their decisions. Our courts recognise this. In qld it is an offence to leave a child under 12 alone for extended periods. In NSW there is also a rebuttable presumption that a child aged between 10 and 14 years of age is doli incapax. Clearly society considers that children are not capable of

1) looking after themselves
2) properly understanding the long term consequences of their decisions.

You say >>”where is the citation I asked for that you and Bronwyn have not provided?’

Do your own research you lazy pr1ck. Its not my responsibility to prove something that you want proven, that’s your job. You provide citations for your arguments and I’ll provide them for mine. All we know for sure is that reporting of abuse has, without a doubt, steadily increased since records were kept.

cont,

con't

We are talking about nudity in art. Your point was that it’s been happening for ever. My point is that just because it used to happen doesn’t make it right now. So as an example, I noted that hundreds of years ago children were married at that age. That doesn’t mean that they should be able to marry at that age now. I don’t look back and apply the morality of today to the situation which existed hundreds of years ago. Four or five hundred years ago your average person might only live to 40. That is one reason they married earlier. So I don’t consider that abuse at all. And your pathetic celebration of an imaginary contradiction is moot.

You say “How do moral codes change the content of a picture....you assert the plebs had the correct morality”

I’m not asserting that anyone had the correct morality, merely that the ruling classes in many eras during the past have been shockingly immoral. You are attempting to argue that if it was OK to paint nude kids back then, it should be OK now. That’s an incredibly inane, and in fact naïve, suggestion. I’m not even convinced that it was ok to most people back then. But just because it happened in the past doesn’t mean it should be ok now. If you used your brain you could think of thousands of things which were once ok and no longer are.

Societies standards of good taste and decency are not written in stone. A picture which in one era was considered obscene may no longer be considered so today. And vice versa.

Finally, you haven’t offered any evidence of your claim that child sexual abuse is no more common now than it was hundreds of years ago. It would be a very difficult thing to prove either way as there were no records kept. However a great deal of other anti-social and taboo activities have increased since the urbanisation of the industrial revolution gave many people spare income and leisure time and reordered thousand year old societies.

I'm only adding this because quite a number of people have remarked about child abuse being more widespread now.

Its not quite true that no records were kept. Extant court transcripts, pamphlets, journals, wills(!), books etc. even the presence of the ubiquitous "village idiot" (who was often a product of incest) do in fact support the idea that unfortunately, it is no worse now than it ever was: simply that it is more reported now. If we go back BCE, of course, to a time when children were simply smaller versions of adults, it was part and parcel of life.

Paul, the 'law' is incorrect and contradictory. Things don't suddenly happen at certain ages because the law dictates it. A child one day older than their 12th birthday can suddenly be left alone in queensland for extended peiods, but not the day before? One day the parent will be punished, the next they will not? Ridiculous. Appeal to law all you want but it doesn't change that law is often bull!@#$. Many adults give alcohol to underage children and feel perfectly justified in doing so. Furthermore your admission that many parents put stock in the child's decision-making processes is proof that law isn't clear cut. The law in this case is merely to protect the child from government forcing them to do something they do not want to. Lets say you find a child lost from their parents in the outback who says they have been wandering since dawn. You have to temporarily abduct the child with or without their consent to rescue them or render aid. Do you hence leave them alone to die because they can't or won't consent?

Paul>"Do your own research you lazy pr1ck.Its not my responsibility to prove something that you want proven"

Yes it is actually. Your assumption that I have not checked is wrong. I couldn't find proof of it, and am asking. Nothing I have said requires citation because I'm not making extraordinary claims that amouint to propaganda.

Paul>"You...argue...it was OK to paint nude kids back then, it should be OK now."

I am saying that it is ok then for the same reason it 'should be' ok now. That a naked child is not sinful or sexual for merely being naked.

Paul>"I’m not asserting that anyone had the correct morality, merely that the ruling classes in many eras during the past have been shockingly immoral."

By implication that sentence implies that the "plebs" were moral, which is contadicting your beginning denial...and just because you say the ruling classes is "shockingly immoral" does not mean that they were so in the case of naked children in art.

"It's not my responsibility to prove something that you want proven, that’s your job"

Hang on. Did the tradition of actually backing one's statements up with evidence suddenly become passe?

That'll make millions of uni students ecstatic.

Steel,

I’ll find evidence for the points I make and you can do likewise. You have not proved to me that the incidence of child sexual abuse has not increased considering reporting has definitely increased. Indeed you insist instead on assumptions founded upon wobbly “evidence”.

steel>>” It ignores what is probable. The fact that children were practically slaves indicates the attitude and rights afforded them. It's guaranteed they were routinely sexually abused.

This is worthless as evidence of anything. It seems to me that this is you talking out of your @rse. So I challenge you to prove it. By your logic, you have to prove it to me.

steel>>” I am saying that it is ok then for the same reason it 'should be' ok now. ”

This is not what you said initially.

steel>> Can you explain how a naked child's body is innately offensive and indecent, … And if it is so, how can you explain the history of art, which is full of naked adolescents?

What you are saying is “if it’s offensive now, why wasn’t it offensive then”. Or something quite like it. I’ve put this silly argument to the sword already.

steel >>” Things don't suddenly happen at certain ages because the law dictates it.”

Well actually that’s the point. The law draws a line so that everyone is treated the same. You don’t suddenly become capable on your 17th birthday of driving a car, nor on your 18th of responsibly exercising your vote. We as a community decide that a line needs to be drawn and we draw it as best we can. That it is imperfect does not absolve us of the responsibility of making the decision.

steel>>” By implication that sentence implies that the "plebs" were moral,”

I think you used imply once too often in that sentence.

Labour stalwart and former Arts minister Barry Cohen points out that>>” The question is not whether the photographs are artistic or pornographic but whether Henson breached the law by photographing an underage, naked young girl.” http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23793765-7583,00.html%3Ffrom%3Dpublic_rss

Unsurprisingly, it looks like those hoping for Bill Henson to be convicted on child pornography charges are going to be disappointed:

<< Images declared "absolutely revolting" by the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, at the height of the Bill Henson controversy have been cleared for general release.

Late last week the Classification Board swiftly assessed five Henson images taken from media websites and rated them all "G" or "very mild". Some or all of the images are partly censored with black bars covering nipples and genitals. The assessment followed a complaint about images on media websites after NSW police closed his Sydney exhibition on May 23. The main complaint is said to involve a slide show of seized photographs on The Daily Telegraph's website. >>

http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/henson-images-cleared-for-general-release/2008/06/01/1212258645397.html

If the images have received a "G" rating, they can hardly be considered pornographic, can they? Those who are still hysterical about them should probably try and secure an appointment with a psychologist or psychiatrist ASAP, since their hysteria is clearly pathological.

CJ,

If you want to improve the standard of debate beyond the merely slagging off, then you need to stop doing it yourself.

To dismiss so out of hand the sentiments of an overwhelming majority of the population is one thing. To suggest that we all need mental help is quite another. As I have previously shown there is another spin that can be put on your support for these pictures, however realistically I don't think it at all likely.

The whole issue for me centres around whether the girl is being exploited, or not. We cannot look at this kind of issue on a case by case basis, so we need to either say its ok to photograph anyone naked, or we draw a line in law. We already have laws which say that it is illegal to photograph a 13 year old not only in a sexual act, but in a sexual context. Considering that the subject of the photos is the discovery of sexuality during puberty, it seems at the very least that the art has some sexual context.

I'm not looking for Henson to be jailed. I just think that he has precipitated a new look at what we find acceptable. And many people believe that these particular photos are not.

The original complaint comes from Hetty Johnston who has a lot of experience in the realm of child welfare. I don't accept she is in a moral panic.

This is not a black and white issue and we do ourselves, and honest, open debate, a disservice to proceed as if it is.

What's dangerous is that the hysteria reaches deep into our political class, right into our PM and cabinet, and police force.

An interesting description of events appears on this article and strangely, I read it after concluding the above, which is precisely what this article shows. The idea is, that a propagandist in an NGO and perhaps the opinion writer can manipulate the power structures so easily.

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/6409

Paul>"To dismiss so out of hand the sentiments of an overwhelming majority of the population is one thing."
Paul>"And many people believe that"

Argumentum ad populum. I don't accept your claims anyway, but I had to call you on it.

Paul>"The whole issue for me centres around whether the girl is being exploited, or not."

You are ignoring the consent of the model and her parents. Leave them alone they are happy with the art.

The exploitation comes from the Iemma government and the NGO.

Paul.L: << To dismiss so out of hand the sentiments of an overwhelming majority of the population is one thing. To suggest that we all need mental help is quite another. >>

Overwhelming majority of the population? I don't think so - the last opinion poll I looked at was pretty evenly split. Do you have any evidence that an "overwhelming majority" thinks that the images are pornographic?

My suggestion regarding mental health was directed at those who are still hysterical about this issue, in the face of subsequent discussion and evidence that the images are not pornographic. Paul.L's comments on this issue have been getting steadily more reasonable, so I wouldn't include him among those who are still hysterical and therefore probably in need of professional counselling or therapy.

<< The original complaint comes from Hetty Johnston who has a lot of experience in the realm of child welfare. I don't accept she is in a moral panic. >>

You're kidding, aren't you? Hetty Johnston has made a career out of fostering the current moral panic about child sexual abuse. She may have started out well, but she's clearly gone over the top lately. Not only is she "in a moral panic", but she personifies it.

P.S. I must congratulate Paul.L for having succeeded in making several comments without using the term "soft left".

That’s an interesting article Steel. What a crying shame that that sort of organisational phenomenon couldn’t have been mounted against something that matters, instead of being totally misguidedly directed at Henson.

.
Again I express strong dismay at the lack of concern over Henson’s photographs being reproduced in newspapers, with the ‘naughty bits’ exposed, in a manner that is obviously in violation of just about everyone’s interpretation of common decency.

His photos are widely thought of as inappropriate, even within the confines of an art gallery. But the same people that express this concern seem to have no problem with them appearing in newspapers!!

This is one of the most perplexing phenomena that I have ever encountered!

Steel and Vanilla are the only respondents to have expressed any agreement with me over this.

What do you make of it CJ and Paul?

This gets better Ludwig, if this report is true:

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

Artist Victoria Larielle to stage nude kids exhibit

"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. "
-=-=

Perhaps she can do this because she is female, photographing two young boys naked.

Ludwig: "Again I express strong dismay at the lack of concern over Henson's photographs being reproduced in newspapers, with the 'naughty bits' exposed, in a manner that is obviously in violation of just about everyone's interpretation of common decency."

The pictures have been cleared by the Classification Board for the media to use. ""The board does not find that the images have been sexualised in the way they've been reproduced on these media website because of the context that they relate to reporting about this matter and also because any nudity in the photos has been obscured." Claire Bowdler, from the Board.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/03/2263468.htm

However, as we've all seen, The Age did not obscure the nudity. I still can't get any proper answers on this. It's very interesting, from a media law perspective.

Paul: "The original complaint comes from Hetty Johnston who has a lot of experience in the realm of child welfare. I don't accept she is in a moral panic.

Hetty Johnston? Not in a moral panic? Lordy be.

Paul: "This is not a black and white issue and we do ourselves, and honest, open debate, a disservice to proceed as if it is."

Well said.

Paul-'This is not a black and white issue and we do ourselves, and honest, open debate, a disservice to proceed as if it is.'

You are absolutely right.

Ludwig: << What do you make of it CJ >>

Actually, I don't have any problem with the media publishing the images, since they aren't pornographic. And as Vanilla said, it seems that the images were cleared by the Classification Board (although it's unclear to me whether these were the censored or uncensored versions).

An interesting angle that I don't think has come up here is raised by tigtog at the Larvatus Prodeo group blog [ http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/05/30/do-the-right-thing-mainstream-media-disguise-the-faces-of-the-minors-in-your-reproductions-of-the-henson-images-now/ ]. She points out that while it's debatable whether or not the images that appeared on mass media websites should have breast and genitals obscured, the models' faces certainly should have been.

If there are any negative consequences for the adolescent models involved, it is far more likely to emanate from the mass exposure of their faces on these websites than from the act of modelling nude for the artist. It is the hysterics and the media who are abusing these kids, not the artist.

Cj: "If there are any negative consequences for the adolescent models involved, it is far more likely to emanate from the mass exposure of their faces on these websites than from the act of modelling nude for the artist. It is the hysterics and the media who are abusing these kids, not the artist."

There are not big enough capitals in existence or numerous enough exclamation marks available for me to say YES, EXACTLY!

The very people who tried to protect her have damaged her, because they did not appreciate that she did not need protecting in the first place.

I am angry.

CJ & Vanilla

"The very people who tried to protect her have damaged her, because they did not appreciate that she did not need protecting in the first place."

Abso-bloody-lutely.

Haven't much time, but I agree that the media has a lot to answer for with its complete overreaction to these photos.

Interesting that no-one has commented on child actors, they may not have to appear nude, but are often required to act in adult dramas. What say the wowsers on that? Exploitation or art? Example, A young Jodie Foster in Taxi with Robert de Nero.

A quick link on the increasing sexual repression in the US of A.

http://www.alternet.org/sex/87015/?page=entire

Vanilla & Yvonne - saw your comment in the Languages thread am very interested.

Bye for now

“Actually, I don't have any problem with the media publishing the images, since they aren't pornographic.”

CJ, not pornographic but clearly outside of acceptable material for a newspaper to print…surely. Especially straight after the confiscation of exactly the same images by police, which very strongly suggests that for anyone else to reproduce them in full in the public arena would be illegal.

How can the police possibly see fit to take such harsh action against Henson’s exhibition and then sit on their hands regarding other avenues of exhibition of the confiscated stuff?

It is utterly hopeless selective, duplicitous and quite frankly, spasmodic policing!!

Some more hard questions about policing;

How on earth could the police deem the photos to be so bad that they had to be confiscated…and then not see fit to charge the artist and gallery at the same time? Surely, the exhibition could only be shut down if it was clearly in breach of the law. And surely that situation would HAD to have led to charges being laid forthwith. How can you have one without the other??

How could the police possibly have let Henson and the different galleries that have shown his work go unchallenged for a couple of decades, thus leading them all to think that they were acting entirely within the law…and then just move in without warning and close them down?

Henson and the galleries would always have been very sensitive to what is lawfully acceptable. They had been led to believe that all was above board. They would also have expected that if anything was risqué to the point of incurring a complaint, that a sensible debate would have ensued… without heavy-handed police action….indeed, without any police action.

continued

How can one police officer make a decision to take this sort of action, when he presumably didn’t have a clue about the greater context; of the nature of Henson’s art that had previously been displayed and deemed acceptable, or of the efforts of galleries and artists to express themselves while being mindful of the law? etc, etc.

How can such an action be taken based entirely on one complaint? Would it have happened if it the complaint had come from an unknown member of the public rather than from a well-known public campaigner (Hetty Johnson)?

The police moved the goal posts without warning!

This is a VERY serious matter. We just CANNOT allow that sort of thing to happen. We all MUST be able to know where we stand with the law, as best we can, and not live in fear of suddenly and without warning being busted for long-accepted practices.

I think a lot of it is because the police management have been given a LOT of 'encouragement' by politicians over the last few years to exert their power in a much more harsh manner, especially against normal citizens.

I think it can be perfectly encapsulated in the "guilty until proven innocent", phrase that shows the change of emphasis.

Three incidents come to mind quickly:

-Haneef, where the police not only made the initial errors, but they spent about $3-7 million pursuing the man *after* the case was thrown out.

-APEC, which showed their insecurity when the US president came to visit. Their demands and measures were almost comical in their massive scope... ironically they ruined themselves when the Chaser team revealed what a circus it all was.

-Henson, as Ludwig has said.

I also think they often believe their own propaganda. I've seen some statements that show they are way too idealistic and pretensious. You also have to wonder about the punitive, unnecessary measures they use against normal population all the time that amount to some kind of citizen tax and that they are showing off to the politicians as much as they are catching criminals (since their constantly expanding budgets teach them that the more 'crime' their is, the more support/funding they will get). So they play the media and probably over allocate on events to make it look dangerous.

SO no charges no crime , well yes we look so very bad in the world and if I am not wrong those who opposed this art are near silent on the latest international crimes against children.
Teachers to scout masters police and more involved in true pedophilia and we spend our time looking for crime in an are gallery?

I have little time to spare for OLO at the moment, but have logged on ONLY to respond to this:

".....and if I am not wrong those who opposed this art are near silent on the latest international crimes against children.
Teachers to scout masters police and more involved in true pedophilia and we spend our time looking for crime in an are gallery?"
Posted by Belly, Friday, 6 June 2008 6:41:29 AM

'Near silent'? Don't you EVER BLOODY EVER, suggest that my opposition to Henson's version of 'art' is a silent apathy on the current situation.

DAMN IT ALL!..I wish I could be more frank about my anger at such a suggestion, but I cannot.

What a damn stupid thing to say. The asinine codswallop that opposition to Henson meant that one viewed the bodies of our children as somehow dirty;-and by definition cannot recognise the 'true' abuse of children!! YOU are making a connection there;- I will too; but in a different way.

YOU PRAT!! Man if I was standing close to you now;I would throw a punch,-so help me.

HOW DARE YOU.

God! if only you knew.

Yes Belly,

I have to take issue with your statement as well.

Firstly, it is the worst kind of cultural cringe to even bring up how this might be viewed in the rest of the world. Besides being achingly self conscious, I wonder who (which country/s)it is you imagine are fit to judge us in such a manner? I really thought the cultural cringe was dead, and the days when the left pined for a more "sophisticated" (read European) society were over. It seems not.

Secondly, the fact that 100 perverts have been arrested for possessing child pornography only highlights the need for us to be more careful in the approach to the exploitation of children.

A peek at the secret and evolving world of a child sexuality might satisfy the art lover looking for ever more confronting subjects, however we need to balance this with the more important responsibility of protecting children.

In my opinion this art does not tell us anything we do not already know, it is voyeurism and perhaps nostalgia, but either way, neither is enough to make me and many other people believe that the art is more important to protect than the child.

I would be interested to learn if any of Henson's offending photos turn up in the material siezed during the recent raid (or have indeed surfaced on the sites these creatures inhabit).

That would be a pretty reasonable assessment of the true situation.

I may be mistaken but I thought that the motivation behind child porn was that the children actually had to look like children - not made to look like adults.

PaulL.>"however we need to balance this with the more important responsibility of protecting children."
PaulL>"...is more important to protect than the child."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_The_Children_(politics)

"The phrase "for the children", or similar phrases such as "think of the children," is an appeal to emotion and can be used to support an irrelevant conclusion (both logical fallacies) when used in an argument. "

-=-=-
"Won't someone think of the children?
Too many people these days are thinking of the children, or at least claiming to think of them. Keeping kids safe and virginal — protected from seeing the "wrong" things — is the rallying concept so many people use to forward their agendas.

Ban this, eliminate that, censor the other thing — it's all done in the name of protecting children. Not, heaven forbid, because anyone wants to force their morality and sensibility on the rest of us. Perish the thought."

-=-=-=-

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/web/la-oew-mcgough4oct04,1,1478875.story

"This nonsexual pedophilia is a recurring theme in federal legislation, as it is in the culture. It is based not just on the fact that children are vulnerable -- a major advocacy group is called the Children's Defense Fund -- but also that they are unspoiled and therefore deserving of government assistance in the way their corrupted elders are not."

I've been considering the idea of balance between life choices and risk in relation to this discussion.

It can be argued that art of this nature does pose an element of risk to those involved. My own view is that the risk is very low (or was until the photo's were drawn to the wider publics attention and published in the press). The art is not necessary, but does in the view of it's supporters bring some benefits to society and possibly to the youths involved.

Some would argue that no risk is worth it. That we should protect children from any forseeable risks especially where the benefits associated with the risk are uncertain or the risk is unnecessary.

I got to thinking of a risk most of us place children in on a regular basis. To quote from the summary report of the NSW Child Death Review Team

"Transport incidents have consistently been the leading external cause of death for children and young people aged 0-17 years." http://www.kids.nsw.gov.au/uploads/documents/CDRT_summary_2007.pdf

Can any parent who uses a car claim that they have never taken their children on a journey in the car which was not strictly necessary for the childs wellbeing?

Does your child always get a choice about taking part in the journey?

Have you ever allowed someone you trust to transport your child on a journey which was not absolutely necessary for the child?

Is being mangeled in a car accident somehow more acceptable than having a photo seen by strangers?

Who would be willing to be regarded as a child abuser for placing yours or someone elses child at risk by taking them on a motor journey which was not strictly necessary?

Adults and children make choices about risk all the time, often without even considering that they are doing so. It's part of life.

R0bert

R0bert,

Your thoughtfulness continues to impress me. You're exactly right. So much emphasis is placed on the idea that the kids in questions might regret it in later life. No matter that every Henson model who has outed his or herself has said that they not only do NOT regret the decision, but they are happy and proud of the artwork.

Beyond that, why do we so want to protect our children from doing things they might regret? I did numerous foolhardy and experimental and life-threatening things when I was a kid. Some were character-forming, most were just stupid. None of them my parents knew about. Some I regret. Most I don't.

Ginx you do let that anger out don't you? self righteous my way or no way very often.
Yet I am sorry you do not have more time for OLO.
Our first clash, the first unleashing of that blind anger was in a thread about saying sorry but lets stay on subject.
Do you see a thread condemning the latest pedophile ring?
Can you think you are the only one life has allowed to see more than one child destroyed by an adults needs?
In fact how dare you? yes you, mix up your concern for victims with this victim less art?
Did you see chains holding these kids to chairs?
Religion has much to answer for I am unsure if I should laugh or cry if I think of the story of Adam and Eve and compare it with this story.
Thrown out of Eden for covering up, the fable at least shouts to me. what is wrong with the human body?
Why do horrible true story's such as those from the forgotten people, Gday Micheal, not bring so many posts?
It was clear from day one these two related threads would have to confront the fact no crime had been committed.

Good point R0bert. I see it just about every day; people driving with kids on board in a manner that immediately indicates that they either don't know or don't care about the unnecessary risks they are placing upon their kids and themselves. This is especially true out on the open road, where speeding, tailgating, risky overtaking, etc are commonplace.

The other thing that practically every parent fails to do in this regard is insist that the safety regime on our roads be greatly improved….which could so easily happen if the collective will was there.

When considering adults’ decisions, childrens’ decisions, the law and wellbeing, how does road safety with respect to our kids compare to any perception of child safety issues within Henson’s art? It is at least a thousand times more significant.

"Ginx you do let that anger out don't you? self righteous my way or no way very often....
....Our first clash, the first unleashing of that blind anger was in a thread about saying sorry but lets stay on subject...."
__

You've clocked me Belly. I have little respect for a so-called 'Union' guy whose views seem more aligned with the Right. Give me a true Right-Winger any day;-they do not pretend to be anything that they are not.
You are yet another who is tenacious in pointing out the faults of others, and have a real thing about those who are unkind to you,.............but let's stay on subject..!!
____________
"Do you see a thread condemning the latest pedophile ring?"
__

DO you? Why do you impose on those who oppose 'Hensonart' that THEY should start such a thread?
____________
"Can you think you are the only one life has allowed to see more than one child destroyed by an adults needs?"
In fact how dare you? yes you, mix up your concern for victims with this victim less art?"
___

DON'T TELL ME WHAT I MIXED UP YOU PLONKER! AND DON'T EVEN BEGIN TO DEFINE WHAT I SEE AS VICTIMLESS ART!!
______________
"Did you see chains holding these kids to chairs?
Religion has much to answer for I am unsure if I should laugh or cry if I think of the story of Adam and Eve and compare it with this story....."
___

Stupido!
________________
"...It was clear from day one these two related threads would have to confront the fact no crime had been committed."
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 7 June 2008 7:03:52 AM
___

I have to agree with this. It all hangs on the definition of crime..

Well Ginx at it again my way or no way that line you draw under your thoughts is maybe a hint?
Every one has a right to an opinion even me!
Hey do not for a second think being from the right of my movements, both of them is defaming me.
I belong there, in the middle.
Can you get in in that angry head just maybe you are wrong? at least sometimes?
Mounting evidence is on display no crime was committed and just as surely people who never even saw the photos got it wrong.
In this thread re read it, some found things that just did not exist in the photos.
If you present your self as an angry person who both values your own thoughts more than others do and values others thoughts less do not get upset if we differ, your personal insults do not add weight to your case here.
It was and is art.

Great thread. 201 posts and rolling on strongly…maybe. Or maybe this post will kill it off?

Alright, so practically no one is concerned about the standard of policing displayed in this issue. There have been a couple of expressions of agreement (not on this thread but on some of the other six threads on this subject!), but not one single person has indicated that they think I am incorrect with my very heavy criticism of the police (as expressed on 5 June on this thread).

There is hardly any interest in this vitally important aspect of the issue. I find that extremely disappointing and perplexing.

People apparently don’t have a problem with exactly this sort of thing happening again, when some artist somewhere runs foul of the law while just doing what they’ve always done, or understanding from the relevant gallery and public that their work is acceptable. Maybe next time someone will be charged, end up in jail and have their career skittled?

Well, if no one is interested in policing, are they at least interested in trying to define the boundaries of what is acceptable and what isn’t? Or does everyone think that it is ok to leave them undefined and that the issue is over now that Henson’s work has been deemed to be within the bounds?

Or do you think that such boundaries are just too difficult to define for the DPP or anyone else with authority to even attempt?

Ludwig,

The police would have done well to have asked for advice from the DPP on whether Henson’s “art” met the legal definition of pornography. But the police's job is not to convict criminals, that is for the courts. The police need only suspect that an act, or actions, constitute a breach of the law. In the end the system worked as it was supposed to.

You say >>” Maybe next time someone will be charged, end up in jail and have their career skittled?”

This has done more for Henson’s career than anything he’s done previously by a country mile. He knew the art would be controversial and would get media attention. Already there has been a copycat exhibition trading on Henson’s notoriety.

I agree that we need to have boundaries. Personally I would say that photographing teenage children naked is beyond the boundary of what’s acceptable to the general community.

There have been a lot of Henson supporters suggesting that those who oppose these works are in a moral panic, or want to stop all nudity in art, and other equally silly things. But most of us believe that 13 is too young to be able to make the decision, to pose nude, for yourself. It may be in this case that the girl was fully capable of making the decision, but in this society we regularly draw lines to protect or restrict people of certain ages. Some teenagers could drive responsibly at 15, but we don’t let them, because we don’t have the time or the money to investigate on a case by case basis. I believe that kids who want to be photographed nude should wait until they are 16 to decide.

Let me pre-empt those who wish to claim that I am conflating nudity with sex, I am not. What I am suggesting is that 16 is the age when we consider that children are capable of making significant decisions about their bodies. It’s clearly an appropriate place to draw the line, if we agree that one is needed.

Where do others draw the line

Ludwig

I agree with all you've said regarding the police action. I just haven't seen it as the critcal and more interesting aspect of the debate that's all.

Paul

I agree with every word. In the interests of consistency and simplicity I think the line should be drawn to match existing delineations. The age of consent as you have suggested is probably the best one, or alternatively it could be drawn to match the age at which young adults can legally drink, drive and vote. I think the two are different - it's been a while since these milestones were an issue in our household so I'm not quite sure!

This issue certainly achieved one aim of art- to encourage debate and discussion. It has stirred a great deal of passion within society irrespective of which side of the debate one finds themselves.

PaulL- Your thoughtful and clearly reasoned arguments cut to the heart of the issue. I've appreciated your posts and thanks for your support.

I have a very good reason to be angry about this whole affair Belly.

Other than that I thought that I had made it clear that I have little interest in your opinion?

(And cut the nonsense about defamation. You wouldn't know what it was if you fell over it!)

Ludwig I agree with you, in fact thought from my first post this was true.
I am no defender of any form of harm to children but this is not such a thing.
Nore am I a devil worshiper or even near it but I am truly honestly concerned at some Christian views that it is wrong.
Remember it was Christians who once burnt people at the stake and even cooked them slowly till dead for not agreeing with them.
Ginx, in debate a rebuttal of your opponents views is often used.
Here is my rebuttal in full, go to your post history read every one of your sometimes wild angry posts.
I rest my case.

FASCINATING...... all this love and warmth :) Ginx.. u excelled yourself that time "throw a punch"? good grief.

Paul L.. time for me to take a chunk out of your rear end :)

Not really..but you said:

"What I am suggesting is that 16 is the age when we consider that children are capable of making significant decisions about their bodies. It’s clearly an appropriate place to draw the line, if we agree that one is needed."

Indeed! A few aspects of your words require some 'interpretive' work.

"we"..is....who?

"Significant" -means?

"Clearly" - to ..who?

All that is hinged to 'if' ...we agree....

A lot of variables there mate :)

My concern here is that in saying that, (while I agree with the sentiments), it doesn't sufficiently recognize that there are powerful vested interests out there, both ideological and economic, who are VERY interested in defining who 'we' are, and promoting that definition to the public with their specific interests in mind.

So.. I am offering this by way of qualiification/supplementing what you said.

It should also be apparent to yourself, that MIUAUG does not really offer us much hope for enduring and predictable values for our community. (that's the lead in to the obligatory Bible bash :)

The volume of traffic (and emotion) on this thread screams out 'MANY ARE CONFUSED' about multiple issues, legal, moral, artistic etc.

Well, I started this thread, and it saw some great OLO-style debate, so I guess it's as good a place as any...

I'm going to take my leave of this forum now. I need to focus on other things. A personal crisis has put a lot of stuff into perspective for me. I need to be with my husband. I need to work. I have other projects demanding my attention.

I've had some fascinating conversations and hilarious and moving connections on OLO. Even the fights have been fun. The best of these conversations have been those where people are open-minded enough to listen to other people's point of view and really scrutinise their own position. I am loathe to point out people, because I have some great friends on this forum, but R0bert has always struck me as particularly able to give serious thought to opposing points of view — it's real intellectual bravery, I think. I've tried to learn from it. For what it's worth, the whole idea of a "gang" is just silly — I think we're all too independent for that — but there are groups of like-minded people on this forum as there are in all walks of life, and it's been fun to see them form over some issues and dissolve over others.

Thank you all for a fun, funny, and edifying time.

Vanilla

Your opinion here was insightful Vanilla and I'm glad you were present.

Take care Vanilla.

Come back soon - you'll be missed.

"I rest my case."
Posted by Belly, Monday, 9 June 2008 7:01:37 AM

Bless!! (Is it worthwhile telling you that lawyers/barristers do NOT use this phrase?)

Vanilla, I am going to miss you very much. You've been an inspiration and encouragement in your time around here.

Best wishes as you sort out the issue. My thoughts will be with you.
Thanks for the kind words as well, thats encouraging.

Cheers
R0bert

Take care of yourself Vanilla, and all the very best with your realigned priorities.

You will be missed, no doubt about that.

Pericles

Ciao Vanilla and best wishes with your new direction in life. I hope everything works out well for you. Thanks for you astute observations and fabulous ability to articulate your opinions & knowledge on OLO.

Vanilla

Sorry to hear you're leaving. Your departure from OLO will leave quite a gap. You're one poster who I thought always seemed to manage to find the right words and always in an easy conversational style. You were great at cutting through and equally adept at cutting down!

Wishing you all the best and hoping to see you back one day.

Take care, Bronwyn

Dear Vanilla...

I'll certainly miss our encounters. Sometimes crises hit us.. sometimes I think that my life is one :) (shaddap CJ and PERICLES :) .. I said 'some'times.

You take care, and put it all together, and when ur ready, come back and join us again..refreshed, renewed and revitalized.

blessings.. and.. love.

Chow Vanilla.

I look forward to your return

cheers