Bill Henson. This is a textbook example of the society we live in. Much that is wrong with it is encapsulated in this one act by police/government: it reveals idiocy and corruption of culture.

- A naked adolescent's body is "sinful" according to our government.

- Government officials have said it's "disgusting". Rudd has emulated John Howard and shown how much of his beliefs and views are identical to the former PM.

- Police seized these pictures from a private gallery and from a private artist and citizen of Australia. Their actions are no different from the Chinese government: They are thugs forcing the government's morality on others.

All because:

- Our culture has given an incredibly small percentage of people in society extreme prominence and voice in the media, to the degree that Australians are now petrified of them. It is a corruption and disease in the minds of these Australians (much of it is sourced as religious and feminist in nature...no surprises there).

Kevin Rudd > "While the Prime Minister described the works as "revolting" and devoid of artistic merit"

This moron has never even been to a gallery has no training and is a religious bigot. If we had to rely on the opinions of ignorant people to determine what was artistic you could throw away most of last centuries art work.

I think all artists should create such work in a public display of defiance at this offensive act of censorship. I think others should finally realise that Rudd and Howard have been pursuing a de facto theocracy.

Mr Rudd is to be congratulated. A naked 12 or 13 year old is child pornography. Every paedophile would agree. If the average Joe took a photo of his nude daughter he would be locked up (and should be). Calling something 'art' does not change what it really is. This 'artist' is obviously one sick cookie and so are those who defend child pornography.

But it is perfectly acceptable for Rudd to attend strip clubs.

I guess artistic merit is wasted on our christian PM.

runner: << A naked 12 or 13 year old is child pornography. >>

Only in the minds of people who sexualise children - like religious nutters tend to.

I agree Steel - this utter nonsense is nothing more than a 'moral panic' inspired by a weird coalition of religious and feminist prudes, who project their own sexual repression on to art.

Rudd would have been better to have kept his mouth shut than to display his ignorant Christian wowserism. He reminds me of a certain ex-PM in that way.

Feminists prudes? I have talked to a lot of feminists over the past couple of days and have not yet talked to one who's for the removal of Henson's work. I note most of the arts administrators defending Henson's work are women. Judy Annear, who's curator of photography at the Art Gallery of NSW has been supporting Henson on any medium that'll have her. The redoubtable Anna Schwartz called it "a dark day for Australian culture."

The rather hysterical "child protection" advocate Hetty Johnson, founder of Bravehearts, made initial complaint, I believe. Bravehearts lobby and advocate for, and helps, people who have been/are being sexually assaulted in childhood. I'm sure they do some terrific work, and, given the stories they must hear, perhaps it's not surprise they see monsters in the shadows. Ultimately, it's up to the cops to uphold or reject Johnson's complaint. It is they who have decided that the photos depict "a child under the age of 16 years of age in a sexual context".

Presumably on the assumption that nudity is by definition sexual.

Bravehearts is not, however, an explicitly feminist organisation. So is there any concrete reasons why feminists are to blame, or are they just the usual suspects?

Steel, snap with our threads.

I missed Steel's reference to 'feminist prudes'. I am getting really fed up with men who decide what feminists think.

Steel, please note; on this thread, on porno threads and on her own thread regarding Henson; Vanilla and I have spoken out against censorship such as this. While there may be a minority of feminists who are easily outraged, the majority believe in freedom of speech, expression and sexuality. In fact I believe a feminist prude is something of an oxymoron.

Steel, I and the majority of feminists agree that nakedness is not a sin, we want to see a society freed of sexual hang-ups, that is the path towards greater acceptance of each gender. So please stop assuming you have any inkling of what feminists think and please stop assuming that we all hold the same homogenous opinions, we are as diverse as any other group of people.

It all depends upon the intent of the artist.Most children at this age are embarassed by their developing bodies and would shy away from such exposure.
Unfortunately with the proliferation of paedophiles aided and abetted by the internet,it is a grey area that most sensible artists with talent would not tread.

BTW

Well known feminist and art critic, Margaret Pomeranz had this to say on the banning of Henson's work:

"MARGARET POMERANZ: I think this is the most extraordinary thing. I don't understand what role it is of the police, I understand that the paintings have not yet been classified even.

And I just don't get it. I mean this is meant to be art by a very respected artist. Ok, you may find his work confronting, controversial. Surely that's a function of art, or some contemporary art, anyway.

...... if you don't want to see it, don't go. But the thought that this is going to inspire paedophilia is just ludicrous."

So to any wowsers out there who believe that naked children are somehow sinful - don't go to ANY museums, art galleries and SHUT YOUR EYES when bathing your children.

CJ Morgan,

I take it you would be happy for every pervert to look at your 12 year old daughter nude in the name of 'art'. Wow you have gone from a Howard hater to a Rudd hater very quickly.

Runner

Your mind is a cesspit. Your religion holds your gaze from seeing the beauty of the world around you and imprisons you in a vacuum from which you are devoid of knowledge, learning and truth.

Nakedness is only a sin in the eye of the beholder and all you can see around you is foetid.

The corruption really lies in the old guy who wants to photo the young "vulnerably posed" girl for his sexual gratification.
It could one day turn out that the photographer has an inclination towards under aged girls and gets arrested for sex offences.
The photos were porn and the police have done well to confiscate the photos.
All these types of photos do is stir up the already stirred up sex offender and encourage him to go looking for the young girls.
What a dark world you young folk are creating by your approval of such dark things.
Youve got no idea.
Mr. Rudd did well and three cheers to good cops!

lol. C.J morgan! You crack me up to no end. Well done. LMFAO.

EVO

Just to clarify, it was me who made the "feminist prudes" comment, and I obviously wasn't very clear about what I was trying to say. My reference to the current "moral panic" about paedophilia was supposed to link the hysteria about Henson to a wider agenda being prosecuted by an unholy alliance of Christian fundies and some fringe feminists.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that I think that feminists in general are prudish - in fact, in my experience they are far from it!

And runner, I would have no qualms at all about my daughter posing nude for a reputable, bona fide artist, if she wanted to. A pervert would undoubtedly fantasise about a kid like her whether or not she had clothes on.

There is nothing inherently sexual about a nude human body of any age. In my opinion those who think otherwise have unresolved problems with their sexuality, that they project on to others.

*There is nothing inherently sexual about a nude human body of any age. In my opinion those who think otherwise have unresolved problems with their sexuality, that they project on to others.*

Actually very true CJ. I seem to recall that 100 years of so ago,
when men went to the beach, they would have to have their chests
covered too, as it was seen as immoral for men to go topless.

Based on that kind of logic, Gibo and Runner, if they do the same
would have to be classified as porn stars :)

And to clarify my last comment was to say that your mind and others is worth bottling. I am no academic genius, but I do appreciate a good severing of wit and commonsense. That's what I was laughing at.

This whole thread reeks of paranoia.

Here is my five cents worth!

WHO GIVES A SH#T!

By the way! Does anyone have a blind-fold. lol

I really cant believe the people in this world.
I am starting to get worried!

All the best.

EVO

Though I have no new point to add, I would just like to put my hand up as being in total agreement with those who consider the proposed banning of these works as outrageous.

I'm appalled at the mucky-minded people who could look at a twelve year olds body and see it as a sexual entity. THAT, to me is the outrage.

But then, maybe they are the same people as the ones mentioned above who get their jollies out of Target catalogues.

Bargain basement images for bargain basement minds.

If such people can't see art in the curves and planes, the light and shade, the absolute wonder of that perfection of engineering - the human body - then I'm guessing they don't spend much time in Art galleries or looking at art. And if so, what is the point of their outrage?

If anything in a very clear way it shows that goodness still exists in government.
The government sent out the police and they did their duty; which is to protect society from anything that increase lawlessness...i.e. in this case, child pornography inspiring sex offenders to prey on young girls.
The child was under age according to law.
Wheres the problem?
We really ought not forget what government is all about...protecting those who live under it.
If the murky bohemian underworld wants to opt out and do the unlawful thing and put the rest of us at risk... then they have to pay.

Gibo! The government have no choice in being ( cant find the word ) and you know it!

EVO

Pretty well said.

Gibo, runner - both of you, if you can for one moment set aside the other elements to this and honestly just ask yourself this one question, I think both sides of this debate would get a little closer to consensus:

Which of the following is more perverted:

a) the person who assumes a naked body must have some kind of sexual connotation.

b) the person who does not.

We're all adults here. (Well, with the internet, who knows, but I'm going to assume so). So perhaps, if we can start with an agreement of the above point, perhaps we can move beyond mudslinging rhetoric.

I would concede one point of justification to gibo and runner - they are right in that those who did view children as sex objects would indeed seek out such an exhibit.

But to equate that to banning it entirely with such gestapo tactics, and completely voiding any artistic debate?

That's what art is. As other posters have said, it is about challenge and controversy.

Another question, gibo and runner - what is your opinion of Michelangelo's David?
What is your opinion of the many, many fountains throughout Europe and beyonf, that - shock, horror - depict young boys peeing? Many of these artworks are regarded as being masterpieces.

Have you honestly considered either of those questions?
If not, I can only categorise your comments as kneejerk reactions which are being stated without much by way of consideration of the bigger picture.

I ask again: is Michelangelo's David just porn? Have either of you the courage to consider something with a little more depth?

Which of you would be prepared to have your own daughters, or sons, (if you have any 11 to 12 years old) photographed naked and put on public display?

"I'm appalled at the mucky-minded people who could look at a twelve year olds body and see it as a sexual entity. THAT, to me is the outrage.....

.....Bargain basement images for bargain basement minds."

Posted by Romany, Saturday, 24 May 2008 7:58:23 PM
________________________________

This from a bargain basement mucky mind:-
This from a female who by definition is very clearly NOT a feminist:-
This from a female who unapologetically lines up with the Right and the Religious:-

I do not; DO NOT!! look at a twelve year olds body and see it as a sexual entity.
I am disgusted that this 'art' DOES allow a legal platform for those who do!

Here we go again. Freedom of Expression this time.

( AND;....there is no bloody way that I will sit back and be attacked as having a cesspit mind/ narrow mind/religious bigotry (love that one!)/unhealthy view of young bodies etc.,............and NOT respond!!)

You feel strongly? So do I.

Well I am not sure which unflattering category I might be cast into by some posters on OLO - I am an atheist and do not consider myself a "prudish feminist" (an oxymoron if I ever heard one).

No nudity is not sinful but let's be clear about this - we are talking about children - are we all on the same planet?

To suggest that those who wish to protect children are somehow sexually deviant in their protest is repugnant and cowardly. I would be equally remiss in arguing that those defending the art are pedophiles - because I understand that the outrage (albeit misplaced in my view) is more about censorship and artistic freedoms.

To quote Mr Rudd in his radio interview this morning - let's just let our kids be kids'. I have to agree.

Ginx: "I do not; DO NOT!! look at a twelve year olds body and see it as a sexual entity.
I am disgusted that this 'art' DOES allow a legal platform for those who do!"

What does that mean? What's the "legal platform"? Is it nudity in a gallery? If so, do you object to all naked children in art?

While I'm looking forward to your responses, I appreciate your point — a lot of people object to kids under-18 posing naked and it doesn't mean they get off on it themselves. They object for other reasons. It's a good point and I'm glad you made it.

Mr Right:
I would be okay with my child posing naked for an artist, IF:
a: my child wanted to. That would be the only reason the question would arise
b: I was convinced my child understood art in general and the art in question in particular. Really understood it — it would only make sense if I had a child who had their own precocious artistic sensibility — any boy or girl who thought it would "get them into modelling" or somesuch would not get my permission. My child would have to understand what child pornography was and convince me this WASN'T it, and why
c: I had vetted the artist. That would require knowing them for some years, knowing they weren't getting off on it sexually or doing it for any sexual reason or audience whatsoever. I would need to know and respect their art. I would seek substantial independent verification of their artistic credentials — including from as many other underage models as I could muster
d: I was at the shoot. This would be non-negotiable.
e: and other things. I'd think about it more than I'm thinking about it right now.

vanilla
your last post shocked me to think that you would allow this to happen.
I have 5 children and i would not permit this in any circumstance.
It just made me sick to my stomach to read what you had written.

How easy you are all to bait.

But i do understand art and the body is no more than a body. You are all a bunch of sh#t stirrers and i think we can do a lot more better with our thoughts.

Pedophilia is a term to loosely used in our day to day society. I think there should be a new thread about why fathers feel the fear of being and interacting and playing the role of a father in this twisted worlds view of how society should present itself.

On a personal note i know whats happening on this site and the between the lines conversations and the community that is watching and judging, give it a rest.

my philosophy is! (I SIT BACK AND WATCH AND LISTEN) and you wonder why I'm worried about the human race.

I wonder how these pictures would be regarded if they were a painting and not photographs. If they were paintings done by someone only interested in the art and not the child of course.

My thought would be that as paintings they should not be banned. I found it a bit harder to make up my mind on this because they were photographs for some reason. Although I don't know why. Maybe because photos tend to be more associated with porn.

Where I will always have a problem with this debate, is that to
me, nakedness is associated with what is natural. If we look at
tribes, societies, not influenced by religion to the degrees that
ours has been, they take a much more natural view of all this.

It seems here that once again its devout Xtians that associate
nakedness with porn. A bit like the Muslims really lol.

Porn to me is something very different!

Where this problem really began, is that its our so called Xtian
heritage that has associated anything like nakedness, with what is
dirty, evil and must be sexual. A woman breastfeeding her child
would have to be the most natural thing in the world. Yet devoutly
religious people get upset about that, for some reason.

Somehow religion tends to screw up peoples minds about this whole
topic, for we face a constant stream of information of yet another
sect, cult, or religious group, where the leaders landed up fathering
a whole string of kids, or paedophilia covered up.

TRTL

Which of the following is more perverted:

a) the person who assumes a naked body must have some kind of sexual connotation.

b) the person who does not.

The question should be who is more deceived or in denial:

The one who claims that staring at naked girls in puberty is not likely to turn many men on or the one who claims that they are looking at the artistic nature of her breasts and vagina.

*The one who claims that staring at naked girls in puberty is not likely to turn many men on *

The question arises Runner, why are you doing the staring? What
sort of deprived childhood did you have?

If you had grown up accepting that people have various body parts
and that vaginas, penises and breasts, are all very natural and
normal things, which we have and use every day, at some point it
would hit you that there is more to sexuality and sexual relationships
then staring at somebody's bodyparts for the first time.

Now if those parts have been encloacked in secrecy, the mystical
and magical, the dirty or evil, the mysterious, etc, of course
people will stare. If they accept things as natural, what is
there to stare at?

This is where methinks that religion produces screwed up people.
It denies what is natural and normal, in the name of dogma.

“Don't attempt to lump this in with some peoples prudish distaste for nakedness of any kind. We are talking about young kids here. They need our protection not exploitation, whatever the aim.”

I’m with Paul here. I too have severe reservations about this exhibition and for what I consider to be very valid reasons, many of them already clearly articulated here by Paul, Pelican, Foxy and others. I also resent the fact that my views will be dismissed as those of someone who is either “sexually challenged”, a “Christian Moralist” or as claimed on the other thread a “feminist prude”. I’m none of these and have a very healthy attitude toward human sexuality, but I think the escalating problem of child abuse in society today means we have to reassess some of the boundaries of artistic licence when it comes to images of children

I agree with Clive Hamilton on this, again no intellectual slouch, no moralistic prude and no Christian nutter. He stated that we all understand that artists are there to push boundaries but we as a society also have a responsibility to push back. While nudity in art is not an issue for myself nor I imagine many others questioning this exhibition, the sexualization and exploitation of children certainly is and Henson’s photos in my mind would do more to feed into that situation than they would to seriously question and critique it.

Art today isn’t only viewed by an informed elite as it has tended to be in the past. With the advent of the Internet and its increasing accessibility, artistic images can be lifted and circulated in all sorts of ways quite unanticipated by the artist. However much artistic merit and beauty these photos might contain, there is no escaping the fact that they are invasive and confronting photos of a naked child. Where do we draw the line between viewing images of naked children in an art gallery and viewing them in a paedophile’s collection on a home computer? Is there a line? Both express a point of view after all.

Ginx,

I sincerely apologise if my post offended, hurt or angered you. It was not directed at you, or to all those who hold a different opinion to mine about banning naked images of children. It was, indeed, directed at those who see sexuality in nakedness albeit of children or adults.

I accept totally your emphatic denial of harbouring such thoughts and, having formed the opinion through your posts that you are a strong and intelligent person did not for one moment class you in that category.

The bargain basement analogy was drawn from the relation to Target catalogues:- there certainly doesn't strike me that there is anything at all bargain basement about you. I see you, and always have done, as an insightful and forthright person whose ideas, whether they agree with those I hold or not, I respect.

To reiterate: I am appalled by those people whose objection is based on what THEY see as the sexuality - albeit latent - of the subject. I certainly am not outraged or appalled nor do I in any way harbour any negative feelings towards those who disagree with the views I hold upon this or any other subject. (except, it must be admitted, for BD and his women-as-inferior model!).

Bronwyn, you have got me curious now, so I googled and found this:

*When the First Fleet arrived in Botany Bay just over 200 years ago they found the locals, the Aborigines, naked and unashamed, sensibly attired for the warm Australian climate. But those early settlers brought their old English morality with them. It was indecent to be nude. Even at the beginning of the 20th century the British used horse drawn bathing boxes to avoid being seen entering the ocean for a swim.*

http://www.freebeach.com.au/Neck-Knee-Nude.htm

AFAIK they are pretty popular and families attend. Should we ban
them too? Or only allow people of certain ages to attend and not
families?

I'm glad to see there are people with some reasonable and thoughtful opinions on the subject who have an ability to seperate emotion from reason. Fractelle, I do know there are exceptions but I usually base my opinions on what I see. As far as OLO goes (and perhaps media), in terms of publications and articles I have observed a prevalence of feminists 'hatchetting' masculinity on a regular basis, with the subject being pornography. I have also read up on the history of censorship a little and the feminists appeared to have a key role in the formation of censorship legislation sometime in the 80s-90s period by allying with christian groups. Yes I understand there are a diverse range of views but this is how I'm seeing it and who is exerting the power and influence.

CJ Morgan writes

'There is nothing inherently sexual about a nude human body of any age. In my opinion those who think otherwise have unresolved problems with their sexuality, that they project on to others.'

Well in my opinion those who are prepared to let their 12 year old girl pose nude in the name of art are sick. People offering their daughters to this 'art' are no different from those who would strip a girl and place her in front of a web cam for every deviant to watch.
I hope not to many uni lecturers share your view. A former NSW Indigenous Affairs Minister would agree that it is just 'art' for some.

Runner, let me remind you that it is you who is apparently assailed by lust when you see a naked child, not me. Your suggestion that I would "offer" my daughter to anybody for any purpose is not only offensive, but typically dishonest.

What I said was that I would have no problem with my daughter posing nude for a bona fide, reputable artist if that's what she wanted to do. However, I doubt very much that she would want to.

Why are you fundies so dishonest, and why do you have such dirty minds?

I can't comment on the content of the exhibition, with one exception.
It includes a photo of a poor Vietnamese girl with skin peeling off her, as she runs from a napalm strike.

In such a case, I hardly see anything 'sexual' about her nakedness, rather, the raw naked brutality of war.

Other than that type of image, I'd have grave reservations about portraying children naked, depending of course on their age, and the setting of the image.

People who are determined pedophiles will see 'sex' in even the most innocent of images.. even of fully clothed children, so.. I don't think such people will be more confirmed in their attitude by such images as the one I mentioned above.

If this controversy shows anything, it is that we cannot legislate the moral FEELING of the whole community.
On the other hand, we CAN legislate a 'message' and no matter which message we send by legislation we will always get the spread of opinion found here.

Its a no win situation, and I don't feel deprived if I don't get to see anything at such an exhibition, I wouldn't waste my valuable time to see it either.
For those who feel 'oppressed' by the decision to remove the images :) I just say "get over it and get on with life" as you would say to us if they were left there.
*Peace*

Aah.... more information now.. and this rather says it all:

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2254253.htm

Bill Henson shows 'society exploits children in eroticised ways'

PM - Friday, 23 May , 2008 18:40:00
Reporter: Edmond Roy
MARK COLVIN: As the former executive director of the Australia Institute, Clive Hamilton published a controversial report titled "Corporate Paedophilia".

On the Bill Henson case, he argues that while artists have a right to push boundaries, society has a responsibility to push back.

He sees the latest controversy as the result of a society in which children are being exploited in increasingly eroticised ways.

AAAAAMEN! I love that :) Artist's push..we push back.. I think I'll use that in other places 0_^

Well, Clive Hamilton is only giving his opinion. And it's riddled with false assumptions and propositions.

Lets take:

>Clive Hamilton "And I argue that she, the girl, the model, could not possibly understand the implications of being presented naked to the world"

This is absolutely ridiculous. The model GREW UP in the digital age, around the internet. She grew up in an age of TELEVISION. It's not only understood, it's guaranteed she "knew the implications". If she's been living without it, then she need only have been told that she will be naked in front of a room full of people, and to imagine that other people many times that group size would also (something a child half her age would understand). And also then all those children shamed and ridiculed by their parents on home videos should sue their parents later in life (neither was it consented, nor were they even able to "comprehend"). There are other questions over the premise but I will leave those alone for now

Posted in a bit of a hurry this afternoon and have just realised my post here is on the wrong thread! Never mind, the two debates seem much the same judging by the quick look I've had just now.

CJ Morgan
'Why are you fundies so dishonest, and why do you have such dirty minds?

Frankly CJ, all Christians know they need to have their minds renewed because they are corrupted. Those who reject light continue to walk in darkness as your corrupted minds demonstrates.

I suggest to you that you are dishonest in pretending you would allow your 12 year old to pose nude for a 'bona fide'. If you are not pretending you certainly one sick cookie and should remove the plank from your eye before making judgements about my honesty. I would suggest also that you are more of a fundie than me. The only difference is it is in human secularism. That is why your views are so warped. Even the Prime Minister agrees on this one.

Well well well... I rejoice that Romany has finally left the dark side and come over to the side of the 'force' and joined me in my unceasing declaration that

"mucky-minded people who could look at a twelve year olds body and see it as a sexual entity. THAT, to me is the outrage."

So....presumably dear Romany, you would consider a man who claimed he had a dream that a 6 yr old should be his "wife" and him having sex with her at 9 yrs of age.. would fall into the category of "mucky minded people, looking at 9 yrs olds as a sexual entity" :)

Hooooray.. we argee at last.

Though there is much more to this....and it is found in your phrase "sexual entity"

Now THAT is where the line between 'naked body' and 'pornographically displayed' naked body is found.

CONTEXT/POSTURE. is the key.

If a child is naked and simply standing there.. or even laying asleep, with no paricular emphasis on the display of private parts, or any posture which is clearly 'sexual' in nature, then hopefully we would not read more into such an image than 'nude person of young age'.

BUT..if that child is arranged such that his/her body and private parts are displayed in a manner that ALL of us know would be 'overtly sexual'
then.. we have 'PORNOGRAPHY'.

I still no no more than in my last post, i.e. awareness of only one image, the Vietnamese girl in the bombing.

So, I'm speaking hyperthetically, as I assume most of us are? so we must limit our discussion to 'principle'.

There is NOTHING 'religiously prudish/wowserish' about protecting children and society from the mis-use of children for pornographic or erotic use to either
1/-Make money
2/-Build a reputation as a 'boundary breaking artist'
3/-Break down established social/moral norms with which we feel comfortable.

On point 3, this will depend on ones moral foundation in life, and in a demcracy, 'mine' is as valid as 'yours' :)

Only Boazy could try and turn this into an opportunity to spout some anti-Islamic bile.

runner: << all Christians know they need to have their minds renewed because they are corrupted >>

While that certainly seems to be true from what we see posted here by some fundy Christians, I put it to you that it is your "corrupted" minds that find sin in art. There is a difference between pornography and art, but a pervert, fundy or prude probably can't see it.

There is absolutely no sin in nakedness. However, there probably is in projecting your own sexual fetishes and hang-ups on to others.

P.S. Boazy - I don't think the photo you're describing is by Henson - rather it's a classic news photograph from the Vietnam War era. However, the pictures I have seen from those that were removed from the exhibition certainly fit your stricture:

<< If a child is naked and simply standing there.. or even laying asleep, with no paricular emphasis on the display of private parts, or any posture which is clearly 'sexual' in nature, then hopefully we would not read more into such an image than 'nude person of young age'. >>

If you want to see what the fuss is supposedly about, you can see some of the images here:

http://www.sauer-thompson.com/junkforcode/

See here is the problem. The world has already been groomed to be sexualised....So this picture of a naked 12 year old reads sex to many, many people young and old....

This is not a perfect, safe or just world. In today's climate this is child pornography and we live in today's climate.

Imagine how the Muslim community would see this? They would severely punish somebody and even many for that. Yet some in the Western world want to promote it?

Children should not be permitted to pose nude for adults or even other children, it really is as easy as that...Adults should do everything in their power to protect the children from pedophiles, exploitation and even psychological abuse and keeping children’s clothes on is the best way.

Jolanda Challita
Education - Keeping them HOnest
http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/
Our children deserve better

Thanks for the link, CJ.

The only truly pornographic image was of the drowned children in the Irrawaddy, images from cyclone Nargis.

The lack of perspective here is scary. In a week where tens of thousands are dying through the overt acts of power-driven denial by an uncaring government in Burma, what do we here in Australia worry about?

500 dead kangaroos and an exhibition of photography.

Well said Pericles.

Jolanda, "Adults should do everything in their power to protect the children from pedophiles, exploitation and even psychological abuse"

If I did "everything in my power" to protect my child from pedophiles I'd be inflicting psychological abuse on him. He'd be home schooled, never left alone with others, effectively living in a prison.

Parenting involves accepting that there are risks that we take with our children in order to allow them to gain the life experience they need to make decisions as adults and to aid their evelopment. We try and find the balance between risk and protection which best suits our childs age, temperment and circumstances.

Hetty Johnson who reportedly made the complaint which triggered this issue is one of those who appears to lack balance.

I saw her in an interview some years ago claim that she was quite willing for innocent men to go to prison if it reduced the risk of children being abused. Children need protection but not in a manner which is at the cost of their developmental needs or which creates an over regulated cultural climate destructive to all or where the government becomes the abuser.

Hetty if she still stands by the views expressed in that interview is willing to destroy the lives of adults (male ones anyway) to protect children who may not have been at genuine risk.

I'm not comfortable with the theme of the exhibition as described in the media. I'm even more uncomfortable with the intervention and the direction that seems to be taking us.

R0bert

Which of you would be prepared to have your own daughters, or sons, (if you have any 11 to 12 years old) photographed naked and put on public display?
Posted by Mr. Right, Saturday, 24 May 2008 9:36:17 PM

Vanilla,

You are the only one with the guts to respond. Even so I have to say that I think your reply makes you an unfit parent: the kind interviewed by the police after the Henson affair.

To those who cannot, or will not respond, I can only assume that, to you, being a loud mouthed, permissive 'arty' type is OK only as long as your own kids are not involved.

Excellent post R0bert, although I would like to add that there are as many male wowsers as female.

CJ - superb link - really puts Henson's images into perspective and, as with all of Henson's work they are superb art. Like Pericles, I found the image of drowned children very disturbing and now I wish I could get it out of my head.

When the Howard government banned the book, The Peaceful Pill, I was disturbed by the 'big brother' mentality and now we have a Rudd government deciding what we should and shouldn't see. Oh for the liberation of northern European countries, like Holland or Denmark.

We cannot live our lives to the full wrapped in cotton wool, the best we can do is educate and inform our children. I was very much overprotected as a child and have had to learn about the adult world the hard way - something I wouldn't wish on anyone, but unfortunately still continues for many overprotected children today.

Henson has made us realise how uncomfortable we are with our bodies and sexuality. If we, as a society, were not so sexually disfunctional, the advertising industry would be an impotent beast in its sexualisation of everything.

Meanwhile, no doubt well-intentioned people, protest Henson and our media laughs all the way to the bank.

Robert if you are incapable of thinking normal and can only think at the extremes then that is not my problem. We are not talking about homeschooling or locking kids up, although I know that my kids would have loved to have been home-schooled they hated school so much, we are talking about keeping clothes on our children so that they are not exposing their private parts...They are called private parts for a reason!

Mr Right: << To those who cannot, or will not respond, I can only assume that, to you, being a loud mouthed, permissive 'arty' type is OK only as long as your own kids are not involved. >>

See my reply to you on the other thread. Please try and refrain from projecting your sexual hang-ups on to those with whom you disagree.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1831#36550

Repressed goose.

CJ MOrgan

'There is absolutely no sin in nakedness. However, there probably is in projecting your own sexual fetishes and hang-ups on to others.'

Well we finally get a confession out of you that there is such a thing as sin. I really was wondering if you knew anything about right and wrong. You condone adults exploiting (sorry photographing) 12 year old boys and girls naked and call it art. You defend deviants.
By the way no one ever said their was sin in nakedness but their sure is plenty of shame in displaying it to every Tom Dick and Harry. You have twisted this debate from one of child exploitation to another topic.

Defend the sick artist as much as you like in the name of free speech or art but your view is repugnant to many and even unacceptable to your beloved Mr Rudd ( who now gives less 'artistic freedom than his predecessor).

Some cultures cover-up: some cultures don't cover-up. Especially, say three hundred years ago, in less economically/technically, people often went naked. There was no guilt.

The latter has ramifications for Genesis, because, we are all are meant to feel the guilt of "original" sin, when we, humnans, are aware of our nakedness; yet, folks in many sociteies didn't feel guilty only a few centuries ago. A few societies, still would not feel guilt, even today.

Michelangelo's work in the Sistine Chapel should be destroyed and Michelangelo declared a pedophile. Actually this applies to any painter in the middle ages with their church-commissioned works.

CJ and Pericles -

Bravo.

Jolanda, I'm quite capable of thinking outside extremes. You made the post couched in absolute terms, I responded by showing what absolutes could mean in this instance. The issue is not as clear cut as many would make it out to be.

I don't think that making kids uncomfortable about their bodies is helpful nor do I think it is productive for any of us to live our lives bounded by the misuse someone may put to what they take from us.

Fractelle, "although I would like to add that there are as many male wowsers as female" - totally agreed although I don't have the numbers to back that up :) If my post read otherwise it was completely unintentional.

R0bert

Mr Right.>"I now know that anyone who disagrees with Steel is either a religious zealot or ignorant. As a person who cannot answer a question without being rude and derisive, nothing you say can be taken seriously or treated with any respect.""

Your comment is very deceitful. If I'm to believe you actually take so much offence at some descriptive adjectives, then you should stop posting your opinions on the internet and save yourself the grief.

Does this mean you ignore 90% or so of the posts and posters here on OLO? Or do you only ignore those that insult yourself, but approve of other people deriding others? I doubt anyone cares about your personal grief over being 'slighted' on an online forum, particularly when you choose the easier option of taking offence and avoiding to answer the more substantial question.

R0bert

I agree, as long as we continue to create a mystique and a sense that our genitals are obscene, sex will continue to be both exploited and perverted, by commercial interests.

Henson's art is doing what successful art has always done - amplified our failings and our prejudices. These shortcomings are purely cultural and not inherent. We don't have to have such major hang-ups about our bodies or sexuality - it is all learned behaviour. As others have already stated, in some cultures nakedness is seen as natural - the norm, while in ours a mother breast feeding a baby is regarded as shocking.

BTW the reason I said that there are as many male as female wowsers, was that you stated "Hetty if she still stands by the views expressed in that interview is willing to destroy the lives of adults (male ones anyway) to protect children who may not have been at genuine risk."

I know you have you problems with CSA, but perhaps you should consider that you do your cause no good by creating more conflict, besides not really relevant to this topic either. Shades of Boaz.

Fractelle, point taken.

For those wondering why at least one of our resident fundies seems to have trouble accepting the possibility that others may not see these images sexually you might consider some telling remarks made by him some time ago in relation to the sexual appeal of 9 year old girls - http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=109#2085

"Its as plain as dogs balls on a grasshopper that a man over 50 with existing wives and who marries again to a 9 or 15 or 18 yrs old, is going to be more sexually interested in HER than in the 'old wrinklies'"

Just in case you though that was a one off a earlier on the same page http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=109#2036 "Ok.. I book your 9 yr old daughter to add to my 50 yr old wife"

And further down the same page http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=109#2499
"There is a section in the old testament, where king david was on his death bed. The royal court went and searched for the 'hottest cutest virgin' they could find, and promptly sent her into the kings bed. The hope was to revive his interest in life. I think she was in this case 16. The underlying premise of course is that old men appreciate young girls. Get it ? But you are above such things right ?"

Worth keeping in mind when we struggle to understand why some fundies seem so keen on seeing kids in sexual terms.

R0bert

If nude photo's of a child are acceptable as art, then why dont we all have them in the family albums? Granted, there are many family albums with quite innocent pictures of babies and toddlers, playing in the bath or running around under a sprinkler in the backyard. But this drops off sharply at perhaps the age of 5. Care to answer me why?

If you would be happy with your child posing as long as they were (submitted by a few different posters), and they chose not to, would you castigate them for an unhealthy sexual/body image?

I dont buy the argument that a child of 12 even in a digital age is fully aware of the future consequences of nude posing (whether for art or not). Whilst they may be more broadly exposed to different value-systems, they could not possibly be aware of all of the ways such art could count against them in future (imagine the press field-day with this if the child/ren in question ever ran for public office). Whilst this may have a lot to do with the ills of our society rather than any fundamental moral issue, its still the societial constraints that we live in and should take into account when judging the validity of such issues. The damage that the media may inflict on this child's sense of worth and self-esteem in the future is an important consideration - emotional abuse is as bad as any other form of abuse.

Country Gal:
"If nude photo's of a child are acceptable as art, then why dont we all have them in the family albums?"

Because most people don't have art pictures in their family albums.

"If you would be happy with your child posing..., and they chose not to, would you castigate them for an unhealthy sexual/body image?"

Absolutely not. It is anyone's right to be as exposed or private as they choose. It doesn't follow that just because one person is happy to pose naked, everyone should be.

Probably most people have seen that a couple of Henson's old models, who are now in adults, have spoken out in his defence today. See here: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/05/25/1211653846181.html

Steel,

My comments were directed at you, noone else. Your "90%" of posters usually manage to answer a straight question without resorting to abuse and rudeness. My comment is "deceitful"? You need time studying English instead of trying to smart talk others.

Stop being a twit. You don't know when enough is enough.

My special for the day is to let you have last say (which is what you probably want you poor thing).

So, go for it. Say what you like, and I won't respond

Vanilla,

Keep it up by all means, but be aware that the law does not see things the way you do. You can keep punching out your ideas on right and wrong as much as you wish. The law says that children must be protected from bad adults, idiot adults (including parents)and from themselves until they are old enough to make rational decisions for themselves.

After they reach their majority, they can do as they damn well please. Until then, they are protected from people like you who, while you might not be another Henson, have been supporting him most loudly.

The law wins over personal opinions on such matters every time.

I have to say that I am astounded by some of the posts here and the opinions expressed. What a divergence of views! One thing stands out for me and that's the inevitable bias promulgated by the religious devotees who have obviously been brainwashed into thinking that anything the bible says is sinful, so it must be that way

I am getting on in years now (well over 70)but memories of my youth were hardly "innocent" in the terms that most like to categorise children. By the time I was 10 there wasn't much I didn't know about the human body. Perhaps this was because the two boarding schools I attended in the UK had a very open and healthy attitude towards this sort of thing. Both schools had their own swimming pools and we always swam naked even in the sports events and we all considered it quite normal and certainly not sexual in any way, so from the age of 9 until I left school at 18, it was a breath of fresh air not to hide from puritanical and religious conservatism. Over the years I have posed for numerous art classes and am totally happy with the way I am naked or otherwise and feel it is only in the minds of the deviate that forces him/her to want all this censorship. It is impossible to legislate for all the minorities. It is that way we lose our freedom. So Steel,Morgan and particularly Vanilla and Fractelle, keep up the good work with your eloquent and articulate arguments

I was 12 years old when I presented my Religious Instruction teacher with an essay on why I had decided I was an agnostic, citing some of the many contradictions in the bible and that much of what was presented as truth was scientifically impossible.

I have not altered my opinion regarding religion, if anything I have simply become further convinced and am now an atheist regarding the god as described in the bible.

While that is a personal anecdote, and I have no idea how I would've felt about being asked to pose nude for an established artist at that age (I was very shy), I was by no means an devoid of any idea of consequences for my actions.

Many people who are aghast at the Henson photos are behaving as if the girl is a mental vacuum. While she is most certainly NOT sexually mature, neither were the photos sexually suggestive. Having viewed a couple, anyone thinking that these atmospheric photos are pornographic should seriously consider psychiatric help.

PS

MR Right, two points:

1. Law is subject to change
2. The law is an ass (Charles Dickens)

Oliver writes
'Some cultures cover-up: some cultures don't cover-up. Especially, say three hundred years ago, in less economically/technically, people often went naked. There was no guilt.'

Some cultures give their young daughters to uncles and some cultures sodomize their boys. And guess what? There is no guilt. So what does it say about this cultural practice?

Mr Right,

Perhaps. The law is subjective, and already prosecutors at the DPP are arguing over how the Queen v Henson might play out. Henson's pictures, as Fractelle points out, aren't sexually suggestive, so they can only be prosecuted if nudity itself is deemed sexual.

It's going to be fascinating, legally.

I'd also like to add that there's not one person posting on this board that I don't believe has the best interests of children as their primary consideration. There is enormous, enormous disagreement about how those interests are best served. They very fact that we are all here, furiously typing, and getting ourselves into knots of anguish proves that we want children to be protected.

I also think it's worth stressing yet again the point Gynx made above — you don't have to have a mucky mind to interpret these images as sexual.

I must say, I've never received so many insults in such a short space of time in my life. I make people sick to their stomachs, I'd be an unfit parent suitable to be interviewed by the police, I'm a pseudo-intellectual who's totally up myself, I'm heavy handed. I'm collecting them - keep 'em coming!

One thing a couple of people observe in me is a dislike of people disagreeing with me. Of course, you may think what you want, but I — ironically — disagree. I love dissent, and I'm really enjoying the way the whole country is suddenly talking about art and photography and Bill Henson and what's appropriate and inappropriate. Where we draw the line in the sand. Whatever we come up with, this discussion helps.

One thing I've learned about child sexual abuse of any kind is that one of the biggest challenges is disclosure — getting kids to admit it's happening to them. Disclosure is everything — once you know, you can catch the perp and stop them abusing. It seems to me this public conversation could possibly encourage some kids to tell others that they've experienced something inappropriate. I dunno, maybe it's wishful thinking, but you never know.

runner,

I am not saying sodomy is okay nor any perversions. I said that some society's do cover-up, whilst others don't. stop.

It would be inappropriate to go naked around a Western capital city. But in the remote highlands of New Guinea, perhaps it is okay. My point was that not all societies feel guilty about displaying their bodies. Genesis alludes humanity felt guilty about "guilty" and to original sin. When A&E were on their guilt trip, there may many a Pacific islander happy to have a dip in the wave in the-all-togther without any guilt or misbehaviour.

Of course, there are moral issues regarding actvities beyond this simply-stated anthropological fact.

Vanilla: << I'd also like to add that there's not one person posting on this board that I don't believe has the best interests of children as their primary consideration. There is enormous, enormous disagreement about how those interests are best served. They very fact that we are all here, furiously typing, and getting ourselves into knots of anguish proves that we want children to be protected.

I also think it's worth stressing yet again the point Gynx made above — you don't have to have a mucky mind to interpret these images as sexual. >>

Yes, very salient points indeed. This is clearly one of those issues about which people tend to respond viscerally first, then intellectually later. Perhaps we should all take a collective metaphorical deep breath.

Having said that, I think that the legal ramifications will indeed be fascinating. This is probably also a discussion that needs to be had, although I acknowledge that it pales into insignificance when compared with other issues with which we are faced in the contemporary world.

Also, as I've previously said on this thread or the parallel one - at least people are more generally talking about art and sexuality because of it. It's come up in conversation socially over the weekend, and at work today.

Interesting stuff indeed :)

*One thing I've learned about child sexual abuse of any kind is that one of the biggest challenges is disclosure — getting kids to admit it's happening to them.*

I certainly agree with that. Whilst child abuse is not my area of
expertise, all that I've read is that its been pretty common and
mostly involves somebody related to or known to the family, not
so much the paedophile down the road etc.

What has changed and is still changing is that today's kids grow
up with a more open mind to sexuality etc, unlike 50 years ago,
where they were told it was dirty, evil etc. etc. I gather that
even in schools, kids are taught to speak up, unlike years ago,
where anything to do with sexuality was hush hushed under the
carpet. It then continued and was common, exactly because
perpertrators got away with it.

The more that kids are taught to speak up, the more they are
protected by the fact that the perpertators will be exposed
and caught.

Fractelle,

When and if the law is changed, I will have to live with it as will you. The same applies now.

Vanilla,

The naked human body doesn’t do anything for me, irrespective of the age of the body: I’m more for a little bit of mystery, rather than being brutally confronted by someone starkers. My objections to nude photographs have nothing to do with anything sexual.

However, some might find the photographs sexually suggestive, even though you and Fractelle have proclaimed them not to be. I suppose that it’s a matter of opinion, but I still say that anyone who claims that naked bodies are ‘artistic’ is a bit suss.

As for the insults you have received, join the club, and remember that it was you who kicked off one of the discussions; if you don’t expect a bit off roughs stuff, don’t start discussions.

I will never agree with you, but I will say that you do go about things politely enough to make me regret my comment about your fitness to be a parent. I am obviously in no position to make such a comment, and I apologise for it

A bit late, but I'll take up Mr Right's challenge. As the parent of an 11-year-old girl, would I consent for her to pose nude for a photographer (even one as decent as Henson would seem to be) in a year or two? Definitely not as she's very immature emotionally (due to Asperger's syndrome).

However, I want her to grow up being proud of her body. Our society sexualises the body, while making most of us feel inadequate. Advertising seduces us with the promise of sexual allure, selling everything from 4WDs to toothpaste and moisturisers. It's hard to see the buffed model in his jocks, with shoulders like a side of beef, and not feel shabby. God knows what it's like for women.

I have always found Henson's images (with or without figures) rather bleak and disturbing. David Marr described them as creepy and I have to agree. But the visceral feelings they engender suggest to me that they're actually pretty accomplished art.

Henson's teenagers confront precisely because they are obviously not quite children any more. They're not adults either, but they soon will be. Regarding whether the art is exploitation or not, I suppose it comes down to informed consent by both model and parents.

But I think we have to get away from this incredible reticence about the body. The moral panic of this episode leaves me feeling depressed.

It's been stated elsewhere in the media that the most common items found in the raided homes of pedophiles are Target and K-Mart catalogues showing children in their underwear.
So, when does this part of the campaign begin?

Adults that display - DISPLAY - as art appreciation naked photographs of ACTUAL pre or pubescent teens in their homes have an immature and perverted mind. They obviously display it for some form of sexual pleasure. It is certainly not frehand art but an actual image of an actual child. Only fully mature bodies legally capable of sex are to be admired for their sexual beauty.

Obviously the guy is perverted by his action to expose nude images of an actual child's sexual parts to public display. Next he will display the child herself in a Public galleyr and cal it art.

Rache

'It's been stated elsewhere in the media that the most common items found in the raided homes of pedophiles are Target and K-Mart catalogues showing children in their underwear.'

The problem is that you believe this propaganda. Of course almost every household in Australia receives the trash from Kmart etc. The line begins when some pervert undresses a 12 or 13 year old child for gain and calls it art. I thought that was obvious without clouding it with another issue.

Runner,

I'm not one of those people who try and stop parents taking photos of their own kids at public sporting events or beaches because they "might be pedophiles taking photos to share on the Net".

Art, like porn - is in the eye of the beholder. The same photo (and there was only one photo in dispute - not the whole twenty-odd that were taken away) using a thirty year old woman would not be considered pornographic.

It's much tamer than what you see openly on display in Newsagents and on most TV programmes.

I understand that you may find it personally offensive and I sincerely and humbly respect that position.

It's the argument posed by some that it promotes and actually causes child molestation that I have a problem with.

Johnj,

What a sensitive and intelligent answer.

Johnj: "I have always found Henson's images (with or without figures) rather bleak and disturbing. David Marr described them as creepy and I have to agree. But the visceral feelings they engender suggest to me that they're actually pretty accomplished art.

Henson's teenagers confront precisely because they are obviously not quite children any more. They're not adults either, but they soon will be."

I agree absolutely — thank you for putting it so precisely. I think some people find these pictures disturbing not because they are sexual but because they are not. They are hard to read, and for that reason, rather scary.

"The moral panic of this episode leaves me feeling depressed."

Me too. It's hard for me not to agree with NGV chairman Allan Myers that this episode reflects our cultural immaturity.

"It's the argument posed by some that it promotes and actually causes child molestation that I have a problem with."

This sort of argument is outrageous, in part because of it's duplicity, but mostly because so many use it fallaciously on choice subjects and convince themselves that it's a perfectly acceptable argument.

For example, often on OLO advertising is evil according to many leftists/feminist types. Advertising for them is 'evil' and synonymous with mind control, and ironically their political agendas derive a lot of positive responses from people and policy makers they manipulate with such arguments.

Here is the fallacy though. You have films of all types promoting many 'criminal' acts. You have a variety of entertainment sources doing this. It's so prevalent in fact, that I find it almost unbelievable that the argument can so often be passed through to politicians and others without being rejected. Of course, it is used to promote *specific agendas* and there is the real reason for using the argument. The agendas almost without deviation are about promoting and increasing censorship.

For goodness sake, we live in a twisted world where child sexual abuse is rife. As adults it is our obligation to protect the children. Our children need to keep their clothes on it has to do with respect, morals and decorum.....It is as easy as that.

Children need to know that it is not okay for them to be naked in front of adults whether posing for pictures or not. If we say it is okay sometimes then we are putting our children at risk. It should never be okay for a young child to be posing naked. It is just WRONG....

Jolanda: << It is just WRONG.... >>

While there have been some reasonable but ultimately fallacious arguments advanced by the pro-censorship crowd, I think Jolanda expresses perfectly the intellectual level at which the 'moral panic' hysterics have responded to this beat-up - i.e. at a visceral, mindless level. Nude adolescents should not be artistically depicted because "It is just WRONG.... ". Truly deep.

Vanilla: << ...this episode reflects our cultural immaturity >>

I agree. What's depressing to me is that I had assumed that our society had generally moved on from the 1950s, but in so many ways I seem to be have been deluded. This current epidemic of neo-prudery is just one example.

Jolanda, you are mistaken. You've bought the media and church (no doubt you belong to one) lies, aided by both our recent Prime Minster's overt religious beliefs. And that is sad. Very sad.

>"For goodness sake, we live in a twisted world where child sexual abuse is rife."

No we don't and no it's not. I can only think you are basing your opinion on the media. Furthermore, this has nothing to do with the exhibition. It's a completely irrelevent statement.

>"As adults it is our obligation to protect the children. Our children need to keep their clothes on it has to do with respect, morals and decorum.....It is as easy as that."

Listen, bigot. Other people do not think nudity is sinful. Period. Your talk of "respect, moral and decorum" are entirely subjective..To me, you are extremely improper and disgraceful questioning the judgement of the teenager and her parents. How DARE YOU question their parenting.

>"Children need to know that it is not okay for them to be naked in front of adults whether posing for pictures or not."

Why? Nudity is perfectly normal and natural state. Posing for art or otherwise is a virtue and a grace.

>"If we say it is okay sometimes then we are putting our children at risk."

AT RISK OF WHAT?!?!

>"It should never be okay for a young child to be posing naked. It is just WRONG...."

If you can't elaborate why it's wrong you really need to ask yourself where you got the idea. If you can't present a good reason for that belief (like all your others that are found wanting) then you have no point, only an emotional reaction of a common bigot.

Don't you think your ideas, which date back to the dark ages, are outdated? Children are naked in all sorts of paintings commissioned by the christian/catholic church. You have no clue whatsoever about what you are talking about, Jolanda. you should know better than to believe the media and you should be of stronger character to resist it's propoganda.

IM not sure its a good thing to be telling you that are trying to protect this pervert ,but its only fair you realise [YOUR emails between each other are being monitored]

Yes john howard passed a special legislation in the name of securing the home land from terror ,so those emails you been sending each other will be linked at bills trial ,its funny how we change when we know we are being watched, so its best you guys get to know now before you get to confident.

But do as you will ,only the guilty will need to worry, no doudt the character referances given to support the pervert [sorry 'arteest''will no doudt get their comunixcations back dated ,

But such is progress eh dudes [those who collude to decieve should well know their tails cant be erased ,dont say you wernt told [but sure go dig your grave a little deeper ,colluding to decieve to commit gross human indecencies against or by using children in the name of art is over.

But do as you like [even if you think god isnt watching know the police are] ,the perversion party is over ,wether you know it yet or not.
three cheers eh

The only perversion here is your religion and the absolute crap that you think passes for logic and rational debate. You people have a mental disease or some real personal issues. Believing everyone else including yourself are innate 'sinners' can't be helping you though. Believeing in a god that killed all people on the planet, including babies and the unborn, and innocent animal life just for the hell of it can't be helping you make sense of reality either.

responding to steel[details-below]

who posted this

''The_only-perversion here-is your-religion and-the-absolute-crap that you-think passes for logic-and-rational debate.'''

[as you havnt adressed any one personally i presume you address this at-any-who believe in god],

Your defending nakid children being gazed at by ADULTS
as normal ,

and insult those chosing to believe in religion ,
[like your allowed to believe perversion on children is fine?]

and used crude language ,

then dare to call your words as passing for rational and logical debate?
[de bait?]

[Bro , your so_lost your-just using reverse logic trying to excuse the inexcusable]

'' You-people have-a mental-disease or some real-personal-issues.''

[please note by far most of the ''you-people'' in this particular debate are YouR people
[ie defending the acts of a pervert ,
who produces pictures of nakid children]

[and i agree the defenders of this perv Might have some really serious issues with following the rules of civil behaviour]

'' Believing-everyone-else including-yourself are innate 'sinners' can't be helping you though.''

[just as religion has been taken over by satanists and athiests [so has this thread been taken over by weight of numbers]

to presume churches cant drive away the meek by animalistic attacks is to pretend your colluded attack on those defending the rights of children over that of perverts hasnt driven the meek away from this thread as well]

'' Believeing in a-god that killed all-people on the planet, including babies and the unborn, and innocent animal life just for the-hell-of-it can't be helping-you-make sense-of reality either.''

[Steel, god is love
he gave all life their lives

death comes not from god
its not rocket science
god gives dust life

satanists
[served by ignorant athiests seek to turn all life back to dust]

god is life [live with it]

death and perversion come from man [freewill]
god dosnt destroy LIFE
this is athiest insanity bro
you dont get god

thus accept you think yourself a god]
but your not

[response to post as per poster below]
Posted by Steel, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 4:03:06 PM

This may appear convoluted but yes these pictures do make me uncomfortable. Does the fact that I’m a parent of daughters contribute, yes probably.

But when I think about it I’m also uncomfortable about feeling uncomfortable. Ideally a naked body shouldn’t elicit this response in me, especially if treated artistically. My partner is a budding artist and regularly photographs and paints nudes, none of which have made me feel ill at ease.

Links from other blogs discussing Bill Henson’s work illustrate many other celebrated artists photographing children naked. I don’t think that before this controversy I would have found them especially confronting, now I’m not so sure.

Is it all the talk of perverts and paedophiles? Probably, and ultimately this is what is so sad about this whole debate. I do resent not being able to photograph my daughters at swimming meets or school sports days but I understand it would make other parents uncomfortable, as admittedly it would me if someone else were doing the same.

What would need to happen to reduce this level of discomfort for all of us? I’m not quite sure, but I don’t think locking up Mr Henson is going to help.

Intentionally or otherwise I think he has succeeded in delivering me a vehicle for introspection, however I do recognise the other half of the equation was the wider community’s response.

I suppose that is one of the values of art.

Steel. I am sorry to disappoint you but I am not religious and everybody is a Bigot - don't we all believe what we believe.

I just am a mother, a parent of 4 children and I have loads of nieces and nephews and friends and both my husband I would say the same thing children need to be protected from perverts and that is why they should keep their clothes on......We do not live in a perfect world. That is just the way things are and it is the job of adults to protect the children from perverts, pedophiles, abuse and harm.

You my dear come across as a pervert. Whether you realise it or not.

It's the changing nature of our government and times. Much as I'd hoped these issues were being resolved, quite the opposite has happened. Religious people (including our representatives, are introducing a defacto theocracy under the guise of secularism. The only real opposition to gay marriage is religious, for example. It's purely a religious law. Same goes for stem cell research.

Now I found a quote to encapsulate the situation whereby it has now become acceptable to lock up artists for political purposes, like in places like China.

"The decision to remove the photographs was criticised by the gallery's former director, Audray Banfield. "They were pandering to hysteria," she said. ".................and [Bill henson] has been doing it for 25 years.""

Now if you care to absorb that point for one second. The man has been doing this for 25 years, without any problems. And now because secular and moderate Australians have been manipulated into vote for religious leaders in both major parties, you have a situation in which artists are being locked up for no other reason than politics and religious purposes. Religious persecution of artists and scientists has been a problem throughout history, but it's simply amazing that it is happening right now without the knowledge of most Australians.

Religious groups have exploited weaknesses in the system to promote their agendas, by disguising their motives behind common, secular-appearing organisations. Many of them are Catholics, who hold a foreigner in the form of the Pope in higher regard and authority htan their own country.

Well Steel I agree with you about government opposition to gay marriage and about most ethical medical dilemmas but I don't think the reaction to Henson is due to religious hysteria as many of those who don't approve of using underage children as nude models are atheists.

You are also generalising about religious people, not all religious people think the same. The Anglicans have just appointed their first woman Bishop and some religious people are arguing for rights for gay couples. I would agree that there is a way to go.

Cross-posted from the parallel thread:

Those who are interested in this topic may wish to know that ABC1 TV has a feature about Bill Henson on Artscape tonight at 10pm.

"What's depressing to me is that I had assumed that our society had generally moved on from the 1950s, but in so many ways I seem to be have been deluded. This current epidemic of neo-prudery is just one example."

To me, CJ, the fact that society today is so different to that of the 1950's is the very reason we're having this debate. If we were having this discussion in the '50's or even up until the early '90's I would have pretty much agreed with the views put forward by yourself, Vanilla, Fractelle et al and in fact probably wouldn't have had a strong opinion either way.

The world has moved on however and is far from the comparatively innocent place it once was. A lot of the arguments you frame I feel fit an idealised world far removed from the no holds barred and predatory jungle that is fast becoming reality for so many young children today. I'm no Hetty Johnson supporter and don't at all agree with her single-minded and simplistic pursuit of perpetrators, but I don't think anyone here could reasonably argue that society today is not facing an unprecedented epidemic of child pornography, molestation and sexual exploitation.

In this environment I think it was either naive or reckless of Henson to proceed into this avenue of photography. He was playing with fire and he knew it. He must have known the reaction he would provoke. I see it as arrogance on his part that he considers himself to have the perfect right to publicly display photos of naked children, whatever the intent, while he knows full well that millions of far less artistic photos of similarly unclothed children are circulating unabated around the world, creating potential danger for every child as a result.

I guess it could be said that his broaching of the subject is fighting fire with fire. I just think it would have been better all round if the man had had the good sense not to go there.

Bronwyn: "In this environment I think it was either naive or reckless of Henson to proceed into this avenue of photography. He was playing with fire and he knew it. He must have known the reaction he would provoke. I see it as arrogance on his part that he considers himself to have the perfect right to publicly display photos of naked children, whatever the intent, while he knows full well that millions of far less artistic photos of similarly unclothed children are circulating unabated around the world, creating potential danger for every child as a result."

I understand exactly the point you're trying to make re the signs of the times, even though I disagree with it. If it is a predatory jungle, I don't believe Henson contributed.

But I would make this point — as many of his detractors would love to point out, Henson lives in a rarefied world of artmakers. He started on this project thirty years ago. Since then, he's sold to galleries worldwide, he's represented Australia at the Venice Biennale, he's a major retrospective at the Art Gallery of New South Wales. Reputable collectors everywhere own his pieces, including the man who will probably be the next Liberal PM, Malcolm Turnbull.

He is quite possibly naive and reckless and arrogant. So are lots of people, and most of them are artists. But I also think he would have good reason to argue that Australia has lauded his work and given him its imprimatur to continue on the path he was clearly headed.

Why is he suddenly unacceptable? Is it just the times that have changed? If so, how do you alert artists that they need to change their work? How do you justify that?

No.A naked teenager is NOT a sin.Has never been and never will be.The image can possess its own aesthetics, yes, certainly...

BUT
it is simplistic thinking, it is theorising on aesthetics in a social context that is fragmenting and in which a naked teenager is extremely vulnerable.Every work of art has its own audience of viewers.And herein lies the problem because such a viewing community also has its paedophiles.It is no use disclaiming that that is such a pity but an irrelevant postscript to the discussion.
NO it is NOT.There has to come a point where life is considered sacred,and what is more important than the wellbeing of a child.Anyone child and who even resembles one of the models becomes a target. I wonder what Cate Blanchett would say if she was asked to allow her pubescent daughter to be a model for a nude portraiture.
Would she be happy to expose her child to the inherent dangers ?
I doubt it very much.

I've posted my view on the other thread, running in stereo, it would seem, to this one.

I will address any observations or responses to my view there.

basically, censorship is never good.

Art is often acceptable while some may find it in bad taste.

Deciding on someones moral worth, based on the bad or good taste of the art they enjoy, quantifies how 'small' some folk are if they feel justified in being judgmental of the subjective values of others

Vanilla

"Why is he suddenly unacceptable? Is it just the times that have changed? If so, how do you alert artists that they need to change their work? How do you justify that?"

You're right, I guess there's no real mechanism for alerting artists that they might be pushing their art in a direction running counter to the broader social good. I'm as uncomfortable as you are with the idea of police raids and charging artists with criminal offences. But if an artist's inner ethical compass isn't working for whatever reason some action on the part of the state is in my view necessary.

I don't particularly like censorship. It's a blunt instrument and one which often delivers outcomes contrary to those intended. But I do believe society needs a way to rein in corporations, scientists, politicians, artists and anyone else whose work impacts on the public good when they err and cause public harm as has occurred in this case.

I guess all the people really have is the democratic process, however slow and clumsy. We have to exercise our vote and use the law and the media to protect our interests when needed. Whether it's the scientist who invented the atomic bomb, or the politician who wanted to drop it on innocent people, or the corporation marketing pole dancing kits to young girls or the photographer exhibiting images of naked prepubescent girls there are times in my opinion where an individual's freedom has to be curtailed for the good of society as a whole.

As a democracy we invest power in our government to create the sort of society we all want to live in, so ultimately I do see a role for government in this area. I know this response will create as many questions as it gives answers but I just can't agree with the total hands off approach that you and others advocate.

Bronwnyn: "I know this response will create as many questions as it gives answers but I just can't agree with the total hands off approach that you and others advocate."

It's an excellent response. I always prefer questions to answers myself.

I really don't advocate a hands off approach. I agree with you that sometimes we need to curtail individual freedoms. I am happy, for example, for whatever committee that decides these things to ban pole dancing kits for tweens. I am — believe it or not — against the sexualisation of children. BUT I also believe those limits are true lines in the sand, and I am mistrustful of anyone who is insistent about knowing where the lines lie. I honestly don't get how some people are so sure of Bill Henson's impact without knowing his work. It is dark, arty. Even though the kids are naked, there's not vaginas to see — as others keep pointing out, it really is far less fodder for the freaks than the average Target catalogue. My experience of Bill Henson's art over the years puts him so way on the good side of the line in the sand that this blunt-instrument-attack on his work makes me think the attack is on art rather than pedeophilia. That's why — among other reason — I am so strident about my position.

I'm over being strident on this forum, but you have so thoughtfully set out your own position that I just wanted to clarify I'm not arguing for some licentious free-for-all.

Vanilla, thanks for your kind words.

I am bemused by the notion that all this fuss is about "protecting children". Perhaps someone could explain to me how wall-to-wall publication of these images is "protecting" the child models in question? The Age for example has posted an image here http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/the-controversial-career-of-bill-henson/2008/05/24/1211183189567.html (don't follow this link if nudity offends). The ABC TV news showed the same image (with a pixelated face and black bar over the chest) this evening. It seems there's a prurient fascination, which the media is feeding on (and also gratifying).

I look forward with dread to the court case. I can only presume that we will get an obscenity trial, with the models and parents (as well as the artist and gallery owners) being given a thorough public humiliation, before it is thrown out. Hetty Johnson, who brought the complaint, is doing nothing of value for these children.

I'm just off now to get a paper bag for my head. Or better yet, I'll dress my 11-year-old in a burka. Or maybe I'll just turn the TV and computer off....

Vanilla

"BUT I also believe those limits are true lines in the sand, and I am mistrustful of anyone who is insistent about knowing where the lines lie."

At least I now know you agree with me about that line in the sand. I wasn't sure you did as you've always been such a fierce defender of freedom of expression.

Hopefully, you too can see that I'm not insistent and all-knowing about where that line is drawn, far from it.

It just goes to show the common ground that can be established when opponents on an issue engage in calm and rational dialogue, doesn't it?

"I'm over being strident on this forum."

Don't go soft on us though, will you! We need your passion and your strong ideas.

Unfortunately PaulL., you read my posts literally and don't seem to understand parallel reasoning and it's value. ( i make a post here because of the stupid comment limit)

1. The content of a photograph doesn't change depending on who holds it (isn't that obvious?). The catalogue was merely a parallel argument of logic. Read my comment several times carefully if you can't think in this way.

2. Of course you are not going to retroactively do anything. This was a mere illustration of the stupidity. You would have me believe that a naked child painted on the Sistine Chapel would be different from painting the exact same child onto a church here, now. Why? Because "they had different values back then"? If you are confused, then that is good, because it's idiotic.

3. "It truly does take a village to raise a child." Spoken like a true socialist! Aren't your proud. You have no business raising anyone else's child and the state certainly doesn't either. Anyone lays a finger on my children or teach them lies and they will get a solid thumping. Still, since you believe this (like a true socialist) when can I begin raising your daughter?

4. This again was an illustation. I did state to the effect that society expected far more advanced thought from young people, but like always, you have terrible reading comprehension or you ignore the "difficult parts" of my posts.

5. I didn't say this. and you talk about strawmen? Hilarious. I did say that it is normal to view a naked child in a non-sexual manner. However since you see them sexually perhaps like I said before you are a pedophile? Seriously