Bill Henson - It's ok if it's art?

1. 69

   WryLiltposted 14 years ago

   http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaki … 6031816181
   
   Bill Henson displays pictures of naked teenage girls as art. Many of them in provocative poses. I don't even understand how some people are even on his side - and the legal case against him may be dropped!
   
   I'm also surprised that Google image search also allows this type of material - it should be banned.
   
   Sometimes art just goes too far!

   replyreport
   1. 59

      DTR0005posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I took a look at them as well. While I don't find them particularly good or interesting, I don't find anything particularly pornographic about them either.

      replyreport
   2. 62

      recommend1posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I looked via Google and I don't see any overt sexual content 'beyond' the art expression, the art images from the sixties that we find quite acceptable due to their 'age' are far more explicit and overtly sexual.
      
      Maybe something like this is actuallyrequired to point up the difference between the everyday filth and depravity that floods the internet and artistic sexual content.
      
      Screaming abuse at this kind of art says everything about the viewer and nothing about the art.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      dutchman1951posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I thought underaged nude photos were illegal activity?
      
      As far as Google, they are like any Page; do you publish because you can and thats it; (Freedom of Speach) or...
      
      do you conside the Moral responsibility, and result of your decision to publish? 
      
      From what I see as a society norms, it's dam the morals and go to print, and forget any consiquence of it.

      replyreport
2. 60

   knolyourselfposted 14 years ago

   Looked at it on google images. Forgetting the morality, the photography is awful. Maybe the worst I ever seen. Sell by getting a depravity buzz going and people think there is something of substance in this crap.

   replyreport
3. 69

   WryLiltposted 14 years ago

   I've got no problem with pornography - I have a collection myself.
   
   However I do have a problem with a picture of a nude 13 year old lying on a bed with her legs spread!

   replyreport
   1. 62

      recommend1posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Strange how this works isn't it.  You scream in protest at an art picture but feel that it is ok to own pornography, I stand up and protect the art - but do not own or use any pronography whatsoever - because it is at the expense of human dignity and the the people who make the stuff. In my opinion pronography is worse than drugs and far more insidious.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         WryLiltposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I have no problem with pornographic art when someone is of legal age and consents to it. I do have a problem when paedophiles go to jail for this sort of thing, but people who do it for art don't. Double standard much?

         replyreport
         1. 62

            recommend1posted 14 years agoin reply to this

            No - I don't think it is double standards, it is the intent.  Paedophiles harm children, art informs society.
            
            Pornography harms everyone involved in its making and those who use it.  Picture galleries of yong women provocatively dressed reduce female to a commodity - and the two work hand in hand like pot and crack.

            replyreport
            1. 69

               WryLiltposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Oh so when that 13 year old grows up and looks back on the nude photos, they won't wish that their guardians had stopped them doing it?
               
               How about we call pornography art while we're at it, that will make it ok.

               replyreport
               1. 62

                  recommend1posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  I think that 13 year old will look back and be proud of having a beautiful body at that age, proud to be the focus of world attention and know perfectly well that this is nothing to do with pornography or any seedy peep show mentality.

                  replyreport
                  1. 69

                     WryLiltposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     Maybe in your perfect world. But I wouldn't want naked photos of my underage daughter posted on the internet for any dirty old man to see!

                     replyreport
                     1. 62

                        recommend1posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        You are describing your own mind and your own fears - nothing to do with these art pictures.  You are also showing your preconceptions that those who look at pornography are 'dirty old men' - even though you admit to owning and using it yourself.
                        
                        You have every right to voice your objection to this kind of art, as people did to the 'art' that had a cut-in-half pig in a formalin filled fish tank, or the stakc of everyday bricks that sold for a million quid.  But surely you can see that good art reflects ourselves back to ourself and what you really see is yourself ?

                        replyreport
                        1. 69

                           WryLiltposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           I'm not talking about pornography in general; I'm talking about child pornography. And there are a certain type of audience who are more likely to want to view that kind of work.
                           
                           I've said my piece. My views are that this kind of work is too close to child pornography to be thrown at random on the internet where both art lovers AND paedophiles can have free access to it.

                           replyreport
                           1. 62

                              recommend1posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                              And that is also the point - paedophiles have little interest in it,  now the beauty pageants they drool over - so I am told

                              replyreport
4. 58

   logic,commonsenseposted 14 years ago

   Is it really art or just someone trying to cause a stir and gain noteriety?  I didn't go to check it out so I'll just take posters at their word, regarding the quality and content. 
   Curious, did the parents of these children approve of the pics?
   We are on a slippery slope as a society when children are exploited in the name of art.  Reminds me of the precursors to the fall of the Roman Empire.

   replyreport
5. 60

   BobbiRantposted 14 years ago

   Good point.  Sometimes I think modeling agencies are no better when they dress 12 year old 'models' up and parade them down a runway dressed in all sorts of skimpy outfits.  The world has become too lax in looking out for children.

   replyreport
   1. 62

      recommend1posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      This is precisely the point I would say - the heavily made-up sexy dressed very young kids that the USA (mainly) parades up and down the kiddy queen walkways are far more disturbing than these art pictures.

      replyreport