Replies: 26 Comments

on Wednesday, June 18th, Brad said

Gregory, if what Henson does is really over the top - then he will be dealt with by someone - hopefully of artistic vision, and reasonable morals. I am not familiar with NAVA - so I can not answer to their credentials. I still think, under the right circumstances, naked minors can be photographed, painted, and drawn in great taste, non-sexually, (without harm - done in very proper ways) - for us and the generations of our future - showing we, today, are neither a corrupt race, nor the Puritans, and witch-burners, of old Salam's Lot...

on Wednesday, June 18th, marjan said

Gregory Carlin. What the devil are you on about!
Completely off and certainly not worth wasting my time discussing.

Brad, thanks and yes, those would be or are the list
of abuses and I agree with the rest. Nicely put.

Just seen this. It's nothing novel, but I thought the woman who was interviewed and said that there is a feeling of sameness, is rather interesting..
It's on the BBC news website "Nudes pose at Irish castle"

on Wednesday, June 18th, carlin@gmail.com">Gregory Carlin said

"Oh, and Brad, I mostly agree with you. And that bit about the paedophile hero, is not much different to Nietzsche becoming the Nazis' hero in collaboration with his insane sister."

It doesn't really have to be true for the SS cadets in Nürnberg to shoot it out with the Americans in 1945 to the very last 13 year old.

Or for SS units to be pulled out of the establishment of Budapest's diminishing defenders to finish off the remaining Jews in the city,

it is about 'normal' and 'reality', both can be artificial or false or temporary.

Did it really matter than a million Soviets troops were in and around the environs of Warsaw during the uprising, not to the Nazis it didn't, their reality would apply to the last yard and to the last minute.

And when people emerge, will be too late? How much time have we got with this Henson fellow, will NAVA turn him into a fatherly template of normal?

What are NAVA's human rights qualifications, how many pedophiles have they expelled from the thousands of Australian artists, arts teachers ?

Show me one bad/evil/wicked artist that NAVA has demounced. Has it happened?

on Sunday, June 15th, Brad said

I agree with you Marjan. When you take a picture of a child getting her feet grape-covered at a public festival and are warned, "to take the picture off the Internet, because of encouraging pedophiles," I mean - that's kind of like saying, "don't make still life photos or paintings of great feast table settings, because you will only encourage overweight people in the world to go out and gorge themselves..." The reality is - every kind of image taken, or the real-life moment itself - will be a visual "emotional trigger," to someone, somewhere - feeding their love, lust, appreciation, disgust, or complete disinterest. Artists who worry about how their inspirations and captures are going to be interpreted by specific sections of the World Herd, might as well give up their vocation now. Artists are not politicians, or such, and are not tied by the same limitations.
By the way - when I listed the true list of things that destroy children's lives - I mistakenly left one important item off the list: Neglect. If we neglect our children, as they grow up, then they may likely make poorer decisions as minors, and adults, that will result in more negative outcomes in their lives...

on Sunday, June 15th, marjan said

Oh, and Brad, I mostly agree with you. And that bit about the paedophile hero, is not much different to Nietzsche becoming the Nazis' hero in collaboration with his insane sister.

You know, I took a picture of a little girl's bottom with underpants and a T-shirt on, playing in a barrel full of grapes at a street festival in Paris. The bits of grapes looked like bits of poo poo and the picture is really cute. When I showed the picture to French and Italian people they immediately laughed because they recognized the wine barell. Showed it to a few Germans and English and all hell broke loose. I was advised to take the picture off the internet because of encouraging paedophiles.
What's next? Not letting children go to the zoo?(There is some real humping going on there!;))

on Sunday, June 15th, marjan said

"on Wednesday, June 11th, Richard Rivera said

I agree with the above post. Listen. Photographing naked children and calling it art is a bit of a stretch. So where does it end? Where do we set a boundary? "

Oh, but depicting the Last Supper with premeditated murder (on your CHRISTIAN website), Salome's head chopped off etc. is fine and "art". "Gimme a break".
I wonder if the naked body is so offensive, why "god" didn't arrange us coming out fully clothed out of the female canal.

on Saturday, June 14th, bmm said

"The true pedophiles, for what it is worth, really like Henson. He's their icon. - Tazia"

--

Rubbish. Take a true poll of incarcerated pedophiles - their truest 'Icon' is their own lust - Henson doesn't even rate. People have got to separate their feelings about pedophiles, from the reality that art has greater a purpose. We take pictures of naked babies all the time. My parents have long shown my cousin, my two brothers, and myself lavishingly naked in our family bath tub. The four of us all - our 'Family Jewels' exhibited... That didn't wreak any of us for life - and we were not asked if we wanted our pictures taken - or explained that our naked photo might become the preoccupation of some future pedophile's lust. I do not believe an artist - depicting a minor, with their approval, and more, importantly, with the approval of their parents, is going to scar the minor for the rest of their lives - that is just hogwash. What destroys children's lives are incest, rape, slavery, hunger, mental and other sexual abuse, and violence. These are the real issues. Wrap your heads around these - and answer them.

on Friday, June 13th, tazia@hush.com">Tazia said

"I think that true pedophiles have plenty of their own sick material that is way worse than this"

Well, there is a problem with 'true' so try ersatz, because that's what we have plenty of.

The true pedophiles, for what it is worth, really like Henson.

He's their icon.

Tazia

on Friday, June 13th, josé said

Forgive me fellas but much of what I have read here bothers me. It is possible to depict the beauty and innocence of a child without taking it to the level of revealing nudity or even suggesting sexuality. In my view taking a child into my studio with the intent of 'extracting' something that should be protected preciously until that child reaches an age where he or she is fully capable of understanding and handling emotionally what is going through his/her mind during the sitting is simply something I cannot view as acceptable. We may argue that the world is no longer the safe place we knew in our own childhood, that information technology is reducing the span of those days of innocence, but that is a false premise - the world has never been a safe place, it is only as safe as we desire to make it for those we choose to be around. If you choose to work with underage children you must come to terms with the fact that it is you and only you who are responsible for the type of interaction that ensues and the thoughts (and damage) that are likely to be triggered in that child's mind from such an encounter... unfortunately too many choose to bury their heads in the sand and it is becoming increasingly easy to do so and go on living without the slightest pangs of conscience. More than stealing innocence that is what we risk loosing, day after day, CONSCIENCE!

on Wednesday, June 11th, Gianni Wise said

I think we need to spend less time on witch hunts and more on really looking at what the issue is here. I think if we criticise we need to be clear - we need to speak with a balanced voice. In what sense do you you classify him as a pedophile? Or a person that even encourages them? I think that true pedophiles have plenty of their own sick material that is way worse than this. We see worse everyday in under aged sexualisation of kids in fashion, in clothing and in public malls. That is what needs to be investigating.

on Wednesday, June 11th, Richard Rivera said

I agree with the above post. Listen. Photographing naked children and calling it art is a bit of a stretch. So where does it end? Where do we set a boundary?

on Friday, June 6th, marjan said

This is a difficult one. I don't like Henson's photos, simply because I don't like the style, but I can't see what the fuss is about relative to prepubescent fashion models. Sometimes I get really embarrassed for them with their pouting lips and legs wide open, selling a bikini to middle-aged women at the age of 12.

Children are "sexual" anyway;it's a reality. I also don't quite see why one shouldn't take a picture of something or someone beautiful and the naked body of a child is beautiful and cute. It doesn't automatically mean that everyone who views the picture is sexually aroused.

I'm also concerned that everyone has to adhere to certain rules only because there are a few insane people around like paedophiles. Take a photo of a foot and you could have foot-fetishists on your doorstep. It's a form of appeasing the insane.

In England it's also part of a debate. I quote David Hockney's letter to The Guardian:

"The no-smoking policy in mental health institutions is outright cruelty, imposed by an unthinking and blind political elite (Letters, May 30). They are now getting into trouble with images, as I said they would (Comment, March 27). But no one was prosecuted for the NHS advert with the image of the boy with a fish-hook in his mouth that had to be withdrawn. Why not? Now they are moving into very dangerous territory. The suggestion that drawings of children should now be prosecuted is mind-blowing in it's ignorance (This loophole is real. But the remedy is really perverse, May 31). I am out of step with the mean spirit of our age. I told a friend I had been to a house in Lincolnshire where in three rooms there must have been pictures of a few hundred naked children and a lot of naked adults as well. He looked shocked until I told him they were painted by Antonio Verrio between 1688 and 1698, at Burghley House in Stamford. I detest the cultural vandalism that contaminates New Labour. I hope they go - and soon.
David Hockney
London"

It's also perverse that so many people who object to nudity of the human body, don't hesitate to let their children watch the news with people's limbs being blown up.

The moral compass seems to just go from one extreme to another......

on Wednesday, June 4th, carli@gmail.com">Gregory Carlin said

These extreme images are being transacted over the internet and used by pedophiles, Henson has been a problem for a while, he needs to be stopped.

on Wednesday, June 4th, cassandra said

As long as they are people who are willing to look there will be people willing to provide. Surely one would think in an enlightened society that starving a dog to death, or photographing naked children or using feces or any other moral obscenity and call it art would be met with continuous outrage. However, it is not. Only a few are enlightened and the rest still pee on the cave walls.

on Sunday, June 1st, Jack said

I agree with Jose!

on Sunday, June 1st, Nicholas Forrest said

Just so you know, the image I have included with this post is not the image that caused all the controversy. Several newspapers are being investigated for showing the image with their articles on the saga so I have chosen not to risk prosecution. The image I have used for my post is very tame compared to the images that caused the controversy

Nicholas Forrest

on Saturday, May 31st, norstar@telus.net">elizabeth johannson said

Children in spirit, and form are beautiful. The problem is the viewer and how they may look at the child, what they bring the the picture. The blanket of parental consent is in my limited view the biggest problem. Somethings should be given only by the body that owns them. Children's rights protected by the United Nations can be signed away in government agreements, case in point, Spallumcheen Band vs Ministry for Children and families, Canada. There are so many conflicting views of best interest, only the child should have the authority to give their consent and hey, in while things differ through culture and law, Canadian goverment just bumped the age of consent to sixteen. The images may be beautiful and a huge loss to the artists and his statement if pulled, but the world we live in that exposes children to harm requires bigger ethical questions be considered. At the days end it would be devestating to discover fighting for the right to freely produce art was carried on the shoulders or at the expense of a child. That would be an unfair sacrifice.

on Saturday, May 31st, BradMM said

I searched Bill Henson and found nothing objectionable on the net, however I also found this in the headlines…

ultra-conservative, “Labor government backs witch-hunting of photographer Bill Henson…” and,
“Arts representatives support photographer Bill Henson,” and,
“Stars back controversial photographer Bill Henson” – ‘Signatories warn of effects of censorship,” and,
“ACTRESS Cate Blanchett and other prominent Australians who attended Kevin Rudd's 2020 Summit, have backed controversial photographer Bill Henson, saying charging him would damage Australia's cultural reputation,” and,
"Charges are expected to be laid after police last week seized 20 Henson photographs…”

on Friday, May 30th, jodi Melfi said

I believe Nicholas' choice to *bleep* may have more to do with how the web works - search engines, spam blockers, content filters, etc. - than his morality. Thanks Nicholas, for making that choice on this hot topic, I appreciate your forethought.

on Friday, May 30th, Mark said

WOW! I know there are words at times here that are 'bleeped' or at least the written form of being 'bleeped' but the word '***' (s*e*x) is that such a bad word???

on Friday, May 30th, Nicholas Forrest said

If you want to see more of Bill Henson's work go to google images and type in "bill henson"

Nicholas Forrest

on Friday, May 30th, Mark said

I feel that an artist should use what tools (equipment, subject) they can to create thier vision, there is a responcibility that goes along with that. Anyone who uses children in a way that they 9The child) can not fully understand is wrong. I have not see Henson's work, so I can not judge it, but if he has used children in the way you say then he should know that he is taking a chance with his work, and thus if need be he should be punished, doesn't realy matter if it was all done in the name of art and not ***, I can not believe he did not know the risk he is taking.

on Friday, May 30th, Brad Michael Moore said

I hope your heart is in the right place, Nick. Still, I see nothing wrong with the image you show – it is Henson's work, I presume. It is hard to discuss, or be critical of imagery you can't see - but for the word of others who may, or may not have, an overtly adjusted moral compass. You say there was parental agreement, I have seen many artists work to display children nude, and natural, as any other type, and age, of human - there is nothing to find shame in that alone. Still, I have never seen child pornography (nor have I ever been a seeker to find it), but I have seen artist's create images with children as victims of abuse - as a step towards awareness of those related issues. I have also seen artists – even here, at absolutearts, who peddle wares I sometimes consider provocative, and that I believe carries the flavor of soft porn. I know people will push the limits of our acceptability over what is pure, and what may be perverse. I do not know how, and where we draw the limits when the issue is cloudy, and human rights are involved. But let us not create victims where there are none. Yes, we must try to protect our children from any known criminal elements, and known dangers to their health and well being – however there is no proof of any such activity presented here – only accusations without tried merit. Let us see indictments, and convictions, and lost appeals – those are truer measures. There must be provable criminal intent, and not just victims created by third-party accusers, who disagree with another’s rights to express their own truths and perceptions where there is honest intent, freeness of participation - with legal courses prewritten, and actions overseen. I must assume the images you speak of here must be, sinful, - but, I have to see it - to know - it is pornography, or unnatural behavior having been expressed - I can't just take the word of another who’s precepts may be far different from what I consider conservatively reasonable. Sally Mann is a very famous photographer who has taken nude images of her children (a boy and two girls, I believe). However, they were never provocative, or forced, or sexual in nature (to a normal human standard). Still, I have wondered, myself, what those children might think, as adults - might they sue their mother for past, and future embarrassments? Would they seek to legally gain portions of the profits from the many thousands of magazine and tabletop photo book sales containing their images? There is a line to be drawn - but if it is two-sided, and only an ultra-conservative pose stands on one side - then questions should be examined more closely, to be certain a mob mentality is not being expressed that creates victims where there were none. Not even 100 years have passed in America when innocent black men were lynched, tortured, and hung - for looking at a white woman with an eye of questionable intent – this, according to another white man’s most narrowest, racial, and hatred-hardened point of view. More often, there was not even a true reason at all – just an opportunity for mob mentality in the cover of darkness – cruel and despicable behavior. Has a true cruel and despicable behavior been expressed, and truly committed here? In the end - it is unfair to condemn an artist, and their work, without more explicit proof of criminal intent, and, or, examinable proof of harm - done to the minor model, through the actions of an illegal assembly with illegal intent and outcome. I would like to hear Mr. Henson's story of his expressed intent, and, or, his attorney's rap, and the dialogs of the parents, their child - and finally – the actual images - to determine if harm was exercised. It sounds to me that extremist factions are making all the claims, and noise - but why is this tale, here, in this space, where only one side of this issue is being expressed. As such, in this forum, we are put in a position where it is impossible to make a true judgment - outside of conjectures, and broad-based assumptions based on hearsay. As you pointed out, "Police sources said yesterday child pornography charges were unlikely to be laid as the photos did not show genitalia and there was a legal defence of the work being art." I wonder what a true common European opinion might be – if could they examine the evidence. I know for sure that many Americans are screwed up over the issues of their own bodies because of awkward religious backwardness espoused to generations of flocks coerced to consider a healthy curiosity of the human body, unclothed, to be sinful without exception. Such rigidity has warped many contemporary society values, and created unhealthy attitudes in humans where, to begin with - there were none. I hope this issue is resolved by Henson’s piers, and not by a body of blind and terror-driven ignorance.

on Friday, May 30th, josé said

You sum it all up in that last sentence Nicholas, 'the life of a child is far more important than anything related to art and artistic freedom.'

on Friday, May 30th, Nicholas Forrest said

HI all,

More info on case:

Article from Herald Sun

Staff writers

May 24, 2008 12:00am

THE owners of an art gallery that displayed photos of a naked 13-year-old girl are set to face charges, along with a Melbourne photographer.

Police yesterday seized at least 20 of the photographs by Bill Henson from the Sydney gallery.

NSW police are believed to be seeking the help of Victoria Police in tracking down the girl featured in the images, which have caused an uproar.

Police from Rose Bay and the Child Protection and *** Crimes Squad raided Paddington's Roslyn Oxley9 gallery yesterday morning.

The 20-odd photographs comprise more than half of Henson's 41-piece series.

His exhibition was only hours from opening when a concerned member of the public called police about 2pm on Thursday.

The images of concern are all of one girl, aged 13 when they were taken in Melbourne.

Henson is believed to have told police the girl's identity and attempts were being made to contact her and her family. The photos may have been taken several years ago.

Victorian police were not called on to start a joint investigation yesterday but say they could be included if the child is from Victoria.

The National Gallery of Victoria recently held a retrospective of Henson's work.

The Roslyn Oxley9 gallery agreed not to hold its opening on Thursday and said it had taken down the offending pictures in preparation for a reopening, when the remaining artwork was hung.

But an image of the naked girl had already been circulated in the gallery's promotional flyer, as well as on the gallery's website, which has since been shut down.

Police sources said yesterday child pornography charges were unlikely to be laid as the photos did not show genitalia and there was a legal defence of the work being art.

But the charge of publishing an indecent article, carrying a maximum penalty of a year's jail and/or $10,000 fine, is being considered for Henson and gallery owner Roslyn Oxley.

Commonwealth charges could also be laid.

Rose Bay local area commander Supt Allan Sicard said police expected to prosecute Henson over the images.

Police have yet to formally interview Henson, who was at the gallery when officers arrived on Thursday.

Some of Henson's work is in Parliament House in Canberra, and Opposition treasury spokesman Malcolm Turnbull owns two, but none of these images were nudes of children.

Bravehearts child protection campaigner Hetty Johnston said being an artist did not exclude you from the law.

"He has an interest in young bodies, so this is nothing new for him," she said. "It's very seductive and very sexual.

"We don't see it as anything but child pornography.

"I think the community has reached its limit of tolerance when it comes to this and they are becoming more aware.

"What parent in their right mind would allow their child to be photographed naked?

"In 10 or 12 years what are these girls going to think.

"These girls will see themselves as sexual objects."

- Kara Lawrence, Steve Gee and Anthony Dowsley

on Friday, May 30th, Sam said

Photograph naked children...then rot in prison.