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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like CJ, I am happy to agree to disagree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steel

“Your fixation with Henson is more than disturbing”

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

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

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

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

To be continued

Steel (cont.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mil-observer

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

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