Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[.]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/henson-show-charges/2008/05/23/1211183060208.html  (i particularly like the student quotes from a blog on the second page of the article - great spelling )

In case you haven't caught the news today, an Aussie artist, Bill Henson - and the gallery that housed his works - are expected to be charged with some kind of public indecency charge for taking naked pictures of a 13 year old girl.

artsy fartsy types are crying censorship.

wowsers are crying child porn.

i'm leaning more towards the wowser end of the spectrum, legally, but when you look at it in the bigger picture, it does highlight how we have, as a society, become to solely equate nakedness with sexuality.

so. what are your thoughts?

[Thaluikhain]

Surely he'd have checked this out beforehand?  Asked a lawyer?

I mean, did he not think that naked kids might get possibly get him into trouble?

[Bookworm.]

Initially I thought: Who's parents would let them pose naked at age 13?! Maybe the issue should lie somewhere in there.

Then I saw shots of the pictures and realised that they were just pics of a human body. They may have been 'sexualised', but I can see their artistic value.

Another issue: When does a body become too old to take pics of naked? What I mean by that, is that no one has an issue of naked baby snaps, and even 2-3 year olds no one really has an issue with. When does it stop being cute and start being pornography?

[.]

that's a really good point bookster.

i even have a pic of me around 8 or 9 in the bath.

is it when your "bits" start to develop?

[Bookworm.]

Maybe. But then again, everyone is different, and everyone develops differently.

I mean, if you are a fat kid, you are more likely to have what looks like boobs....does that mean you can't have your pic taken without your top off for fear of pornography? Despite the fact that technically you many be pre-pubsecent? Or does it provide the illusion of maturity?

[Phenolphthalein]

I reckon they're just being oversensitive. I can see the artistic value in the photography, otherwise it wouldn't have made it to the gallery in the first place.

They're saying it's pornography because some people in the world like jacking off to kids, right?

So what are they going to start banning any naked pictures of people (infants, adult and elderly) because they could possibly be used as pronography??

[Thaluikhain]

I can see the artistic value in the photography, otherwise it wouldn't have made it to the gallery in the first place.

Erm...


Actually, though, wasn't that part of the condemnation...that the nude kids had no artistic merit, which implies that it'd be ok if they did?

[Phenolphthalein]

Actually, though, wasn't that part of the condemnation...that the nude kids had no artistic merit, which implies that it'd be ok if they did?

What??

[Thaluikhain]

Well, I first founout about this in a copy of MX (I'd like to say that I was forced, at gunpoint, like, by the SAS into reading it).

Someone made the point about it not having artistic merit or something.  Which implies it'd be at leastr defensible if it did.

[Phenolphthalein]

Okay, well can't comment on the aesthetic value of it until I see some of the pictures.... But aren't the pictures looked at by some art people before they enter the gallery though?

[Thaluikhain]

True...but there's a certain sort of art person I wouldn't trust to find their backsides with a map and a mirror.

[Lexii-]

I saw this on the Today show this morning. They were asking Rudd his opinion of it, and he hadn't yet seen them so you got his initial reaction "That.Is.Revolting."

[Thaluikhain]

Name me any elected politician who'd dare say anything else.

[Invisible Friend.]

What do they look like anyways?

[Invisible Friend.]

Don't worry, found them.

EDIT: Gah.