I don't think the work is pornographic - far from it, it is beautiful.
But I believe it will be just as beautiful in 6 years, when the kids are a bit older and can give more informed consent about the displaying of the photographs. I would hate for them to realise in a few years that they had given something of themselves away without understanding the consequences.

Alison, this letter has my total support. Good move putting it up on OLO.

Bob Carr might also have something to add in support.

Well done!

Alison

“The public debate prompted by the Henson exhibition is welcome and important. We need to discuss the ethics of art and the issues that it raises. That is one of the things art is for: it is valuable because it gives rise to such debate and difference, because it raises difficult, sometimes unanswerable, questions about who we are, as individuals and as members of society.”

I agree, the debate is welcome and important. It's only occurring however because of the controversy caused by the police action. I’m not condoning that action. I think it's wrong to turn an issue like this into a criminal matter. But equally, I'm uneasy about giving artists unfettered licence to hang whatever they like, regardless of its impact on society and whether or not it may be adding to already difficult and wide scale social problems, as I feel is the case in this instance.

Condoning, in the name of high art, photos of naked children, displayed for public exhibition, however tastefully presented, gives a normalization to this practice which I find disturbing and which for me raises very real issues regarding double standards. How do you, in all fairness and practicability, draw a line between these photos, which you see as benign, and the millions of photos circulating online and in hard copy which can equally be argued, and indeed are, as just being innocent photos of children but which in reality are causing enormous harm?

Where do you draw that line? And how can you say there is one without laying yourself open to obvious charges of hypocrisy?

Alison (continued)

“The work itself is not pornographic, even though it includes depictions of naked human beings. It is more justly seen in a tradition of the nude in art that stretches back to the ancient Greeks, and which includes painters such as Caravaggio and Michelangelo.”

I agree it is not, in itself, pornographic. Nor are a great percentage of the visual images that paedophiles use to feed their sick impulses. But we don’t live in Ancient Greece. We live in a modern Western society which is beset by an unprecedented epidemic of child abuse. If I could be convinced that this exhibition would raise critical awareness of the problem and lead us in the direction of solutions, I wouldn’t have the reservations about it that I do.

To me though, Henson has blundered into territory he should have known well to avoid. In my mind, he’s seeking to profit from a very dubious enterprise. I for the life of me can’t see the nobility or the higher purpose you seek to bestow on the photos in question. He might be a well-known artist. So what? He has stuffed up big time here. And I should imagine he’ll end up laughing all the way to the bank.

hi all
I am an artist and after finding and viewing a few of
Mr Bill Henson's work via france image search

its hard to get full photographic quality imagery, even with
good systems which I have

there is a dark quality to his work, it shows in all the images
I like the wet path one....though would like to see it in real

re the child nudes...
yes the childrens nudes do have a sexual undertone
and they are naked and are the images doctored ?

perhaps Henson should go a hunting via documentary,
for the ramifications of children who are used for sex

such which is still going on in many countries at present
as we speak

society has rules to protect children, artist or not
we all come under the same laws

jiminey crickets artists cannot be above and beyond the law

even allowing the nude play, posing etc. with the young children / minds
is putting them in a vunerable situation

there is a great deal of difference between child play,
and child forced play

some of the head portraits are photographically interesting
and no doubt there is some quality photography there

I think, but am not sure, that Henson, is trying to
figure the pre teenager, perhaps a more developed approach
might be good .....
such can be acheived without nudity

JHH

Having friends in high places does not allow anyone an exemption from abiding by the law. In the past, defences were made from such high places -the church, elite schools, and other 'establishment' institutions. The almost reflexive response of respectable people who are astonished that one of their own could be so tarnished is familiar.

While in this case, the artist's intentions may be genuinely honourable, it would be even more honourable of him to acknowledge that there is a problem with exempting any photographer where the subject is an adolescent sans clothing. The practicality of then enforcing the law in subsequent cases would be made very difficult.

I can recall cases where pedophiles have persuaded themselves that what they are doing is beautiful and natural. Unfortunately, it is just too difficult to allow one artist to be considered apart without setting a precedent that could then be used to flout the child protection laws.You would be amazed at the subterfuge some people are capable of.

Perhaps it seems heavy handed to have policeman confiscating art work. But what is your alternative? The art establishment doesn't seem inclined towards self regulation.

Perhaps Bill Henson should take photos of himself, and then hang them in a gallery, and then see how many people go along to view them.

I’m inclined to think that there wouldn’t be very many.

hi all,
artist as above

I would also like to know how I can put, "teen porn brisbane",
through my browser and end up with tons of sites

I thought teen abuse was against the law ?
so how come these saved websites, are not taken off the net ?
really its about time
what on earth are the laws relating to this ?
and what are the internet police doing about it.... ?
...............

all types of abuse learning is one of my interests
as no doubt many in australia

its not about art, but using minors for photos, posed etc.

what happens is that children, can be damaged mentally
from adults using them, for posed photos, and or physical
manipulation

personally I am shocked to find the teen pornography online,
though I did know it was/is around
seems I am going to have to block a lot of things later on
through my general average home machine
or be writing a lot of emails to the appropriate people
which would be my way of doing it

no parent can break the law either, and give permission
for their children to be used/ abused

I am pleased myself that australians are standing up about
these laws

teen sites have to be stopped at their website production
and all laws followed through

there is no point in expecting people to veto pornography on
their machines....

most would not know how..... so one has to stop them at
the produced websites

.................

re Henson work, some of his work is beautifully photographed
but the content is searching for the mentality of the pre teen
say as with the image of the head of the young girl with the lovely jewellery

so what is he saying,

her expression says it all
there is really confused understanding on her part...
which is to be expected at her age

same for the young men in the photos

these expressions are also in teen porn

regards
JHH

JHH

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

These children have 'laboured’ hard for Bill Henson’s art in an area of work that adult nude models generally choose not to do. So why would child nude models decide to work in an area that professional artist models shy away from?The reason is simple,they are children and haven't the expereince to make the same decision an adult might make.

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.

And whilst one young woman in her thirties believes that it had no damaging affect upon her can she really speak for herself as a child in the past? And does she speak for all child nude models?

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 promoted by the Catholic church and the so called ‘high art society’ elites. 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 much the same as profit through the fashion of exploiting children for the dubious craze of exploring the adolescent aesthetic through photography. The music by all accounts was breathtakingly beautiful.

think, you are using equivocation. Look it up, because it's extremely disingenuous to try to suggest nude modelling is "child labour".

Also, I want a link to this document as I believe the context is very important (you are leaving it out of course). In fact, your highly discrete reference to it without any provision or attentiveness to the context is extremely suspicious. it begs so many questions:
-the guild 'rules and codes'?
-what artists/type of work do/do not pose for?
-ratio of guild models who said this?
-what do models not part of the guild do (far more numerous and not so flawed statistically)?
-who are the clients? for example, are they religious (America is extremely puritanical compared with other countries)?
-were the models religious?

The Convention on the Rights of the Child, indicates that religion should not be taught to children as it by definition it constitutes much of that harm. I hope you are not religious, otherwise you are abusing your child. :)

think>"can she really speak for herself...? does she speak for all of the child nude models?"

How do you exactly presume to speak for her and her parents? Don't you find that an outrageuos presumption? I certainly do. Would you let me speak for you and the models in that guild?

think>"History is awash with examples of so called ‘high art’ exploiting children"

This is misleading. History is awash with SOCIETY exploiting children. This includes parents, teachers, religious, capitalists etc...In fact no sector of society at all did not exploit children.

think>" The elitist high art card ignores the very real issue of exploitation of child labour where professional"

So a parent and child who consent to modelling for art is "child labour" that is "exploitative"? This premise more than anything shows you are a hardcore christian/socialist/fascist.

Try again, when you engage in less sophistry to make your points.

hi all,

I have noticed that in many of the posts I have read
that people have not seen Mr Bill Henson's work

try yahoo france, images.....

even though many people say that they are not sexual
and have no sexual content, and admit they havent seen all his work

perhaps they have not seen a large amount of his work

there is definitely a sexual speaking in many of them

as with the young girl and the appropriately male figure and
placement of male hands

I did notice there was also a connection of the religious
placing, as with one nude girl being carried like jesus
down from the cross
this may have something to do with Mr Bill Henson's
association with religious buildings
which are dark, but perhaps not during the day ?

anyway there is no doubt that pre teens, should be not
allowed to be photographed fully nude by artists or anyone
else

children can and are effected daily, by posing, which
does effect them mentally
as any good research into the various abuse types will show

abuse comes under many headings

verbal
mental
emotional
physical
sexual
vd sexual and so on....

its simply about stopping pre teens being used by adults

as I said above

there is a great difference between childs play

and forced childs play

JHH

I noticed on another site that someone asked if he had
a blue card ?
must look that up

JHH

ps I have noticed that many of his works have a high quality of
photography technique....
and some are quickly presented as being what they are not

hi all,
my last comment now

I have noticed that people have referred to
someone knowing nothing about art

this is actually not true from my experience

I have found that all the general public, understand my work exactly and more in context to the details of all my work, sometimes more
so than my artist friends

after all, we are all living in the same world
at the same time

Mr Henson's shopping trolley, something I visited years ago in my own work....
might be worth a bigger higher quality perusal

anyway back to the subject

ps a toilet is a toilet, urine is urine, and faeces is faeces

whatever way you want to bottle it

grin

JHH

I have a Bach of Fine Arts...

This guy has always made my stomach turn, he's a creep pure n simple. The kiddie pics are and always have been a crime.

As bad though is the ignorent support of child abuse in the name of political correctness.

Sometimes you just have to stick the *grey areas of a debate* where the sun doesn't shine, some stuff is just plain wrong.

meredith>"I have a Bach of Fine Arts..."

So? Is that supposed to be a feeble appeal to authority?

meredith>"This guy has always made my stomach turn, he's a creep pure n simple."

That's an ad hominem. It's also the classic feminist "evil man" card that sexists often employ to gain the support of idiots. You turn my stomach meredith because of your disgusting assault on a someone's character based on your private feelings and hang-ups.

meredith>"As bad though is the ignorent support of child abuse in the name of political correctness."

Describe how this is child abuse? How is it politically correct? How is it "ignorent"? You should answer this because after the examples of your opinions in the beginning of your comment, it's easy to dismiss you as stupid.

For an example of someone who is not ignorant read say, Keiran's recent post in the other thread here (specifically the part where he shows his knowledge of art). Comparing his comment to yours, it's like opposite ends of the intelligence spectrum in those terms.

Seems that your knowledge of art history despite your claim to be studying it, is non-existent.

lol, bit shrill there Steelie, chill out hey, not everyone with a BFA is a moonbat obsessed with reciting tracts from the standard textbook of logical fallacies.

Seriously dude, I can't be bothered to start shrieking back at you.

It's pretty obvious that old men photographing naked kiddies is real off.

meredith>"not everyone with a BFA is a moonbat"

It seems that term is used in US politics. Are you American? Did you know you are posting on an Australian website about Australian politics?

meredith>"obsessed with reciting tracts from the standard textbook of logical fallacies."

I referred to two fallacies by name only. And I only did that because you argument depended on them so heavily. Do you know that that means? It means your only argument on this is pure rubbish and nonsense and is fit only for the ears of idiots.

My attention to obsessiveness extends only so far as your obsessive use of fallacy to pretend your argument is intellectual and meaningful.

meredith>"Seriously dude, I can't be bothered to start shrieking back at you.

Then don't spit and drool your moronism in these forums.

meredith>"It's pretty obvious that old men photographing naked kiddies is real off."

No it's not obvious in the least. What's obvious is your diseased, rotting crutch that you use to determine morality.

“It's pretty obvious that old men photographing naked kiddies is real off.”

Meredith, is it alright for old women to photograph naked children, in the name of art?

http://www.google.com/search?q=sally+mann

In reply to Steel's comment: "So a parent and child who consent to modelling for art is "child labour" that is "exploitative"? This premise more than anything shows you are a hardcore christian/socialist/fascist."

It is my understanding that a parent cannot legally 'consent' for a child to pose nude.

This makes sense, because if it were legal, the financial incentives could easily override the parent's duty of care to the child. Anyone could hire out their children in return for money or favours.

Having a child is not the same thing as owning them. You are responsible for them, but you do not have the right to do anything you like with them.

Further, Steele, you elsewhere criticise someone for arguing 'ad hominem', but you resort to an ad hominem attack yourself in the above comment "shows you are a hardcore christian/socialist/fascist".

Heya Ludwig,

I don't think it's okay for any adult, male or female, to use naked underage kids for anything.

I am not saying he is a bad photographer, his landscapes are actually good, even these vile portraits are artistically valid. I and other artists I have spoken with have intensely resented him (Henson) for the use/abuse of naked children way before this particular exhibition. This is not a new debate at all.

What if it were not an artist but a salesman making money and fame from naked children. Would that be okay…. If not, why not?
Do his supporters support the 12 or 14 year old child runway models or padded bras for sale in the K-Mart for undeveloped girls? Why is this so different?

The assumption of some people that artists are above the rest of us spiritually or somehow wiser is misguided. I am wondering if this is why people are supporting this, maybe some mistakenly believe it is more profound or maybe somehow *right* because an artist did it.

Check this out, killing animals for art: (mice)
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/13/1071125716675.html?oneclick=true

Some times things are wrong and some people are creeps.

Anyway, take it easy
Meredith

HOW EXACTLY DID THE MODEL GET "ABUSED"? (meredith/bennet) The model and her parents are perfectly happy with the result and have defended the artist.

Did you read her opinion and the opinion of her parents? Stop demonising and harassing them. They blame people like you for abuse.

Furthermore naked children have appeared in art for a long time, and this is indeed a new debate: Henson has been free from harassment for 25 years or so.

As for consent, Miss Bennett:

Miss Bennet>"It is my understanding that a parent cannot legally 'consent' for a child to pose nude."

Why not? Will "Because?" be your answer?

>"This makes sense, because if it were legal, the financial incentives could easily override the parent's duty of care to the child. Anyone could hire out their children in return for money or favours."

Farmers across Australia make their children work for them for profit and parents 'put them to hard labour' cleaning their rooms and so on. So your scenario is irrelevant and also duplicitous: i doubt you care a damn about these farmers or parents abusing their children with hard labour.

>"Having a child is not the same thing as owning them. You are responsible for them, but you do not have the right to do anything you like with them."

And you have even *less* right. As does the government of Australia.

Besides, since all you women here support murdering children while they are living in the mother's womb, before birth, and support the mutilation of thousands of male babies at birth, I find your selective concern for the model almost hilarious... in both it's hypocrisy and pettiness.

Meredith, I don’t think nudity per se should matter at all. It is the exploitation of kids that should matter…. and only where there is tangible harm to the children involved, or the likelihood of it.

Using children for one’s own ends in a benign way should not be frowned upon. Where children are used in a Kmart catalogue or in TV commercial or by ABC Learning Centres, Mattel, the Wiggles or Anne Geddes, as succinctly argued by jpw2040 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7463#115292, we should have no problem.

Similarly, Henson’s or Sally Mann’s photos should not concern us, simply because they contain nudity. Nude children have been depicted in art throughout the history of art!

Artists should be free to produce a very wide range of material, for as long as no one is harmed or exploited and the necessary consent is gained…and animals aren’t killed simply to produce it (which really is extremely sick).

But it needs to be censored, as per movies and magazines.

What is displayable in an art gallery should not automatically be reproducible in a newspaper.

I think that there is nothing wrong whatsoever with Henson’s art hanging in an art gallery, with a warning of nude content. They should have an ‘M’ category I guess or perhaps a ‘G’, because the nudity is so benign… which would still make them viewable by children.

But as for them appearing in newspapers with it all hangin out; NO! Definitely not, under our current understanding of what is acceptable. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7463#115291

PS I appreciate the your friendly demeanour. Cheers

In London, he'd be in jail. Gary Glitter didn't get a free pass for being a national treasure.

Regardless of what Alison says, the material is banned as child pornography in other jurisdictions.

I would remind you that two naked youngsters in a bath tub surrounded by empty Moet bottles wasn't sexual either according to the same classification board in Oz that gave Bill's revolting child porn a clean bill of health!

Alison Croggon also doesn't know very much about art-law either.

If you're shifting stuff about, you can't ship child pornography, (which is what Bill's stuff is) via a country that has crimialized that material, and that includes London, regardless what Ms Alison 'Censorship Croggon has to say about it.

One can't readily accept much of what these people say, they lack integrity, they're just not very honest.

With me, you get what it says on the tin, I concede that Oz has apparently legalized Bill's revolting material, but, the SOA 2003, doesn't allow Bill to go near London with his child pornography.

(Which is what it is there)

He's under a cloud in Great Britain as a person who likes taking illegal (for the UK) pictures of naked little kids. That's Bill's profitable little bizness. Naked boys genitalia stored out back for special customers, non-sexualized of course (as per Oz).

In the UK, one goes to jail for that kind of gallery work. And despite what Alison was saying on her censored blog, the decency test is the one that works for the Protection of Children Act and the SOA 2003. So, if it is about 'porn' I would advise takijg anything Alison says with a bucket of salt.

In Regina v. Graham-Kerr, Stocker L.J. said that the appropriate test in the case of the Protection of Children Act was that as stated in R. v. Stamford [1972] 2 QB 391, which uses the formula ‘recognised standards of propriety.’

This, and the use of the word ‘impropriety’ by Lord Parker, point to the essential elements of indecency being offence caused, and inappropriateness, rather than that any amount of shock or disgust be caused in those forced to see it.

Hi Ludwig,

Thanks for replying, yeh, I agree on nudity too actually, I hate wearing clothes! Also totally with you on kids not being harmed in any form.

Where I disagree is the *only if it is art or just in art gallerys* angle. As I said before, it’s odd that artists are seen as spiritual or more wise in some way. Giving them a special licence to *explore little girls* is such a bad mistake.

Artists are (I love a good generalizing ) a bit of motley crew of drunkards, rebels, misfits and depressives etc. A lot of their social comment or psychological insight should just be between them and a therapist … In short, even though I am one and as much as I love them, it is not a profession brimming with love, happiness and general wellbeing.

Most art is somehow dark, cynical or in some form negative, Hensons’ work being a prime example, it is dark creepy moody stuff. The general rant being is *beauty in the darker parts of life bla bla*. For a start this *darkness* is an adult concept, but mostly, what ever profession it child abuse

The other thing about Alison's faux-argument for Bill is that some of the galleries she cites have banned Henon's kiddie photo stuff because they're illegal in those jurisictions!

A major ISP has also apparently pulled the plug on some web-sites to keep on the right side of federal statutes in the USA. So it isn't really a freedom of speech issue, as such.

UNCRC, if you think a naked child is inherently pornographic then you are a pedophile.

meredith>"For a start this *darkness* is an adult concept, but mostly, what ever profession it child abuse"

So you object to the darkness? Grow up. The 13 year old model is more mature than you are.

Well the 13 year old model is only allowed to market naked images via the internet, if Bill gets to be her pimp, this so called agency only orks if Bill is cast in the rle of Child Erotica Laureate for Australia.

Alison Croggon's contempt for UN mandated values, is self-evident, as for Bill, he is still stuck in the middle of 'Silence of the Lambs', or whatever corpse-chic thing he is reading at the moment.

I assume he gets his corpse, zombie, ideas from somewhere.

UNCRC.

"Among international collections, his work is held in the Solomon R Guggenheim Museum, New York; the Victoria and Albert Museum, London; San Francisco Museum of Modern Art; the Los Angeles County Museum of Art; the Denver Art Museum; the Houston Museum of Fine Art; 21C Museum, Louisville; the Montreal Museum of Fine Art; Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris; the DG Bank Collection in Frankfurt and the Sammlung Volpinum and the Museum Moderner Kunst, Vienna."

How many of them have done his naked kiddie thing? Let me give you an old world bit of advice,

if a photographer, or a technical artist, is going to compare himself to Caravaggio or Michelangelo,

then he better be as talented as Orson Welles, because anything less than that, looks like a dfective ego the size of a planet.

Bill's bizarre 'Silence of the Lambs' fetish stuff is prohibitd in more places in the USA & Europe than are prepared to exhibit it.

He is not Caravaggio

UNCRC