Henson's kiddie fetish material is classified as child pornography in London, The Tate Gallery has stated that Nobuyoshi Araki does pornography, and so there you are.

"The little girl is in there along with bondage images, including one of a Japanese schoolgirl in school uniform trussed up in rope while another image shows an adult woman also trussed up, with breasts and genitals exposed."

it is that context thing.

"Hetty Johnston and Bravehearts are but one part of an apoplectic surge in seeing s*x in everything."

The short answer. "YES"

"There is no need to go so far, as some men’s groups suggest, of seeing Johnston, as in the words of a publishing collective, “part of the greater feminist push to see men stigmatised as child abusers … and that used against them by women to retain custody in family law disputes”."

Short answer again. "Oh yes they are."

"One can only speculate what they will find next: a curiously inappropriate use of children with teddies on advertisements for real estate perhaps. Be wary, Mr Hooker."

I agree.

I seems strange but I haven't heard anything from them about preteens being pushed to wear, "pushup bras, sexy outfits, listen and watch to sexual music videos on Saturday mornings, wear make up or get plastic surgery, etc." or even kiddie photo, in their underwear, in the Kmart/Coles/Woolworths catalogues.

The author is conflating two radically different concepts by framing them together as a pair. The community outrage over pedophile Dennis Ferguson can not be lumped in with the outrage over the Henson/Olympia photos. They are totally different.

The only connection is that they both concern children and sex. However, one is concerned over the potential safety of children living within proximity to a convicted pedophile. The other is concerned with the perceived sexualisation of children in our culture.

Regardless of how hysterical the Carbrook community response is, it is a response to a real concern. By contrast, the Henson/Olympia issue is about the rights and responsibilities of those who control the public domain. At its heart is the philosophical dilemma of whether a culture has the right to portray a certain issue within the public domain to such a degree or in such a way that others in that culture (for whatever reason) do not want.

And as for comments like this:

‘Enter the obsession with sexual innuendo, sexual imagery, the dark forces that say more about the accusers than they do about the accused’

As the official 'accuser' of this essay, doesn’t the author realize that this actually says as much about those who automatically default to wowser-bashing during debates about public sexuality and nudity, as it does about the supposed wowsers themselves.

"At its heart is the philosophical dilemma of whether a culture has the right to portray a certain issue within the public domain to such a degree or in such a way that others in that culture (for whatever reason) do not want."

Try not to bend your logic so much, thanks. Society is bound to find someone or something offensive. Look at actual control and discrimination, such as religious people's controls of censorship and gay marriage for example.

The Henson furore and witch hunt was WRONG, period. It was a political, agenda-driven campaign against our society.

Steel

Tell me something I haven’t heard before … a thousand times.

'Society is bound to find someone or something offensive.'

So why all the hysteria over an offence that’s ‘bound’ to happen? Going into hysterical, huffy overdrive whenever anyone expresses offence at portrayals of public nudity and/or sexuality is its own form of ‘control and discrimination’ – every bit as censoring and behaviour-controlling as any antics by the religious Right.

‘The Henson furore and witch hunt was WRONG, period.’

But the pro-Henson furore and witch hunt was RIGHT?? I see. So ... having God on one's side is one thing, but having Art on one’s side means never, ever having to be wrong.

In the example of gay marriage, a group of citizens are being controlled and oppressed by another group. They have no right to marriage, because OTHER people don't want them to (including both our major parties who changed the constitution to discriminate against them). This Henson furore is similar in that a similar group (probably from identical roots) are trying their hardest to control a different subset of citizens. The model was happy with the pictures and both her and her mother consented. They are being oppressed and controlled, against their will and wishes.

Some are dploring the Benson furore and others are railingagainst fergusson.Some have actually argued that fergusson has done histime and should be free to enjoy another chance.Some have goneall academic and pointed out to the growing sociological interest in primitive societies that had a special place for the expression of pubescent sexual mores and recognised the rights of the tyoung to them. The argument has hovered around the suggstion that we should allow ourselves to evolve new sexual mores for the emergence of a new world sexuality. The rantings get clever and permissive.

Ok. The issues are very complex and in the meanwhile we have to be patient and more understanding about Fergusson and others of his ilk.Parents who have little ones to protect may be retarding the evolution of the Brave New World whose prophets like Fergusson are the forerunners ...

We are mixing up the issue of the Olympisa and the Fergusson and Barbie dolls et al...
I dont think so! What we are doingis losing track of whowe are,of our sense of decency and balance and settling for lasciviousness and celebrating the animal in us whilst intelluctualising the issues.

The pseudo-sophisticates are up against the naive and simple human beings.

socratease

How many times can you flog a dead horse with this topic.

As much as these discussion on OLO and the media have been distracted by disingenuous debate it comes down to whether or not under-age children should be used in 'art' in sexually suggestive poses. As the first poster on this thread stated, it is about context.

And to reply to one of the posters above, these groups have protested about the sexualisation of children in the media - print, music clips and television.

There is a sense of unease at how an artist or a parent for that matter, could use a child in this way or for political point scoring, even though I am sure they believe strongly in their right to do so.

pelican>"There is a sense of unease at how an artist or a parent for that matter, could use a child in this way or for political point scoring"

The only people "using" the child are those promoting their censorship agenda through a witch hunt and reactionary politics. The child is happy with the work, but the reactionists and authoritarians in society (including our politicians) are telling her she is 'disgusting and immoral', or at least dismissing her opinion as irrelevant. Nothing more could be dehumanising than doing that to a child. Those attacking her are the ones harming and politicising the issue to promote thier private agendas. None of this should be anyone's concern except the child and her mother's. And both assert that they are happy, albeit damaged by the idiots and do-gooders who did them public harm.

Hear, bloody, Hear, Steel.

At one level I can understand Johnston's motivation. Her daughter was molested by her father-in-law and anyone faced with that is likely to be a tad upset over children's sexualisation. And I think it was inadvisable, to say the least, for Henson to have his recent work exhibited and for parents to let their children be the models.

However, I worry that society gets worked up in a lather over sexualised images of children (and we're not talking child porn here) compared with our reaction to images of dead children. I've seen graphic images of dead children on TV and although you get a warning that "some viewers may find these scenes disturbing", the usual, vocal and self-appointed child protection groups seem rather quiet.

The other thing is that it seems that girls way more than boys are sexualised in the media and popular culture. True, child pornography includes abuse of boys as well as girls. And boys have experienced terrible abuse over the years. But it appears that girls' bodies are more marketable whether in photo exhibitions or music clips.

To the Editor,

I notice that this thread has been subjected to some intervention by yourselves. I would expect that where censorship is applied, it be made known and an explanation offered.

I invite your response here and now.

if there was moderation, it was probably because someone broke the rules and guidelines (assuming you are not lying)

David JS where do you draw the line between sexualised images of children and child porn? Isn't that what child porn is?

There has been much debate over the last two years over the sexualisation of children in the media and I suspect given that people have little democratic power against the big corporates (music, advertising and media) it is an issue that is not going to go away anytime soon.

A significant point of difference in this debate is that some people believe that a naked image of anyone under the age of 18 is de facto pornography. I found nothing sexualised about Henson's photograph. The girl was merely naked, not posed provocatively.

Rather than getting worked up over a single image in a small gallery, unlikely to be seen by more than a dozen people, the crusaders should be targeting disturbing stuff like this - satinemodel.net - which is perfectly legal.

I don't recommend you follow that link at work, by the way.

I'm surprised no one seems to have missed the deletion of a Link which in turn linked to:
http://www.roslynoxley9.com.au/artists/18/Bill_Henson/123/

The offending Link was that of 'xupacabras', a portugese photographer who has collated many artists' work at his site.
As originally posted, the Link was meant to demonstrate and so align Henson's oeuvre with others' of a perhaps more dubious intent.

It is for the moderator to explain/excuse the deletion.

Sancho, no-one is saying nudity equates with pornography. It is about the context of the nudity with its surroundings or the posing, or other factors depending on the individual study.

In an ABC documentary, Henson himself said something along the lines of 'the twilight years between adolescence and adulthood is interesting time of sexuality and sexual awakening' (words to that effect) and this is what he wanted to capture. The artist is speaking in terms of sexuality not nudity. This time is an interesting one, but a journey that should be experienced and allowed to be conducted in privacy.

I don't think Henson or Olympia are paedohphiles or into pornography just misguided in their idea of artistic freedom as sovereign over all other freedoms or rights.

if you type "renaissance madonna and child" into google and then go look at the "images" tag, on page one you will see
14 (out of 20) naked infants.

When someone can actually separate "the porn" from "the art", there will be a basis for determining the merit of the contemporary photoes and images,

Until you can clearly denounce something as "Porn" it should remain as "Art" because "Art" is all things to all men and women

Denouncing one representation, because it does not conform with some peoples view, is to denounce the process of individual expression.

Art is one of those experiences which makes the journey of life worth walking.

Denying free expression to any artist is to diminish the life quality which we can all aspire.

Among the many purposes of all art is that intended to challenge the viewer.

Bugger all these feeble minded attempts at this censorship of the spirit.

Sculptors, Painters, Photographers are here to challenge us. If someone cannot rise to the challenge, they have the right to turn away.

But they do not have the right to denounce Art because of the challenge, any more than Hitler had the right to denounce (say) Klimpt as degenerate.

Thanks Col. I'm delighted to be able to say that I agree with every word of your last post.

Cheers - I'll leave it at that :)

"David JS where do you draw the line between sexualised images of children and child porn? Isn't that what child porn is?"

You can look at a video clip of the Pussy Cat Dolls on free-to-air television and see obviously sexualised images. A medium depicting people engaging in sexual acts is clearly pornography. In the first example, the music of these artists (I use the term broadly) is supposed to be the reason behind the production of the clip. In the second, the opportunity to view sexual acts is the selling point. That I believe to be the main difference between sexualised images and pornography (I'm talking about adults here, of course).

In terms of children, civilised society regards depictions of children engaged in sexual acts or naked and appearing sexually available as pornography and we rightly prosecute it. But when children are shown naked or semi-naked (but not sexually available) it may not be quite so straightforward. After all, babies bottoms are seen on television ads for nappies.

So it can be a dilemma but I did say that I thought Henson's exhibition inadvisable. I will also say that it can't be lumped in with pornographic videos and once the works were made public, I disagreed with the police closing it (not to mention moralising from the Prime Minister who should have kept his trap shut).