Conquer Club

Police raided a exhibition by prominent photographer and leading contemporary Australian artist Bill Henson, and are investigating whether he breached child pornography laws; after police received complaints about images of a naked 14-year-old girl.

He has defended his work as seeking to explore "something which is absolutely inviolate and unknowable….but…you can't control the way individuals respond to the work."

Child safety campaigners have responded with anger, describing the images as "revolting" and "of no artistic value" …"kids deserve to have the innocence of their childhood protected" and his use of pre-teen nudity has been written off as little more than a fetish for child porn. "He has a tendency to depict children naked and that is porn," was claimed by the child protection group Bravehearts.

Whilst members of the Creative Stream of the Australia, expressed their dismay at the police raid on Bill Henson's exhibition and the allegations that he is a child pornographer, "The work itself is not pornographic, even though it includes depictions of naked human beings. It is more justly seen in a tradition of the nude in art that stretches back to the ancient Greeks, and which includes painters such as Caravaggio and Michelangelo"

Skoffin wrote: The girl was 12.

And as far as I'm concered any pictures of naked children are *NOT* art. I wonder why the parents would let their daughter be in a room naked with a much older man in the first place.

Bill Henson is a much-admired and extremely good photographer. One of my personal favourites and an artist who represented Australia at the last Venice Biennale. Now suddenly he's a child pornographer, say a bunch of philistines who wouldn't know what good art was if it punched them in their sour, ignorant little faces. This is all bullshit. I hadn't pegged Kevin Rudd as such a twat, either.

Is this the state we have got to? That all children are victims and all men are evil predators? I remember a newsreader in the UK a few years back - Julia Somerville - going through hell because she took photos of her own young children in the bath and some knobhead at Snappy Snaps called the police.

For anyone who doesn't know who Bill Henson's work:

deliaselene wrote:Child safety campaigners have responded with anger, describing the images as "revolting" and[i] "of no artistic value"

And why would anyone be interested in these people's opinion on his work's artistic merits?

Skoffin wrote: The girl was 12.

And as far as I'm concered any pictures of naked children are *NOT* art. I wonder why the parents would let their daughter be in a room naked with a much older man in the first place.

a valid point, I wont argue that...but I am also concerned about the censorship and the role of the police in this incident...right or wrong he has been photographing pre-teens for over 30 years and there was no issue...why censorship of his work only now?

I see no problem with it, but if you want to see Pornography that is counted as art, check out Protege Moi - Placebo. It's NSFW by the way.

There's been worse things in art than a picture of a naked 12 year old girl

I tell you what did make those photo's 'pornographic'

When the news channels decided to show the pictures on tv, but with the eyes blanked out with black bars and the breasts and genitals blacked out. Before it was a photo, all the hype and the sensationalism with the TV stations made it porn

It's kind of ironic, but i sometimes feel censoring only those parts of a photo, but still publicly showing the photo is in a way more pornographic, or voyeuristic that it was in its original state


EDIT: Also a question. At what age does nakedness become 'porn'? - Obviously noone has a problem with a new born being photographed naked, or even toddlers.. I'm sure everyone would have a bath time photo of themselves at their parents house some when you were all 3. Just a thought

Child Pornography is more than just pornoraphy and that is the problem in and of itself. Child molestation and exploitation is a major world wide problem and sometimes people feel the need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Thus any pictures of naked underage people is now the great social taboo. All those innocent photos of your babies ... that's enough to get you the scarlet letter, perpetial registration in the canon of child abusers and mollesters and millions of angry parents kicking you out of every neighorbood you move into because the law requires everyone to be notified that a vile sinner like you has moved in and no one wants a villan like you around their children.

I did a little reading, and from what I found out this is censorship, and not even in defense of a victim, it seems it happened just because some people didn't like his work. I would recommend reading this article with a few comments by his former models. Allow me to quote one very important sentece from it.

He's always had total consent from his subjects and their families and would never have made any of his models do anything they were uncomfortable with.

How can you be a victim if you explicitly agree to something and even have a say in how it should proceed?

MeDeFe wrote:How can you be a victim if you explicitly agree to something and even have a say in how it should proceed?

The logic (and I should point I don't agree with it) which also covers virtual child pornography basically goes like this. Images which are either virtual or from those who have aggreed of their own free will (although there is the question of whether a minor can actually give consent in this case and whether the parents or guardians can also give consent) cannot be distinguished from those taken without consent. Being indistinguishable they then encourage ilegal actvity among others and therefore they all need to be prohibited.

How are they indistinguishable? Is this then also pornography?



After all, it depicts a naked girl who's still a minor and definitely didn't agree to be photographed at the time. I don't see the logic behind the argument, images are distinguishable from each other, we often treat images we perceive to be mostly identical as representations of a single entity (a "meta-image", so to speak), no matter how many instantiations of them there are and however these instantiations may differ (size, tone, even media). Why then lump all sorts of images together that we perceive to be representations of different "meta-images"?

MeDeFe wrote:How can you be a victim if you explicitly agree to something and even have a say in how it should proceed?

Thsi whole thing isa no-brainer.

heavycola wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:How can you be a victim if you explicitly agree to something and even have a say in how it should proceed?

Thsi whole thing isa no-brainer.

Literally. Knee-jerk politics in motion.

The answer to this question is clearly: "When you start beating your mutton-musket over it"

Dancing Mustard wrote:The answer to this question is clearly: "When you start beating your mutton-musket over it"

Well I wouldn't consider pictures of Angela Merkel porn really.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:The answer to this question is clearly: "When you start beating your mutton-musket over it"

Well I wouldn't consider pictures of Angela Merkel porn really.

I was wandering through a tatty street amrket in amsterdam somehqwre eand started rifflign through a cardboard box of old dvds. I saw things on the COVERS of those things that still haunt me to this day. This is apropos of very little. I'll go and start a new thread now.

It's born when it makes me hard.

Fircoal wrote:It's born when it makes me hard.

That's a disturbing fetish right there...

muy_thaiguy wrote:

Fircoal wrote:It's born when it makes me hard.

That's a disturbing fetish right there...

What, a porn fetish?

spurgistan wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

Fircoal wrote:It's born when it makes me hard.

That's a disturbing fetish right there...

What, a porn fetish?

Re-read what Fir wrote. Closely.

Fircoal wrote:It's born when it makes me hard.

typo of the year.

heavycola wrote:

Fircoal wrote:It's born when it makes me hard.

typo of the year.

I'm inclined to agree, and we're only 5 months into the year.

Whoever looks at the picture decides if the picture is porn or not. Simply taking a picture of a naked child is not porn. It's not the picture that makes it porn, it's not the nakedness that makes it porn, It's only porn in the eye of the beholder....I think it's porn...therefore it is porn.

I have a foot fetish...and love feet. I jerk off to them. Therefore....pictures of feet are porn, and should be outlawed. Also....staring at pictures of broccoli makes me horny. I think broccoli is porn. It should be destroyed.

bedub1 wrote:I have a foot fetish. and love feet. I jerk off to them... Also....staring at pictures of broccoli makes me horny.

Your parents just called. They wanted you to know that they're disowning you.

Skoffin wrote: The girl was 12.

And as far as I'm concered any pictures of naked children are *NOT* art. I wonder why the parents would NOT let their daughter be in a room naked with a much older man in the first place.

Couldn't agree more

bedub1 wrote:.and love feet. .staring at pictures of broccoli makes me horny.

fapfapfapfapfapfap