By: buzzanddidj
24/05/2008
9:51 am Yahoo! Profile:
buzzanddidj Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
THE art world has denounced a "dark day in Australian culture" after police seized up to 21 photographs of naked child models and said they would lay charges over an exhibition by the renowned artist Bill Henson.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/henson-finds-suppo rt-over-photos/2008/05/23/1211183097197.html
. |
|
By: wazzajack
24/05/2008
9:55 am Yahoo! Profile:
wazzajack Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
My partners brother in-law has a photography business and has taken some really nice photos of young parents semi nude with their newborn babies.
I see nothing voyeuristic about them.
Just a depiction of a nice natural image of parent and child.
But I do believe there an awareness and intention of a voyeuristic nature being performed by these photographers in the name of art when using adolescent young females for naked photography.
As we all may have heard at one time or another lot of artists like to shock and obviously this latest example has had that effect on different people. |
|
By: poddlingpumpy
24/05/2008
9:56 am Yahoo! Profile:
poddlingpumpy Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Yep - a real victory for thought police, wowsers and the emotionally barren. what is this, 19-bloody-70?
I can hear some fat, ugly cop/politician/Andrew Bolt-type mumbling "My dog could take a better photo than that".
Burn 'Blue Poles'! Waste of taxpayer's money!
Ugh. Thank God I'm not real. |
|
By: taipan_western
24/05/2008
9:56 am Yahoo! Profile:
taipan_western Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Original message
By: buzzanddidj
5 minutes ago
Re:Prosecution over nude child photos ur ... (PREVIEW)
'I'm a photographer Poddy'
By: taipan_western
I thought you worked in as a storeman ?
========================= ========================= ========
Ok I'll bite.
Where did you get that idea from?
Shooting a wedding tomorrow (sunday).
For the main I have stayed out of this post, reason, conflict of interest. |
|
By: taipan_western
24/05/2008
10:11 am Yahoo! Profile:
taipan_western Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Yes mate.
Now you have done it mate.
People will be screaming for his head now.
Can be beautiful. Can be strange. Can be a bit over the top.
Just my opinion.
Bresson one of the greatest.. I really like Bailey, love his attitude. You know he hates digital and still shoots with a 10 X 8.
I think Saudek is still alive. |
|
By: reidsays
24/05/2008
10:15 am Yahoo! Profile:
reidsays Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
from news link smh...
"I did make a complaint yesterday, absolutely," Ms Johnston said. "I asked them to prosecute, both the gallery and the photographer, but I'd like to see the parents as well looked in to. What parent in their right mind would allow their 12- or 13-year-old to strip off naked and display themselves all over the internet? That's not in the interests of the child. What's happening here is that the arts community have felt that they've been able to get away with this under the guise of art for a number of years, and I think this is the community drawing a line in the sand and saying, 'Enough's enough'."
so it was Hetty Johnson from Bravehearts that initiated the complaint.....with her longterm involvement and dedication to protecting children from abuse, i can understand her determination - "enough's enough"
sadly, due to years of neglect from the government and funding bodies.....for any orgs dedicated to help...the situation has become desperate for action.....and they got it through the art 'window'...
previously all attempts at the commercial advertising world and huge fashion industry had failed? |
|
By: ripfelix
24/05/2008
11:33 am Yahoo! Profile:
ripfelix Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"Whose boundaries? "the boundary"???
its not acceptable?
to whom?
am i missing something?
are you now speaking on behalf of all Australians, like the cops? Like Mr Rudd?
ah
I just love democracy"
Firstly Antagonist, the boundary is the law
Secondly, if these boards and general public response, suggest it is not acceptable
Thirdly, obviously you are missing something.
Fourthly, no, I'm speaking only for myself, as you are well aware. But if public opinion is not the censor for art what is?
Fifthly, No you do not love democracy |
|
By: ripfelix
24/05/2008
11:40 am Yahoo! Profile:
ripfelix Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
This is how the critics describe his work
" The softness of Henson's photos seems to allow the intense sexual nature of his subjects rather than create it. The realness of a naked pubescent girl with the mere suggestion of pubic hair, or an adolescent boy in shadowy contraposto with large hands and tumescent p**is , is constantly tugged away from us into the realm of memory or imagination. In the 1995-96 works, apparently explicit sexual images generate abstract relationships in the dreamscape that Henson creates. The image of a couple *** king almost doesn't even register on the brain. The naked torso of a girl adjacent to the open legs of a naked boy refuses to coalesce into a "complete" image; the boy's torso is almost like the girl's memory image, or her body a fantasy image of his. Henson's pictures seem mostly either pre-coital or post-coital. The calmness that pervades them is not so much foreboding as lingering, and perhaps that's where the seduction lies."
really he's been misunderstood. |
|
By: eugenejobrien
24/05/2008
11:58 am Yahoo! Profile:
eugenejobrien Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| I don't think it's me who's sick darkhall67. I personally find Hensons work highly distasteful, and wouldn't bother going to see his exibition. |
|
By: auzhong2000
24/05/2008
12:20 pm Yahoo! Profile:
auzhong2000 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I remember the vivid photograph of 9 year old Kim Phuc Phan crying and running naked from a napalm explosion that had been dropped on her village. It was a compelling photo, one that probably turned many people against the Vietnam war.
Would this photo be published today? I wonder. |
|
By: gibbot5000
24/05/2008
12:40 pm Yahoo! Profile:
gibbot5000 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"But if public opinion is not the censor for art what is?"
Regimes and backwater theocracies are the only communities that try to censor art.
Civilised people have little need for censorship. |
|
By: longweekend58
24/05/2008
12:44 pm Yahoo! Profile:
longweekend58 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<I remember the vivid photograph of 9 year old Kim Phuc Phan crying and running naked from a napalm explosion that had been dropped on her village. It was a compelling photo, one that probably turned many people against the Vietnam war.
Would this photo be published today? I wonder.>
Not a chance - unless with black bars to prevent us from seeing... what everyone's seen before. |
|
By: longweekend58
24/05/2008
12:46 pm Yahoo! Profile:
longweekend58 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<Regimes and backwater theocracies are the only communities that try to censor art.
Civilised people have little need for censorship.>
minor disagreement here. censorship is valid, but it needs to be done using rational thought not emotive hand-wringing.
I wouldnt bother seeing the exhibition, but Im appalled that he is being charged over it. Why is it that child-advocates love to go for soft (and irrelevant) targets? |
|
By: gibbot5000
24/05/2008
12:59 pm Yahoo! Profile:
gibbot5000 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"censorship is valid, but it needs to be done using rational thought not emotive hand-wringing."
Fair call. I'll concede that.
I'm sure nobody on either side of this argument is advocating child exploitation and/or paedophilia. Having seen some of the images, however, I'm convinced that those that see them as pornographic are much more of a cause for concern than the artist.
These are the type of goons that want boxer shorts put on Michelangelo's David. |
|
By: longweekend58
24/05/2008
1:04 pm Yahoo! Profile:
longweekend58 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<I'm sure nobody on either side of this argument is advocating child exploitation and/or paedophilia. Having seen some of the images, however, I'm convinced that those that see them as pornographic are much more of a cause for concern than the artist.
These are the type of goons that want boxer shorts put on Michelangelo's David.>
it reminds me a bit about the early complaints about the Harry Potter books. it took me only a short time to realise that NOT ONE of the vocal opponents of the books had actually read one and those who finally did read them, slid sheepishly into the night feeling like fools. Which is fair enough - since they were.
As soon as I saw the photos I wondered what the fuss was all about. And I agree, it reflects badly on those complaining about them. |
|
By: emucorp
24/05/2008
1:09 pm Yahoo! Profile:
emucorp Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Yes yes of course ... it's terrible and shocking that anyone should dare to express concern over these pictures of nude children. The wowsers. Dumb wowsers too because they have a different opinion to you. Now that you've all soundly convinced yourselves of your ginormous intellect and openmindedness perhaps you could spare a thought for the fact that the rights and wrongs of what is happening is a matter for the courts and as marvellously articulate as your posts are they're entirely irrelevant. As is mine of course but just pointing that out. Enjoy. |
|
By: longweekend58
24/05/2008
1:12 pm Yahoo! Profile:
longweekend58 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<Yes yes of course ... it's terrible and shocking that anyone should dare to express concern over these pictures of nude children. The wowsers. Dumb wowsers too because they have a different opinion to you. Now that you've all soundly convinced yourselves of your ginormous intellect and openmindedness perhaps you could spare a thought for the fact that the rights and wrongs of what is happening is a matter for the courts and as marvellously articulate as your posts are they're entirely irrelevant. As is mine of course but just pointing that out. Enjoy.>
Courts take the public's opinion in these kinds of matters VERY seriously because they are actually asked to prosecute a breach of 'community standards'. 'indecency' is poorly defined in law because of just that fact: that it is relevant to what the community believes. If there was a massive public backlash against these charges the judge would probably find in favour of the defendant for this reason.
Anyhow, the DPP will drop it quietly and it wil never see a courtroom. Its a storm in a teacup. INappropriateness is not yet a crime. |
|
By: emucorp
24/05/2008
1:14 pm Yahoo! Profile:
emucorp Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"Courts take the public's opinion in these kinds of matters VERY seriously"
Hahhhahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Yes keep telling yourself that. |
|
By: stephenlumley@y7mail.com
24/05/2008
1:26 pm Yahoo! Profile:
stephenlumley@y7mail.com Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| I dont have t be Alfred Eisenstaedt or Anne Geddes to see the decline in someones work... or are you suggesting that I do. Because that would really narrow art gallery profits |
|
By: longweekend58
24/05/2008
1:26 pm Yahoo! Profile:
longweekend58 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<Courts take the public's opinion in these kinds of matters VERY seriously"
Hahhhahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Yes keep telling yourself that.>
Dont misunderstand me. if this was 1960 he would be in jail already with the same laws. The reason these charges wil be dropped is because community standards have changed. IN this very small area of law, our opinions do (eventually) mean something. |
|
By: gospellady732002
24/05/2008
1:39 pm Yahoo! Profile:
gospellady732002 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Let us just say that we have learnt from the mistakes of the seventies. That is Australia 'growing up'. Denial in some things, Thank God, is disintegrating, whilst shamefully some unacceptable behaviour goes unchallenged. Thank God Australia is waking up to itself and not hiding under the carpet the scourge of depravity that has been plaguing us for millennia.
'Leave the guy alone' because he is an artist you reckon- what is he; some Holy Cow to be worshipped and allowed to do whatever he pleases just because he is talented (I hope he is actually talented because otherwise this is more of a joke)?
Shame on Roslyn Oxley- such a reputable gallery with amazing contemporary works to be scandalised like this. |
|
By: poddlingpumpy
24/05/2008
1:40 pm Yahoo! Profile:
poddlingpumpy Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Anne Geddes????
Isn't she the one who put all those babies in Hitler Youth uniforms for the Kristalnacht anniversary in 'Vanity Fair'? |
|
By: gibbot5000
24/05/2008
1:43 pm Yahoo! Profile:
gibbot5000 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"Thank God Australia is waking up to itself and not hiding under the carpet the scourge of depravity that has been plaguing us for millennia."
Where did this nut case come from? |
|
By: poddlingpumpy
24/05/2008
1:46 pm Yahoo! Profile:
poddlingpumpy Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Apparently at least a couple of thousand years ago... |
|
By: ripfelix
24/05/2008
1:50 pm Yahoo! Profile:
ripfelix Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I've spent the last 48 hours listening to the debate on this topic, reading the posts, researching the artist and looking at his past and present work.
There is no doubt his work is "art". It is hauntingly disturbing, but both beautiful and sensual at the same time. His subject matter has always been pubescent girls and boys.
There is no doubt he sexualises his subject matter.
His defense has always been "I only present the image, what people see is their responsibility"
That is fine and I accept that, however, it glosses over the risk of portraying underage naked teens as suitable material for financial and professional gain.
He has obviously been targeted by minority interests, but only because of his reputation and previous subject matter (look at his Lux et Nox series)
Unfortunately scapegoats are necessary to maintain standards. This is long overdue for the Artist. This is not the first complaint, just the most publicised.
Protect the rights of children, or protect the rights of free expression. Both are very important.
If you believe it is arts role to force us to confront issues and to confront our own interpretations them the artist has succeeded.
I liked his work, and that amazed me. Not for any sexual reason, more so that I see it for what it is, Artistic, challenging, technically interesting, no doubt beautiful and confronting.
Doesn't change the fact that he shouldn't have used underage subjects though. |
|
