Not again, this time a police raid was involved

[Garbz]

Ok this entire country has gone nuts. 3 weeks ago it was "we shouldn't allow girls under 16 on a fashion catwalk", then a few big discussions on this forum about the vanity fair shoot, and now this.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23743217-2,00.html

Quick summary. The gallery of a prominent photographer was raided hours before opening of the exhibition. And not just any old photographer. The curator of the Art gallery of NSW called him a "master, no one in the world quite like him". Skip over the usual crap, some dodgy child protection group says "OMG there's a kid with no cloths on, PORN PORN PORN ALARM ouch ulcer."

But what gets me and the topic I want to discuss (since we debated the porn topic quite to death on the vanity fair thread), is the comments by the prime minister and the state premier. The state premier's comments are easy enough "offensive and disgusting", well it's art, not everyone needs to like it. But what really gets me is our Prime Minister's response: "revolting" and "the images have no artistic merit".

So rather than ask what is porn, think of what is art? Personally I find classic Picasso's art revolting and would never have that in my living room. After all it's just a bunch of squiggly lines. It doesn't even look like a real person. But I'm not the prime minister so no one listens when I decide what is and isn't art.

 

[eravedesigns]

IMO some were a little bit too much like the girl standing up and her breasts were completely exposed. I understand the arguments for and against this subject but its hard to say what should and shouldn't be allowed. In our culture today (yea yea you can argue what this is but go with me on this one) taking photos of young girls and boys completely nude is considered wrong. Even if the photos are artistic it is still considered wrong. The vanity fair shoot I believe was ok because it still involved clothes and wasn't so exposing but these crossed the line.

 

[Foques]

Being raised by the family with somewhat different standards, I am not able to understand what is so wrong with that...

Human body is a beautiful and unique mechanism. Body itself is an art.

That is rather sad that people consider erotic art to be a "Wrong" these days.

 

[eravedesigns]

Being raised by the family with somewhat different standards, I am not able to understand what is so wrong with that...

Human body is a beautiful and unique mechanism. Body itself is an art.

That is rather sad that people consider erotic art to be a "Wrong" these days.

I think its because people want kids to have fun (well what they think is fun) and just screw around....not doing nude photo shoots that can imply erotic things that they don't even understand. The problem I suppose is that the kids don't understand. ???? I could be totally off on that one

 

[wallyir]

Has the Country gone nuts? Well yeah! We have politicians defining what is Art and what isn`t,Public Servants deciding were we can take Photos in N.S.W it`s an offence to take a picture on a Rail Station.

 

[craig]

I hate to hijack this thread but I am going too. John McDonald from the Sydney Morning Herald brought up a good point

"To me, the big shame is that the only time that we start looking at art and talking about art in the mainstream media is when it's banned, when it's supposedly pornographic, when it's doing something that's taboo," he told ABC Radio's AM.

Here is the ArtNet link to some of Henson's images (not the ones from the exhibition in question) http://www.artnet.com/artist/8135/bill-henson.html. What is art you ask? Certainly that is the most tired question of all. Let's discuss Henson's work. You go first Garbz since you brought it up.

Love & Bass

 

[Lacey Anne]

I didn't find the photos erotic at all. I'm very conservative, but seriously, those photos spoke to me about the innocence and vulnerability of childhood. And of its fleetingness. They didn't seem sexual to me at all.

 

[Alex_B]

By the definition of porn as far s I know those image were not porn at all anyway.

 

[Senor Hound]

If you think Aussie land is bad, those photos would have put someone in jail for YEARS in America. Our rules are a lot more clear-cut, but still stricter. I've heard stories of naked children, like FIVE years old being taken down cause the girl was topless. How absurd is that!?!

Now if you depicted someone getting their brains blown out, that's cool. But a nipple, and "you're sending the wrong message to our children!"

 

[Roger]

I didn't find the photos erotic at all. I'm very conservative, but seriously, those photos spoke to me about the innocence and vulnerability of childhood. And of its fleetingness. They didn't seem sexual to me at all.

so nice to read words of sanity....I started a thread on another forum (Oz based) today and the fear is palpable. The message about the art from my perspective is that naked photos of children are just that, naked in innocence and childish beauty. Then adults have to project their fears onto the images and make the creator wrong for exposing their fear.....humanity has a long way to go.

 

[Alex_B]

so nice to read words of sanity....I started a thread on another forum (Oz based) today and the fear is palpable. The message about the art from my perspective is that naked photos of children are just that, naked in innocence and childish beauty. Then adults have to project their fears onto the images and make the creator wrong for exposing their fear.....humanity has a long way to go.

Exactly, only pedophiles will see more than innocent children when shown images of naked children. But those pedophiles will also see this in advertisement catalogues for bathing suits, on children playgrounds, everywhere, so would you want to declare all those things and places illegal?

To go a step further, no one ever complains when naked toddlers / babies are depicted in family albums, advertisements and everywhere. But lets face it, even toddlers are among the victims of extreme pedophiles. Anything between the age of just being born and just before puberty is on their menu!
So if we follow this strange logic further, where everything should be forbidden which might be arousing to a pedophile, then sorry mums, no more pictures of you babies being half naked. Diaper changing only after dark and so on.

So should all us in a sense normal people give up that much freedom, just because of a few people with a mental disorder which makes them feel attracted to innocent pre-puberty children?

 

[Garbz]

Well the **** has hit the fan. Not sure if it's hit the mainstream written media or not yet, but news radio reported about 2 hours ago that the police have taken 20 photos from the gallery depicting 2 13 year old girls, and are going to attempt to prosecute the photographer under a law that prevents the publishing of indecent materials. So give it time he may just get arrested for this. Although we are at somewhat of an advantage in Australia given our chief judges are not elected but earn their place and thus interpret the law as written and not through the eyes of popular opinion, but still. This is a sad day indeed.

I am just thinking I have a Time Life book from their photography series. This one on portraiture, and there are at least 3 full page images of nude adolescents. Can't wait for the day I get arrested for possession of that book.

Has the Country gone nuts? Well yeah! We have politicians defining what is Art and what isn`t,Public Servants deciding were we can take Photos in N.S.W it`s an offence to take a picture on a Rail Station.

Rail station is different. In NSW as well as QLD the Railway is privatised and covered under standard privacy laws. It's the railway itself which is to blame for not allowing photography, although in Brisbane anyway QR doesn't seem to care too much.

Here is the ArtNet link to some of Henson's images (not the ones from the exhibition in question) http://www.artnet.com/artist/8135/bill-henson.html. What is art you ask? Certainly that is the most tired question of all. Let's discuss Henson's work. You go first Garbz since you brought it up.

Craig this is my point exactly. I am not qualified to judge what art is. Picasso looks like **** to me and I wouldn't spend $20 on one of his paintings. Who does have the right to judge what art is.

Now a lot of people think his work is art. In fact the NSW national gallery thinks he's an artist too and feature many of his work on a government webpage. This interviewer (NSFW Images) seems to think rather highly of him as an artist too http://www.egothemag.com/archives/2005/08/bill_henson.htm

What do I think? It looks like art to me. Why? Because I feel something from the images. They convey a sense of the dark confused adolescent mind to me. They do not look like idle snapshot of young kids playing in the park, and they do not look like porn, far from it, even his most risqué shots don't look all that much worse than the vanity fair photo, even though they contain full nudity.

I didn't find the photos erotic at all. I'm very conservative, but seriously, those photos spoke to me about the innocence and vulnerability of childhood. And of its fleetingness. They didn't seem sexual to me at all.

Those weren't the ones pulled in the gallery, he does have a whole series exploring the sexuality of adolescence. But even if that series were combined with nudity it most definitely shouldn't cause him to be prosecuted. The controversial ****storm will always be kicked up by a few conservative groups, but as I said before in this case it has totally blown out of proportion.

 

[passerby]

I don't think this raid has anything to do with art but pornography. Every country or society have their own age limit to determine when is the starting of adulthood and when is the end of the underage. In Australia upto 16 is belong to underage. Using art as the excuse can not surpress the law from being implemented unto it.

Beside all this laws, as far as I am concerned I think the artist has gone too far. Most likely he has run out of ideas, or he is just plain pervert.

My liking toward sex is the same like everyone else. But there is a limit that I know when to slam the brake. My daughter is 8 yo now and I know what she likes. I would not like to see her standing naked in 4 years time in the front of other people, either men or women for the sake of art. Because I believe she would still be a snob and grumpy by then.

Oh btw, this link is a reminder of what is lingering in the minds.

Top prosecutor faces porn charge
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/07/07/1152240493796.html?from=top5

 

[Foques]

Just to clarify, I was not referring to the picture of the mentioned photographer as being erotic. I was speaking in general.

I have seen a VERY few images by the artist in spotlight. More so, those that i've seen, were not containing any nudity to start with.

 

[Lacey Anne]

Ok, quick question... How are his photos any different than the recent movie with Dakota Fanning where she was shown being raped? And for that matter, would we even be having this conversation if he had painted these images rather than used photography as his medium?