Artist or pornographer? - maybe neither.

I don't know much about Henson so cannot comment about his own motives, artistic or otherwise. As an amateur student of art I have sketched nude models on a number of occasions without blinking an eye. The human body is beautiful in all its various shapes and forms and I know that those who support the work might place this exhibition in that category. I would disagree.

I find this work to be disquieting to say the least. We are not talking about adults but children and like PaulL, Foxy and Ginx I am uneasy about this exhibition. Images of naked children, no matter how artistically posed or creatively photographed, move into that whole sexualisation of children category that I know you are all so fond of hearing about in other threads. :)

I would not like to comment about the artists's intentions - he appears to have some artistic talent but I would suggest this talent would better be served using another outlet. One wonders if this exhitibiton was meant to shock or if he was naive in his expectations of the public.

In my view, art is often at its best when it is confronting but not when children are exploited in this manner.

It was interesting to note that in tonight's news that 'random' street interviews reflected more outrage from the younger participants than from those more in my age group (the younger late 40s) so I don't think it is necessarily a generational thing.

Foxy: "I've studied Art History for more than five years..."
Pelican: "I would not like to comment about the artists's intentions - he appears to have some artistic talent but I would suggest this talent would better be served using another outlet."

You both seem confident in your artistic judgment. And yet as an "amateur student of art" (Pelican) and someone who's studied art for five years (Foxy), it's a bit weird that you don't know Bill Henson. He's VERY famous. I've never studied art beyond first year uni, but I love it and have tried to learn as much as I can in the past decade and I do go to exhibitions regularly, and I would have thought it would have been hard to ignore Henson in the last ten years.

Fractelle, good points all.

For those people who have heard of Piss Christ but aren't exactly sure what it might look like, here it is. I think it's beautiful: http://lickerish.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/serrano-andres-piss-christ-1987.jpg

Ginx: "I feel absolutely no need to qualify why I find this 'art' offensive."
And, indeed, you haven't justified it, so you have proved that point. Onya.

I responded to this on the other thread, but you've added more to this thread. You mention rape — do you think rape is involved? Are you saying pedophiles can put a frame around sexual pictures of children and pass it off as art? If you believe this, have you any examples? "...By definition it should do." Are you saying putting a frame around a picture defines it as art? How, then, do you define art? Or how do you think others define it?

From your last paragraph, I'm getting you don't like artists who are not broad in their vision, you don't liken art w@nkers, and you feel the argument pro-Henson is "condemnation" of alternative views. Is that it?

Regardless of whether the material ultimately refers pornography or not by context of expression and/or whether or not society is transferring it's anxieties about pedeophilia onto this work, the fact at the heart of the matter is that 12 year old girls should not; (with and/or with out parental consent)be posing nude before any adult, acclaimed photographer or artist or not, for any reason.

Those who do not want it to be called what it is art seem driven by fear.
Yes we fear miss use by pedophiles but we are not talking about that surely?
Surely art is art? the human body is not something strange to us and it is not dirty maybe Christian morals play a part here it is art and unless the kids did not want to take part no crime in it.

There's a big difference between acknowledging that some art makes people feel "uneasy" and demanding that an exhibition be banned and the artist charged with a criminal offence.

I'm quite astonished at the philistinism expressed by some people here.

I’m outraged at this police action.

There is another significant aspect to this, apart from the thuggish enforcement of morals that would be much better left alone entirely.

This is the fact that Henson has had at least one similar exhibition about three years ago with no complaints, after being viewed by some 65 000 people, and has indeed been producing similar stuff for years…which effectively means that the law, police and society had condoned his work as being within the legal boundaries.

It is difficult to determine just where the boundaries are with this sort of thing. But once they have been established, as they are with legal precedents in a court of law, then they need to be adhered to…..and people need to NOT be punished if they are acting within them.

The police would argue that they didn’t act the first time because there wasn’t a complaint. But I doubt that they could argue that the first exhibition was any less infringing of morals or law.

They would have known, or damn well should have known, that this earlier major exhibition was perhaps a little on the edges of legality and needed to be checked out. The absence of a complaint was no excuse.

It is NOT acceptable for the police to have let the 2004 exhibition ride, only to greatly tarnish the reputation of Henson…and the Art Gallery of NSW, and lay serious charges in 08. You can bet that the gallery at least, and presumably Henson as well, would have been very sensitive to the prospect of legal problems. They foresaw none, or at least not to the extent of having the exhibition skittled and charges laid. The history of both the artist and the gallery had led them to believe that all was above board this time.

The police action is duplicitous in the extreme. One of my great bug-bears is inefficient, duplicitous, long-time-blind-eye-then-bloody-big-stick-for-just-the-same-thing approach to policing.

I think the police will be the laughing stocks here, and the reputation of Henson and the Gallery will be strengthened as a result.