Paul: “...why do we feel the need to sexualise 12 year olds, even latently?”
But Henson isn't sexualising the kids in his photos.

I'd also add that, as children, we *are* latent sexual beings, whether we like it or not — our sexuality is always there, lurking and waiting to consume us when our internal timetable flicks its switch. At a day old, a girl baby has all the eggs within her that she’ll ever need — the germs of the generation she will produce. The very reason sex exists is sitting inside her. Henson has created a dark, fairytale world where adolescence holds within it everthing that lays in wait — not just sex, but adult pain and joy as well. Henson's work is complicated and the people in it are complicated, it’s weighty. This is art that is supposed to make you uneasy — not “shock” you, but return you to the limbo between childhood and adulthood. It is adolescent-centric, not adult-centric. It has nothing in common with a cheap sexual thrill.

Paul: “Indeed i find it extremely unhealthy that people are interested in looking at a 12 year old naked.”
Why? Aren’t twelve-year-olds beautiful? Isn’t any human being? For a comprehensive look at children — clothed and naked — in art, see: http://art.childrenincinema.com/ And what exactly is it that is “unhealthy” about my appreciation of the art of Bill Henson or Sally Manne? Are you accusing me of getting off on it sexually? Because I really don’t. Or is it something else?

I also love the crinkly, papery skin of the elderly — even in the nuddy. Is that unhealthy too?

If we censor ourselves and our artists because we are afraid pedophiles might find their artwork erotic, then the pedophiles are — quite literally — defining the limits of our art. We cannot let them rule us.

Loved your post Celivia; family photos of kids in the nude are commonplace and a wonderful reminder of what true innocence is. Loved the boy peeing video - I think some people on this forum really need to lighten up.

Whereas the current 'sturm und drang' over Henson's art is absurd given that anyone can key 'child model' into Google and be overwhelmed by deliberate sexploitation images.

I'm betting that by this time next year Henson's thoughtful images will be back on display. Unfortunately I don't think that people will be any more enlightened about sex either

Fractelle,

You say>>” Taking photos of children naked and sexualising them are completely different”

But then you say. >> “What is wrong is our attitudes to our bodies and our denial of our sexual natures.

You are totally contradicting yourself. You just finished saying that the photos aren’t sexualising children and then you suggest we aren’t comfortable with our sexual natures.

Wrong, what most of us aren’t comfortable with is the sexualisation of children.

BTW I bring up the Muslim cartoons to contrast them with the reaction to Piss Christ.

CJ,

You say>> “In my opinion, a Bratz doll is more offensive than Henson's photographs.

Well we all knew you were a moron but it always nice to have the evidence. Whats the saying, o yeah, “its better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you’re an idiot, than open your mouth and prove it.”

You suggest I have something in common with pedophiles by objecting to these pictures? Sorry, I’m not the one enjoying pictures of naked 12 year old girls, mate.

Just because you soft left nancies can’t see the wood for the trees, doesn’t mean they aren’t there. I’ve seen the media images of the photos that the Police took away with them. They are unpleasant and unnecessary.

As for being a wingnut, I take solace that I hold a position that the Prime minister, the Police and a whole host of respectable people have taken. You and the art bunch have the Man Boy Love association and the rest of the pedophiles in your corner.

Regarding the mohammed cartoons, as I said above, I was responding to Vanilla bringing up Piss Christ, which only had value in offending Christians. In discussing the cartoons I was making a point, not about muslims, but about soft left, PC regurgitating, grievance mongers like yourself.

This whole business unnecessarily muddies the waters during prosecution of pedophiles, since they could conceivably argue that what they were doing is Art.

Artists should stay away from sexual depictions of children, its one of the few remaining taboos for very good reasons.

To look at these photographs and see only naked bodies is to miss the point entirely. Anyone seeing only nakedness is only looking for nakedness.

A lot of Henson's work depicts young people dealing with the difficulties of life, which is what this series is about - girls learning to live with their bodies. They're not about your or me or perverts or Kevin Rudd.

We all love yapping on about our own moral outrage, but the photos are asking us to stop and consider whose bodies we're trying to police, why it is that we pile shame on young people already in a difficult stage of life, how hard it is for the owners to live inside their own skins. That so many are prepared to get hysterical about this promotes the idea that young girl bodies are shameful, dirty, pervert bait.

Girl bodies exist. So do perverts who get off on looking at shoes, or elbows, or earlobes, or letterboxes. Apparently we should ban imagery of girl bodies in case perverts see them. Maybe if there hadn't been so many photos of the twin towers it wouldn't have occurred to anybody to fly planes into them.

Henson's an artist. It's up to the viewer to understand the message. Clearly that's beyond some people.

Very well said Chainsmoker. I think that's really the core point here.

" 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?"
Posted by Vanilla, Saturday, 24 May 2008 11:57:39 PM
______________________________

I don't think I've got all the quote I wanted, but I'm too exhausted to care.

Let me make one thing crystal clear to you, Vanilla. I find you to be the most pseudo intellectual poster on the forum, with the most condescending attitude to those who have the temerity to disagree with your lofty smart ideals.

Just who in the hell do you think you are talking to with that last paragraph??
Jeez!; you really are up yourself.

I wish I had the time to respond as I'd like at this moment, but I cannot.
I have somewhat of a tiny little problem that must be addressed immediately.

I have a tad more to say on this subject, and feel certain that you and I will engage further.

That is a given.

This will have to suffice for both threads. I have to go