Thank you for posting your story, Helen54. A psychiatric nurse living across the street from me over 25 years ago made very similar observations to yours, about abuse causing mental illness.

It seems that child abuse is as old as war and families, and not restricted to any one group, and can be found even in the "best" of homes.

I don't expect anyone to be rational on the subject, which has become further complicated by the ability of anyone with a computer to post and receive pictures of children for any reason they choose.

What does strike me as ludicrous is the objection and suspicion of some in our community toward Muslim girls and women who wear the hijab and conservative clothing to conceal their bodies from public exposure. I wonder how many of these objecting people, in their reaction to another cultural tradition, fail to see it as a recognition of and adaptation to human needs and desires?

The best discussion I have heard so far on the topic of Bill Henson's paintings concerned the feelings of his models, and how their future might be influenced by the artist's work.

My guess is that these particular models will not likely be hospitalised, as are your patients, as a result of the pain and stigma of their perceived exploitation.

Were the models and their parents able to give informed consent? If so, did the consent include information about legality and public exposure via internet and mass media?

I see mainstream Australia as a culture which is supportive of child exploitation. Most of it is commercial and as everyday and invisible, in terms of its population health effect, as smoking on public transport was 35 years ago.

For me, the deeper question is about when exploitation becomes abuse. How and where will we draw a line as a responsible society? How do we control commercial exploitation in a society which promotes individual free choice with the aim of marketing a profitable choice of products?

I am beginning to wonder if the "free market" is all it's advertised to be.

SirVivor>"I don't expect anyone to be rational on the subject"

Why not? Regardless of what you expect, many are being rational. And it's probably not who you think.

>"My guess is that these particular models will not likely be hospitalised, as are your patients, as a result of the pain and stigma of their perceived exploitation."

Ah !@#$ it. I don't have time to respond to every moron, but this last one is a gem, so...

The models, my friend are perfectly happy with their volunatry modelling for the artist. That's why they did it.

Your assumption that they can only be damaged is a serious mental illness you have. The models are happy and were always happy with this, as are their parents. if anyone is causing them pain and anguish, it's that they are seen by their forebears as sinners and "revolting" for doing something they are proud of. All the stigma is being *created* by people like you and this author. Demonising the model has already begun so any damage will be because they have been harassed by people professing to protect them from harm, while insisting despite the models' protestations, that they were abused. It's equivalent to police or state psychologists making 'suggestions' to a child that they have been abused by their parents.

Well, Steel, as I said, I don't expect anyone to be rational.

You go off on a pretty irational tangent, old son (or daughter). I said "My guess is" I did not assume, I guessed. I can be wrong, of course. What are your assumptions, besides mistakenly assuming that I am really assuming instead of guessing?

and you say of me that:

"Your assumption that they can only be damaged is a serious mental illness you have."

Do you assume I am mentally ill, when you know me only by my post(s) here? Is that rational?

and what about the rest of your paragraph:

"The models are happy and were always happy with this, as are their parents. if anyone is causing them pain and anguish, it's that they are seen by their forebears as sinners and "revolting" for doing something they are proud of. All the stigma is being *created* by people like you and this author."

Do you have personal knowledge of these children's attitudes? Their parents (&/or carers)views and feelings? Do you know for certain whether their "forbears" consider them sinners? Is that their grandparents you're talking about, or what? Have you met these relatives of the models?

The idea that I am responsible for an element of any stigma born by the models is a consideration, and I gave it thought before I decided to contribute views to this particular discussion.

If you feel I've made an error of judgement, I respect that, but you are misleading yourself if you think any of your feelings are rational. Rational is about thought, not feeling.

hi all,
artist here

go to france yahoo images
and you will find Mr Bill Henson's work online
much of it is there...

JHH

ps strange how works can disappear so quickly online,
and that teen porn sites are still there ?

Child Labour in the guise of high art!

As an artists adult nude model I know that the job is hard work. Nude modelling for photography makes the role more difficult because an individual is recognizable. It is because of person identification that “many professional artists models prefer not to pose for photographic artists” so said Anon at the Symposium discussion, Bay Area Models Guild in California on 24th Jun 2004. The photographic artist’s child models are not mere props but working accomplices in the creative process.

The child models have ‘laboured’ hard for Bill Henson’s art in an area of work that adult nude models generally choose not to do. Why is this childlabour exempt from the law which in Victoria is 15 years of age? How much were the child/children paid for their work and who negotiated their pay conditions? What were their working conditions and were they properly informed of the work required?

the Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizes the right of
the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is
likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child's education, or to be harmful to the
child's health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development.

History is awash with examples of so called ‘high art’ exploiting children, we need only look at the barbaric practice of castration for the purposes of the castrati aesthetic which in one year alone mutilated 4,000 boys for the purposes of a musical fashion. Profit by the castrati singing for the elite through the sexual mutilation of young boys which made them unnaturally sing with the voice of a woman is very similar to profit through the fashion of exploiting children for the dubious craze of exploring the adolescent aesthetic.

The elitist high art card ignores the very real issue of exploitation of child labour working in an area where professional artist nude models generally steer well clear of.

Patmalar Ambikapathy is right in noting the financial gain by those who profit from the exploitation of individual nude child models.

Helen54 what an extremely misleading comment.

That abuse has nothing to do with this artwork. You seek to taint Henson by association and appeal to emotions without making a single substantiated comment. How does that abuse relate to Henson and his work?

What you have done here is disgusting: Using their abuse to advance your own political agenda. What a disgrace.

"It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." - William Shakespeare