Bill Henson aftermath

[Samriel]

People seem to be obsessed with safety. Maslow's Hierarchy of Human needs has it on the second level of its pyramid, meaning the only thing we desire more so is food and water. It puts the desire of freedom to be at the very top under Self-Actualization. Looking at this, it makes sense why people are so willing to throw away their rights in order to gain some order and security.

I think there is a fundamental flaw in your logic. What is freedom in the sense of this debate? It is the political securityand safetyfrom oppression and regulation by the government. This act of regulation represents an invasion of their political safety to many people, and many people are skeptical that things will be taken even further if such acts are allowed and that more of their fundamental freedoms will be invaded - there were quite a few examples of such things in the 20th century. Where you were once safe from the authorities when you tried to shoot your kid playing football, now you have safety from anybody taking a picture of your kid while his playing football (including yourself...). Which one one prefers is a matter of opinion.
By the way, Maslow's arguments might be right or wrong, but a lot of his arguments and presumtions are interpretations and opionions, many of them based "just" on Maslow's thoughs. Nothing wrong with this, just how social sciences work.

 

[Samriel]

For god sakes there is absolutely no corrilation between the Henson inncodent and youth sporting events....just where the hell do they get off saying there is... Oh yeah it was all over the news, I forgot.

Point nailed.

 

[Senor Hound]

I think there is a fundamental flaw in your logic. What is freedom in the sense of this debate? It is the political securityand safetyfrom oppression and regulation by the government. This act of regulation represents an invasion of their political safety to many people, and many people are skeptical that things will be taken even further if such acts are allowed and that more of their fundamental freedoms will be invaded - there were quite a few examples of such things in the 20th century. Where you were once safe from the authorities when you tried to shoot your kid playing football, now you have safety from anybody taking a picture of your kid while his playing football (including yourself...). Which one one prefers is a matter of opinion.
By the way, Maslow's arguments might be right or wrong, but a lot of his arguments and presumtions are interpretations and opionions, many of them based "just" on Maslow's thoughs. Nothing wrong with this, just how social sciences work.

Thank you for the insight. I didn't think of it this way. However, I still believe (personally) the need for safety and security in the sense of not being a victim of rape or assault relates to a much more primal desire than that to not be able to take photographs in certain places. And that's why I felt certain specific freedoms are more about self-actualization than safety.

I do understand no scientist creates unbiased results. But I do put faith in his beliefs and opinions, as they are very well thought out (though imperfect, I will admit). And assuming something else is going to happen just because this is is a logical fallacy (slippery slope).

Thank you for posting your opinion. Although I disagree, I find it very helpful in figuring out why I feel the way I do (cognitive dissonance). And maybe next time, you can convince me otherwise.

 

[Senor Hound]

You are mistaken here. You are correct in the reguards that it is a small percentage of the whole, however the media frenzy that ensues is not oppinion. Fact of the matter is these things get an aweful lot of coverage when it is discovered and people from one end of the aria to the other see it.

What I was saying (and I could be wrong), is that some people out there may find the "frenzy" to be quite appropriate. You know?

I personally am not one of these (I can't watch CNN, cause its coverage IMO and as you said, is over-saturated). But I think some may find the reaction the media has to these events quite fitting. That's all I was saying.

Sorry that I didn't make myself clearer. I'll try harder next time.

 

[Garbz]

I still believe (personally) the need for safety and security in the sense of not being a victim of rape or assault relates to a much more primal desire than that to not be able to take photographs in certain places.

While the need for safety I understand, what I don't see is the positive correlation between the act of taking a photo and the actual assault. This is what troubles me personally about most of these discussions is that there is no evidence that a lack of a photo would protect anyone. The two are simply not causal in my mind. Worse still I am inclined to believe myself if they are causal that they may actually be negatively correlated. The lack of the ability to take a photograph and go take care of the perverted mental state in private may increase desire and actually cause an assault.

The same can also be applied to terrorism. The inability of taking a photograph does not equate to an inability to do surveillance. All you're doing is bringing the perpetrators closer to their target, and more often. The mention of a camera in various assault cases or cases about minors is what causes this association of the camera being directly related to the crime, and this is accidentally driven by the media

I also want to add this food for thought. There's no doubt the number of cameras has increased over the last 20 years. As the media would have you believe so have the number of assaults. But have the number of assaults increased, or only the number of reported / identified assaults?

 

[nynfortoo]

I also want to add this food for thought. There's no doubt the number of cameras has increased over the last 20 years. As the media would have you believe so have the number of assaults. But have the number of assaults increased, or only the number of reported / identified assaults?

The population has increased, too. In fact, in the past 20 years, it has increased by about 2 billion.

 

[The Dread Pirate Robins]

So often in these cases the best answer, in my opinion, is to use common sense. Do allow grandpa to snap a shot of his little slugger grand-daughter staring down the pitcher during a game. DON'T allow the same grandpa free access to the girl's locker room with his camera after the game.

If a game is taking place at a public venue and is open to the public, some members of the public are bound to take photos.

I have two daughters and I take some basic steps to protect them from pedophiles. One, I don't allow them to just wander off with people I don't know at the park. Two, I don't dress them in trashy clothes like I'm getting them ready for a career at Hooter's. True, it is not either of my daughters' responsibility that there are pedophiles in the world, but I think one should take basic precautions.

I have occasionally had photographers (there are a lot of enthusiastic amateurs like myself in the neighborhood centered kind of around the camera shop) come up to me at a playground or wherever and ask if it's okay to take some shots of my kids on the play equipment. I have so far not refused any such requests, adding the condition that the kid stays in my sight the whole time. So far, I have never had a problem.

 

[KD5NRH]

The mention of a camera in various assault cases or cases about minors is what causes this association of the camera being directly related to the crime, and this is accidentally driven by the media

Very little of what the media does to influence public opinion is accidental. Let's look at some other stories:

She had with her a compressed air pistol, a steel mallet, a knife, pepper spray, four feet of rubber tubing, latex gloves and garbage bags.

Any normal person will recognize that a steel mallet is called a hammer, and that all of these items with the exception of the air pistol (and that's not even very abnormal around here) are pretty normal trunk-stuff for anyone with enough mechanical skills to work on their car. (And it's perfectly reasonable in this case to assume that the suspect was at lesat that skilled.) Listing off items and giving them bad associations is one of the media's favorite fear-mongering tactics. Just imagine what they could do with the list of technical names of darkroom chemicals found in a lot of photogs' houses.

A grand jury in Ketchikan has failed to indict a former tribal president of the Ketchikan Indian Community on felony drug charges.

Grand juries don't fail to indict. Saying that they failed to rather than refused to implies that the suspect was guilty, and the jury knew it and wanted to indict, but just couldn't overcome some technical hurdle.

The weapon identified as a 9mm Glock. It is one of the simpler designs in handguns and is popular for use by police forces around the world. It is capable of automatic fire, and the various models can carry 17, 19 or 33 shots, in a clip.

The fully automatic Glock 9mm is the Glock 18, which sells for well over $5,000, not counting the $200 transfer tax and all the Federal paperwork. As far as stealing one, that's well nigh impossible as well, since there aren't very many in civilian hands in the US, and given the NFA ownership requirements, automatic weapons are well protected, and reported immediately if stolen. If that were the case, there would be a whole other story about the gun being stolen and investigating how it got to this guy. IOW, I seriously doubt he went through 6 months of paperwork and waiting to spend a small fortune just to shoot up a fast food joint, but the idea that he did it with a submachine gun just sounds so much more sensational than the truth.

Anything referencing an AK47; they're not cheap, and not that commonly used in crimes, but they sound a lot more evil and sensational than the various common rifles that are virtually always misidentified as such.

 

[Bifurcator]

What an engrossing thread! I can't join in any significant way because I get uber-pissed at people who justify sacrificing liberty and rights for safety. I believe it was Ben Franklin who said it best: "Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety shall have neither."

Jeez, I can't even write another sentence on the topic without going ballistically postal and getting very insulting and personal - so I guess that's my hit and run for this thread.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it!"
- Thomas Paine

And I think that means taking care of business yourself and not depending on the government to make rules about when and how you can wipe your ah-hem, noses. Turning the US and UK into nanny "tattle-tale" states isn't the answer unless you're trying to emulate pre-war and war-time Germany - (tho I hear some actually are). I also think it means DEMANDING your rights even if it seems a little too boisterous or intrusive for the event. I loved it when Garbz spoke of the coach tearing the grounds official a new orifice! Way to frigging go! We need more people like that guy and less wimps that are willing to "go along to get along"!!! And of course it surely means being hyper-critical of any kind of socialistic or tyrannical policies implied, or enacted by your government!

 

[Edward Crim]

And it covers a full 35mm frame?

Most pedophiles that want to secretly take photos of children at the weekend soccer match aren't standing on the sidelines with a 5D and a 70-300 f2.8.

hard to hide that.

 

[Garbz]

Very little of what the media does to influence public opinion is accidental. Let's look at some other stories: *snip*

Ok yes granted. But having a fully automatic handgun is sensational. Having a camera is not. In most of the cases locally anyway the media tends to jump on the computer. "The police arrested *** and several computers were seized containing thousands of images blah blah."

But I do agree, accidental was definitely the wrong word. I was going more with the meaning of the sensationalism they present, which accidental incites the fear of a camera.

And it covers a full 35mm frame?

Nah it won't cover anything since it doesn't exist. However the 70-200 f/2.8 which he was probably talking about does cover 35mm

 

[Tazia Doll]

The thing about being an internationally acclaimed artist is that... well that word "internationally".
Lets see now he's had huge exhibits in London in 1988, 1990, 1993, 2001, 2005 (this was in NewCastle), oh and the controversial "Twilight" exhibit which just caused this entirely academic slander exercise in Australia was in London in 2006.
Now the US... ahhh right 2006 in New York, 2004 in Kentucky and New York, 1990s been all over various American cities.

He's had displays in Austria, Spain, France, Italy, I could go on but I'd probably get tired of typing. Look for his artist profile if you want to find more locations.
Also don't make the mistake of thinking that only his recent art is controversial. His style has been much the same since the 80s

Now to the other lax facts of that post. Child pornography is not free passed at all by any authorities in Australia. It comes with mandatory jail terms. What is free passed is surprisingly enough things that are not child pornography, for instance Bill Henson's Art which only shows nude adolescents and shock horror nothing more. (won't speak for Japan here though).

And no offence but taking a school kid's opinion on art involving a nude body is like asking Kernel Sanders if his chicken is healthy. Henson to my knowledge has never actually protrayed intercourse, nor even implied it in any of his exhibitions. I'd be interested in that school kid's opinion on Picasso's piece with the 20 penises, some of which are ejaculating, others inserted into vaginas.

Also when did London become the centre for artistic impression? Surely that would be the open nation of France and not the prude thinking British.

The kid is wrong, but if a kid wants to do kiddie porn with Bill, that other kid is right, that's real post-adult about pre-adults.

His kiddie fetish material is banned from just about every major gallery I know, it is illegal to trade in London.

I think the kid was close enough to the mark. The kid was basically seeing a child porn merchant strut his stuff. That's what Bill does. His dark thing. When he isn't reading Silence of the Lambs or whatever.

http://www.artdes.monash.edu.au/globe/issue3/bhrmtxt.html


'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 penis, 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 ****ing 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. '

Two eye witnesses, if ya haven't seen i, don't be the expert.

Leave it to the kd

Tazia Doll

 

[Tazia Doll]

"Child pornography is not free passed at all by any authorities in Australia."

Dream on. That's my line of work. Oz is notorious for child porn, bad teachers, and political exceptions, Henson's career is proof of that. He's a child porn merchant.

I do a lot of work in W-DC elating to US foreign policy. Oz & Japan are probs. If Henson ain't stopped, Oz will be like Japan. Look at Art Monthly, that was a Japanese sado porn sex thing with trussed up schoolgirls and a naked 6 year old on the front.

The Japanese are sick with stuff - it is their idea of normal. It is scary to see it catching on in Oz, it really is. It is mainstreaming pedophilia.

Henson knocks it out in cow town, he's banned from just about every place. He can only do ordinary stuff in London, he has maybe two things on a wall at the V & A.

He's even restricted at some of the galleries on Croggon's letter! The Oz media was too hick to call them up!

I can tell you somethng else, Japanese Schoolgirl Monthly, grant asisted though it is, won't get past Brit customs because, it's child pornography.

Tazia Doll

 

[Bifurcator]

You joined this site just to reply here? And what agency are you with? I think additionally that you're presenting falsehoods as fact. So far you've just been scamming. I find so far anyway, that everything you've said turns out to be totally untrue.

And isn't it interesting that you have no posts in any other thread...

What agency was that again please?

 

[Rick Waldroup]

Hey, Tazia Doll- Yep, he is a child porn merchant just like I am Superman.

Get a grip.

Why don't you put your agency to work finding the real porn merchants.

People that think like you, are the real menace to our society.