Gecko

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

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

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

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

To be continued

Continued

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

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

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

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

Posted eight minutes ago.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you have to say to this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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