Paul.L: << Are you suggesting that it is OK for a pedophile to have photos of naked kids in the same poses as Hensons >>

I've seen the pictures, and they could only be construed as 'pornographic' by someone who projects their own warped sexuality on to the images. If a paedophile was only in possession of images similar to those produced by Bill Henson, then I imagine that they would be very hard to convict on the basis of that evidence alone, since they are not pornographic images.

If, however, the paedophile was also in possession of actual child pornography, as well as a collection of Target and K-mart catalogues, then I imagine that the Henson-type images might be supporting evidence of an unhealthy obsession with children (or at least images of them).

Paul.L seems to me to be protesting just that little bit too much about this issue, as opposed to more reasonable people who have expressed their reservations about Henson's art somewhat more temperately. He's not a religious fundy like others who are similarly hysterical, so I'm wondering what his problem really is with this art.

Paul has said that he'd have no problem with 16 year-old models posing nude, but as far as I'm aware they are classified as children in all Australian jurisdictions. Why is it OK for them to pose as nude artistic models when it's not for 13 year-old models? Is there some basis for this beyond Paul's arbitrary assessment?

Ludwig that wasn't my intention. We are bound to be in disagreement on some things and I do not mistake when people disagreeing with me on something agree with me on others. I accept it as a rule in fact that most people will agree with only one thing i may say, but i do hope that they firmly believe in that one point. What I meant was in my response, it is better to come from a private perspective and acknowledge that others may disagree with you. In other words, what you said is unacceptable -for yourself- and that's fine. But it sounded to me as though you believed your private concerns and beliefs should be carried over to SBS policy and enforced on everyone...then no one who disagreed with you could see the content they feel entitled to see in a pluralist democracy. They can't opt in if it isn't available in the first place. But you can certainly opt out at any time by turning off the television; buying one that can be programmed and locked, for example. There are solutions to these problems that don't have to infringe on others.

The ABC programme on Henson was very interesting for those who missed it. His work is beautiful. Very moving.

The beauty and heartbreaking vulnerability depicted in those photo's, I felt, portrayed so well how as a parent I've looked at my now adult sons when they were that age and now my 13 year old daughter.

Yes, it certainly stirred up feelings, a mixture of sorrow, the age of their childhood is almost over; and anticipation, what kind of a woman or man will they grow up to be.

Would sensibilities be less disturbed if Henson used paint instead of a camera to create his pictures?

Yvonne i have no doudt that bill has done some work that stirs people, isnt it great how people can be 'stirred; by images, thats fine BUT taking and making earnings from a 13 year old to make a living is morally bankrupt

Heson defenders have made intresting distractions ,but the fact remains they are defending the right of perversions to be called art

Think of it this way [his defenders brought in religion ] so i will talk about perverted priests ,no one is saying they molestered every child they came across [nor the fact they did much good work as priests ,in caring for grieving or the poor etc [whatever good priests do

BUT when they molestered the children they crossed out all the good they PREVIOUSLY may have done [just like a rapist MAY well have been reasonable ALL his [or her life , BUT he is in court fot that one single rape that he did as well.

Think of a rabid dog ,that only bites ONE person getting the needle,

Or the good samariton killing only one person

Its that step too far ,That last straw ,that line that gets crossed

We are talking about photo's of a nakid child ,

Anyone who thinks that is a good thing is only excusing their own feelings about the matter
[not the child who must live with a trick adults played on her before she reached the age of concent]

Photo's are arround forever ,
children are only young once[and yes foolish once]

To think full concent can be given by a living art work in process is perverse

One day in the name of art we will document a rape
[will it be art
[NO]
seems anything goes if its in the name of art
well it dont

live with it
get over it
the line was crossed.

Do the crime
Do the time
just like any kid caught with a joint
ignorance is no excuse

CJ,

Your answer to my question was not even remotely to the point. Are you saying “Yes” its OK for a pedophile to have photos similar to those Henson takes?

So you would be OK with your neighbours taking pictures of your daughter naked if she was OK with it? Is that right?

Your target and Kmart catalogue reference is just more evidence of your inability to discuss the real issue. Like your pathetic remarks about Chloe and your art books.

Less than half the people surveyed by the SMH thought that Hensons work was acceptable. So you can pretend, if you want, that I am in a minority position. It is irrelevant to me anyway. I don’t want to be popular I want to be right. http://www.smh.com.au/polls/national/results.html

I think that it is you who is protesting too much. And that you are the one who wants to see nude photos of other people’s children. Steel is getting so uptight with his and his capitalized sentences that it appears he is nearly apoplectic

Whilst I don’t suggest that these photos are “pornographic” as such, I do feel that they are inappropriate. The artist himself admitted that the reason that the photos are interesting is that they are capturing a time in a child’s development when they are becoming aware of their sexuality. So your pretence that there is nothing sexual about these pictures is demonstrably false.

The state considers that a 16 year old is old enough to decide for themselves whether they want to have sex. I therefore think that if they are old enough to have sex, then they are old enough to decide for themselves whether they want to be photographed naked. I wouldn't be keen for my daughter to do it, but I wouldn't oppose anyone else.

My point is that a 13 year old is still a child, legally speaking, and therefore can't actually give real consent.

Paul.L: << So you would be OK with your neighbours taking pictures of your daughter naked if she was OK with it? Is that right? >>

Paul.L is either being obtuse, stupid, or something else... If my neigbours happened to be reputable, bona fide artists, then yes. I've said that before a couple of times.

<< So your pretence that there is nothing sexual about these pictures is demonstrably false. >>

I didn't say there was nothing sexual about the pictures - I say that they're not pornographic. All humans are 'sexual' - at no age is any normal human androgynous nor asexual. There's nothing wrong with art that explores the transitional stage between childhood and sexual maturity, as long as it does so tastefully, which Henson's art does in my opinion.

<< The state considers that a 16 year old is old enough to decide for themselves whether they want to have sex. I therefore think that if they are old enough to have sex, then they are old enough to decide for themselves whether they want to be photographed naked >>

Paul seems confused here. Why is the age of consent for having sex relevant to that of models posing nude for a reputable artist? They are subjects of works of art, not partners in sexual activity. Paul has claimed that this issue isn't about nudity, then goes on to equate "nakedness" with having sex.

At any rate, I think he'll find that he's actuall legally wrong if he bothers to investigate the matter rather than trying to shout down hysterically anybody who disagrees with him - 16 year-olds can indeed consent to having sex under certain conditions in most jurisdictions (but only heterosexual sex, and not with adults), but they are still legally children.