The Forum > Article Comments > A debate we had to have > Comments
A debate we had to have : Comments
By Hetty Johnston, published 6/6/2008As a society we simply can not legitimise the sexual portrayal of children in the name of art or anything else.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- Page 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- ...
- 15
- 16
- 17
-
- All
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 6 June 2008 11:40:11 AM
| |
Both Hetty Johnson and CJ Morgan are wrong to put the emphasis on intention or purpose (judgments about which will always be problematic anyway).
What matters is the effect. And this goes to some key questions such as: Has the child given informed consent? Was payment adequate and properly agreed? Has the child foregone a right to personal privacy by possible future disclosure of identity or are safeguards adequate? At the end of the day, Henson may be able to provide adequate answers to all such questions - and I for one would expect he could. But I see nothing wrong in raising these questions from time to time to keep us in the art world honest. Hysteria - or allegations of hysteria, on both sides - are not very helpful. Posted by Spikey, Friday, 6 June 2008 12:10:01 PM
| |
Most people won't take her seriously any more. I certainly don't. She's harmed the image of the organisation and showed that she is not only incorrect, but she is violently opposed to free speech and expression to the degree that she wants to imprison innocent people. She manipulated the police into an embarrassing situation, though I think they were eager to exert their power anyway against innocent Australian citizens.
Posted by Steel, Friday, 6 June 2008 2:58:54 PM
| |
Intent to do some bad act goes to the doer's guilt, whereas the effect of the action goes to society's morals, etc. It is legitimate to look at both aspects.
So, while Henson may have been completely pure in his thoughts on the matter, that doesn't mean a green light will not be given to some rotters in society when they see naked children portrayed in public. Hence, the fair solution to this problem is: don't prosecute Henson, but remove the exhibit from the gallery. Then publicise this fact so that society is reminded what of its standards are. Posted by RobP, Friday, 6 June 2008 3:01:03 PM
| |
Good on you Hetty. Ignore the pedophilia enablers above.
Posted by grn, Friday, 6 June 2008 3:25:54 PM
| |
Good old Hetty.
On the one hand labelling a perfectly innocent (not just my judgement: now a legal one) photograph as porn. On the other happy to receive funding from the porn industry http://www.abcscience.net.au/news/stories/2005/03/30/1333989.htm I hereby nominate her for a Gold Boazie. Posted by Pericles, Friday, 6 June 2008 3:59:39 PM
|
Given that Bill Henson has been producing and exhibiting similar artistic images to those that Ms Johnston complains about for decades, I think that it's very clear that his purposes are overwhelmingly artistic. That he and his models are paid, and that he has an international reputation, are in no way inconsistent with the artistic nature of his work.
I would like to know if Hetty Johnston's hysterical complaint was genuinely for the public interest, or is it a vehicle by which she seeks to continue her career of self-aggrandisement - in this case, clearly to the detriment of the interests of the adolescent models she claims to be protecting?