By: hillg30
23/05/2008
11:49 am Yahoo! Profile:
hillg30 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
The photographer and the Sydney gallery involved in an exhibition featuring photographs of nude adolescents should be prosecuted, says child protection advocate Hetty Johnston.
Ms Johnston, founder of children's org *** ation Bravehearts, said police were right to shut down the exhibition of Australian photographer Bill Henson's work.
The exhibition was scheduled to open at 6pm (AEST) on Thursday at Roslyn Oxley gallery in Paddington, in Sydney's eastern suburbs.
It includes large photographic prints of naked children, mainly 12 and 13 year-old-girls, one of whom was included on the opening night invitation..............
GOOD its about kids being photographed nude so Bill Henson should be charged as a paedophile ..... which he is for taking the photos of nude 12/13yos.if any ordinary person had photos of 12/13yo kids on their hard drives they would be charged.the art world is no different to the general public so henson and the gallery should be charged with the full force of the law. |
|
By: co1868
23/05/2008
12:00 pm Yahoo! Profile:
co1868 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
There have been lots of pics taken of naked children in documentaries of visits to native villages in the world etc. But the world has changed. The media and film industry have a lot to answer for by constantly highlighting the sexual aspects of the humane body to the point where lust is an every day occurance in so many minds. Even little kids think in lustful terms because of the way it is propogated in the media.
In a climate of almost epidemic outbreaks of paedophylia where on earth is this photographers head at? What a selfish ignorant fool he is. He deserves to have the book thrown at him as far as I am concerned and anyone else whop takes advantage of children in this way. His exhibition and ego is more important to him than the lustful motivation it may possibly stirr up in some of those viewing his pics. He is a selfish i diot. |
|
By: dassaultmirage5
23/05/2008
12:06 pm Yahoo! Profile:
dassaultmirage5 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I have to highly commend the NSW Police for stopping this dispicable art exhibition from going ahead. I would also be questioning the parents of these kids whom must have given parental consent.
If the art world deems this art, then our art world has a whole lot to answer for. Shame shame shame on you! |
|
By: antago.nist
23/05/2008
1:01 pm Yahoo! Profile:
antago.nist Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
So what should we say about world renowned photographer/artist David Hamilton then? He started all this in the Seventies and there have been endless copy cats (Henson being one) that have tried to cash in on the popularity of "The Hamilton Look". No-one in Australia has ever bothered to try and take his books, movies, cards, tv ads, gold records etc etc off the market to protect the precious and so easily corruptible minds of our youth.
Will all you do gooders cry out now to have all David Hamilton art banned?
Leave the guy alone and grow up people.
Art is art, if you don't understand that then stay out of the argument. |
|
By: binj.again
23/05/2008
1:04 pm Yahoo! Profile:
binj.again Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
It isn't art if children are being represented in a sexual manner.
It is child pornography.
Weren't Hamilton's subjects adults? |
|
By: antago.nist
23/05/2008
1:15 pm Yahoo! Profile:
antago.nist Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
âA distinction must be made between eroticism and pornography; the media have blurred the disparity to an unforgivable degree. For those intelligent enough to recognize the difference, erotica will continue to hold a unique fascination. Social evils should not be confused with the pursuit of true beauty.â â David Hamilton
If you think you have the credentials to argue with this view, go right ahead, but it's time for a rethink, if you think that art of this kind will go away because a few of you can't deal with reality, and find it easier to go along with the blinkered view that has become another distraction in this world of lies and fear.
13 year olds have NEVER needed paedophiles to find out about sexuality, it comes from GOD. They are born with it. How did paedophiles even get dragged into this in the first place? Is someone accusing Mr Henson??
Someone had better, soon, or just shut up.
How this exhibition in any way relates to any problems in our society surrounding paedophilia, i fail to understand.
Show me a paedophile who started his career just on the basis of seeing a kid in the nude.
If that's all it takes then we better start now to close down the internet, the mobile phone network, hollywood, all the printing presses and ban cameras altogether. Ban David Hamilton's work from a gallery and see what happens. |
|
By: antago.nist
23/05/2008
1:22 pm Yahoo! Profile:
antago.nist Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
and besides, what happened to the notion of free speech.
if you don't like seeing the naked human form, that's fine. But it is YOUR freedom to choose that position. yOU DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT IT, AND IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE IT, THEN YOU FORFEIT YOUR RIGHT TO EVEN COMMENT.
If something is put forward as art, let it be judged as art.
I cannot help thinking that this is all a result of people's inability to see beyond their own narrow view on things.
WE ARE ALL RIGHT.
WE ARE ALL WRONG.
WE ARE ALL FREE TO CHOOSE.
IF WE ARE NOT FREE TO CHOOSE, WE HAVE A FAR MORE SERIOUS PROBLEM IN OUR SOCIETY THAN WOULD APPEAR. |
|
By: rascalyau
23/05/2008
1:22 pm Yahoo! Profile:
rascalyau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Alright I'll put up. Henson you are a kiddy fiddler, paedophile who deserves to be locked up and have the key thrown away. I along with a lot of other Australians are disgusted at your thinly veiled attempt to call child pornography art.
If henson is found not guilty by the 'law' then too bad. As far as a lot of people are concerned he is guilty and deserves to be punished. |
|
By: rascalyau
23/05/2008
1:25 pm Yahoo! Profile:
rascalyau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
and besides, erotica, pornography it doesnt make a difference. Either title means that the subjects are depicted in a sexual manner. If you find these photos 'erotic' then you need to take a good long hard look at yourself then do the whole world a favour. Pornography is just a more graphical depiction of Erotica.
Using either of these titles in conjuction with the words 13 yo girl is disgusting |
|
By: new_horizens
23/05/2008
1:28 pm Yahoo! Profile:
new_horizens Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Mr Rudd told the Nine Network "I find them (the photos) absolutely revolting".
Well... lets think about it. What exactly is revolting about the photos?
Is it the thought of a naked young girl being photographed that is revolting?
Is it the fact that it is a young girl on display that is revolting?
Is it the photo itself that is revolting?
Is it the young girl who is revolting?
Or is it filthy minds of the "we know what's best for you" do-gooders that are actually revolting... do-gooders who see these photos as porno pics... who think the photos are obscene?
I am a great admirer of the British Courts. Each time this sort of nonsense has happened in Britain, the police have lost their case because nobody can prove such things are obscene or revolting. And the Courts dismiss such cases.
Here in Australia, we are seeing censorship of the arts. What is considered obscene or revolting by one person might be quite acceptable to another. So why should one group's moral code be forced on another?
This is severe censorship. But right now, my concern is for the young girl who was proud of the photos but who must now be suffering humility and poor self-esteem on hearing our revered Prime Minister proclaim how revolting the photos are and to see all the resulting kufuffle!
It really is a ruddy bloody shame! |
|
By: antago.nist
23/05/2008
1:28 pm Yahoo! Profile:
antago.nist Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
PORNOGRAPHY CAN ONLY EXIST IN THE MIND.
IT CANNOT BE DEFINED OBJECTIVELY.
SO PLEASE STOP DECIDING FOR EVERYONE.
YOUR PORNOGRAPHY IS NOT MY PORNOGRAPHY.
MY MUSIC IS NOT YOUR MUSIC.
I HOPE MR HENSON SUES MR RUDD FOR DEFAMATION.
WHY DON'T PEOPLE THINK FOR THEMSELVES ANYMORE?
GROW UP. |
|
By: hallacba
23/05/2008
1:30 pm Yahoo! Profile:
hallacba Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
the reason that it is a issue
its because every person who will look at those photos (except myself) will automatically think of child porn
sick world we live in |
|
By: antago.nist
23/05/2008
1:31 pm Yahoo! Profile:
antago.nist Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
THANK YOU NEW HORIZENS.
There IS intelligent life on earth.
I think a lot of these do gooders should get out more. |
|
By: antago.nist
23/05/2008
1:36 pm Yahoo! Profile:
antago.nist Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I am not defending paedophiles. they are too much fun to beat up.
So, is "child" porn different to any other sort of porn?
Porn is porn. undefinable. throughout history. the masters.
Was Norman Lindsay a pornographer? |
|
By: alois.heidler
23/05/2008
1:37 pm Yahoo! Profile:
alois.heidler Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I think a lot of these do gooders should get out more.
I should point out that the OFLC is rather strict on guidelines regarding children and nudity. It's a big no-no, so there's a community standard by which to guage things. However, by their own policy on nudity, they differentiate in the case of nudie mags like People, on whether nudity is sexualised or notm, before passing it a category. |
|
By: antago.nist
23/05/2008
1:40 pm Yahoo! Profile:
antago.nist Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
You talk of censorship....even this site is censored. just there on the left, see it....?
"Does this message offend you?"
and guess who the censor is?
YOU!
You have the power to censor what i am free to express.
MMMmmmm....... |
|
By: mr_rekshun
23/05/2008
1:41 pm Yahoo! Profile:
mr_rekshun Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
>>THANK YOU NEW HORIZENS.
There IS intelligent life on earth.>>
I think you'll find that if Kevin Rudd had come out in support of the photographs, the new_horizon's post would have been very different. |
|
By: neilson_barry
23/05/2008
1:42 pm Yahoo! Profile:
neilson_barry Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
It's quite easy for yahoo posters to get on the bandwagon and start preaching the evils of the world. There are those who will simply see this as pornography, and nothing else. Others will consider it art.
That these pictures were even considered, let alone actually hung in a national gallery with the consent of numerous people, must tell you that every single person involved in this project considered these pictures as art. Art, as it happens, as a reflection on beauty of adolescence, not to mention it's potential impact on society, particularly since the subject material has recently been in the focus of the media, and subject for debate.
The problem, however, is that these are naked children. They are not pornographic images and they are not intended to be. But there is no getting away from it. They are images of naked children.
So this raises obvious questions. Can we permit naked children to be displayed or not? The answer of course must be no; the reasons obvious; naked children are not for public display - at least not in this society.
Because in this society sex is displayed everywhere. Sex is huge part of our society, but must remain permissible only to consenting adults who have the mind and experience to choose it or not. Children have no such mind or experience, and therefore, such pictures being produced will only ever tell a story of innocence being frivolously displayed for adult consumption, entertainment, or enjoyment.
If it is art, it is a sad representation of childhood. |
|
By: alois.heidler
23/05/2008
1:44 pm Yahoo! Profile:
alois.heidler Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Tell you what, this is kinetic art already. It's working. |
|
By: antago.nist
23/05/2008
1:49 pm |
Message deleted. |
|
By: hiccups1232000
23/05/2008
1:51 pm Yahoo! Profile:
hiccups1232000 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| If these photo's were discovered in a file marked "private" on some old guys computer, would it still be called art?? |
|
By: new_horizens
23/05/2008
2:01 pm Yahoo! Profile:
new_horizens Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
There are so many nudist beaches around the world. Heck, even Australia has them too. Have you been to one? Have you seen the nudists enjoying themselves... adults, teens and little kiddies of all age groups, and yes... all naked and having a good time!
The nudist children who are naked... is that revolting? Is that obscene? Should the adults who are in the presence of these underaged nudists be apprehended for whatever sordid reason the police may come up with, like indecent exposure to underaged children?
For goodness sake... one of the most famous photos was taken during the Vietnam War... of that totally young naked Asian girl running towards the photographer, crying. That photo was in Time Magazine... seen the whole world over. It was admired for its depiction. Did anyone say anything against it? Did the police take any action? Did anyone say "How revolting"?
Now ask yourself why should innocent pictures of a naked young girl, taken for art sake, be condemned as revolting?
Think, Australians... please think!!!! Don't allow Australia's right to freedom of expression to be denied by a few "holier than thou" do-gooders who think they know what is best for us! |
|
By: mr_rekshun
23/05/2008
2:02 pm Yahoo! Profile:
mr_rekshun Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
>>If these photo's were discovered in a file marked "private" on some old guys computer, would it still be called art??>>
If a download of a Huggies ad with naked babies were found on a registered sex offender's computer, would that make it pornography? |
|
By: alois.heidler
23/05/2008
2:05 pm Yahoo! Profile:
alois.heidler Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
If a download of a Huggies ad with naked babies were found on a registered sex offender's computer, would that make it pornography?
It'd certainly make it dry. |
|
By: antago.nist
23/05/2008
2:07 pm Yahoo! Profile:
antago.nist Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"If it is art, it is a sad representation of childhood."
Oh please define childhood for me?
When does childhood end?
Don't we love to generalise?
Childhood is in the mind of the child, by the time a human is old enough to decide that they want to be photographed nude, they are, quite apparently beyond their own "childhood".
If this "child" took part in the production of the "pornography", then surely we must presume that the child considers herself "adult" enough to make that decision, and with her parents' support, took her gear off.
Now the police are going ahead to lay charges, so if they ONLY charge Mr Henson, there is a huge case to answer so i hope they are ready for a massive onslaught of questions.
Will they charge the gallery owners, the workers who hung them up, the suppliers of the paper on which the "pornography" is printed, the girl? her parents and any body else who knew what was happening?
There must be a lot of complicit people in this terrible act of "child pornography" ..... as decided by a handful of wannabe public heroes.
Careful guys, the gaols are full already. |
|
