Photographer Bill Henson exhibition under investigation Posted: 6 months ago by AutumnLotus
Public pressure has forced a Sydney gallery to cancel the opening night of an exhibition featuring photographs of naked 12 and 13 year olds just before the doors were due to open.
Comments: 15 Score: [-] 333 [+].
< 1 >
Posted: 6 months ago by Maven:
Interesting...None of the pics shown look to be sexual to me. Some are sad, but sexual? Did the photographer have consent from the parents? There just doesn't seem to be anything overtly offensive to me in any of the images they showed.
Score: [-] 138 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by DoggySpew:
Nudity does not equal pornography. This might be controversial, but what about those nude paintings from the middle ages ?
Score: [-] 130 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by stjenn:
4&6 are very sexual. Number 4 is downright vulgar.And number 7 is very mature for such a little girl. I mean this isn't Miley Cyress with tussled hair and her back out on Vanity Fair, it is something totally different. They are very grown up images for such young subjects. No not all nudity is pornographic, and not all nudity is vulgar but...... I don't know maybe I am just not smart enough to get it.
Score: [-] 48 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by BLANSETTBABE:
How the hell is that art? It's pictures of naked young girls. Even if they were 18 I wouldn't call it art. I guess I'm not culturally aware enough to see it. How can you even compare this to nude paintings. First of all, nude paintings were PAINTED, not photographed. That actually took talent. Plus it was from an entirely different time and place, where some things (like nudity),were more commonly accepted. In all the nude paintings I have ever seen, I didn't notice many of the subjects being pre-teens, but whatever, maybe I'm just not artsy enough to see it.
Score: [-] 22 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by Maven:
No, there isn't anything sexual about the poses. You may be extending the position to something outside of the frame, but that's not what is in the picture, that comes from you.
Is a naked child sitting in a bathtub sexual? Of course, it could be sexualized, but the thousands of parents that take those pics each day don't see that--they see their happy child splashing in the water. Does intent change the image? You opened those pages expecting to see something sexual, so there it is. The same can be done with a lamp or fruit, yes? Does that make it pornography? The Supreme Court touted the "I'll know it when I see it" attitude...So where does the sexual aspect come from?
The media--photography--shouldn't be relevant. If I draw something graphic, without the use of a model, it's still just as graphic! Learning to frame and light a subject to portray emotion, to grab the viewer, is a skill and a talent. Tell the photographer at the next wedding you're at that they don't have talent, see how well received your comment is. Hope you don't like the couple very much--they're likely paying big bucks for some hack to just snap a few frames.
Score: [-] 139 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by melgesevad:
Under the law, something that may be lawfully and rightfully censored should "appeal to prurient interest." This is not appealing to prurient interest, nor does it display the genitals, graphic sexual acts, or excretory functions.
Actually, the funny thing is that most of the porn that exists, is really illegal, but under Bush, prosecution of porn producers has gone down because the administration has been preoccupied with other things (war, spying on its civilians, etc.)
Ironically, under Clinton, there were more prosecutions for obscene material than under Bush.
Score: [-] 76 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by BLANSETTBABE:
« melgesevad : Under the law, something that may be lawfully and rightfully censored should "appeal to prurient interest." This is not appealing to prurient interest, nor does it display the genitals, graphic sexual acts, or excretory functions.
. Look again, one of the pictures does show the genitals.
Score: [-] 0 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by BLANSETTBABE:
« Maven : No, there isn't anything sexual about the poses. You may be extending the position to something outside of the frame, but that's not what is in the picture, that comes from you.
Is a naked child sitting in a bathtub sexual? Of course, it could be sexualized, but the thousands of parents that take those pics each day don't see that--they see their happy child splashing in the water. Does intent change the image? You opened those pages expecting to see something sexual, so there it is. The same can be done with a lamp or fruit, yes? Does that make it pornography? The Supreme Court touted the "I'll know it when I see it" attitude...So where does the sexual aspect come from?
The media--photography--shouldn't be relevant. If I draw something graphic, without the use of a model, it's still just as graphic! Learning to frame and light a subject to portray emotion, to grab the viewer, is a skill and a talent. Tell the photographer at the next wedding you're at that they don't have talent, see how well received your comment is. Hope you don't like the couple very much--they're likely paying big bucks for some hack to just snap a few frames. I never said that is was sexual, I said that I didn't see it as art. Really what emotion was being expressed in these photos. I said what I said about talent because this obviously took none. I could take a $1000 camera and photograph children in an empty room naked and get pictures with the same quality. I wouldn't call it art though. Bathtub pics aren't put up in museums and touted as being art. They are put in parent's photo albums to be looked at once the kid is grown either to embarass the heck out of the kid, or just so that mom can reminisce about when her baby was so little and cute. Don't put words in my mouth though, I never said it was porn, I said that in my opinion, this isn't art.
Score: [-] 0 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by melgesevad:
« BLANSETTBABE : Look again, one of the pictures does show the genitals. Well, not in a manner appealing to prurient interest though. If she were spreading them with her fingers, that would be grounds for obscenity and a label of child porn.
Really, the definition of obscenity is a community definition, not one held by a few individuals. As societies change, so do their ideas of what is obscene.
Score: [-] 77 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by BLANSETTBABE:
« melgesevad : Well, not in a manner appealing to prurient interest though. If she were spreading them with her fingers, that would be grounds for obscenity and a label of child porn.
Really, the definition of obscenity is a community definition, not one held by a few individuals. As societies change, so do their ideas of what is obscene. Sorry, I thought you were saying that the genitals weren't shown at all, not that they weren't shown in an obscene way. I don't want to start an argument, but I do think that in our society showing a 12 year old's genitals is obscene whether she's spreading herself or not. Maybe I'm wrong.
Score: [-] 61 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by melgesevad:
« BLANSETTBABE : Sorry, I thought you were saying that the genitals weren't shown at all, not that they weren't shown in an obscene way. I don't want to start an argument, but I do think that in our society showing a 12 year old's genitals is obscene whether she's spreading herself or not. Maybe I'm wrong. So any proud parents with pictures of their kids in the tub should burn them for fear of prosecution?
It's not that I completely disagree with you, but there has to be some level of freedom here.
Score: [-] 43 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by BLANSETTBABE:
« melgesevad : So any proud parents with pictures of their kids in the tub should burn them for fear of prosecution?
It's not that I completely disagree with you, but there has to be some level of freedom here. If you read my earlier quotes, you would see that I have already addressed the bathtub pics. Parents aren't touting these pictures as art. They are pictures to remind parents of when their child was young. Personally I have a bunch of naked baby pictures of my little girl. Do I show them off to others and say "look how arty I am"? No, I look at them and say "Oh how cute" Then I cry about how much she has grown.
Score: [-] 38 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by glik:
« BLANSETTBABE : If you read my earlier quotes, you would see that I have already addressed the bathtub pics. Parents aren't touting these pictures as art. They are pictures to remind parents of when their child was young. Personally I have a bunch of naked baby pictures of my little girl. Do I show them off to others and say "look how arty I am"? No, I look at them and say "Oh how cute" Then I cry about how much she has grown. You talk as though you think it is impossible to have an artistic nude at all.
Score: [-] 60 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by BLANSETTBABE:
« glik : You talk as though you think it is impossible to have an artistic nude at all. Not an artistic nude of children showing their breasts and genitals. What Miley Cyrus did in Vogue, that was artistic. It had taste. That is what these pictures are lacking...taste.
Score: [-] 0 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by Kevertje:
« BLANSETTBABEI could take a $1000 camera and photograph children in an empty room naked and get pictures with the same quality. Please try it. Borrow a $1000 camera, borrow the best lens you can, get the best lights available. Get the best model available. Then try to make a photograph such as these. I can almost guarantee you won't succeed.
I'm not a photographer myself, I *do* have a moderately expensive camera, but I'm unable to make a photograph that screams sadness like most of these photographs do. I lack the talent, I lack the photographic insight, I lack the vision. Those things are more important than the equipment.
Score: [-] 83 [+].
< 1 >