Not again, this time a police raid was involved

[Garbz]

passerby what you are saying goes back into the debate of pornography vs art. When does a picture of a naked child stop being art and start being pornography? I loved running around naked as a kid, and my parents have plenty of photos to back that up. Does that make them liable under these laws if they happen to display them?

The laws in this country do cover pornography and the exploitation of children. Especially laws against underage children depicted in sexual acts. But does the mere lack of cloths make the act of taking the photo sexual or perverted?

As you said you can not picture your children posing naked in a few years, but does the fact that both the child and the parents consented to this mean that there was any exploitation? Expanding on that, the parents consented, so if this is judged to be child pornography can the parents be prosecuted for selling out their children in such a way?

As for the artist running out of ideas, I doubt it. He appears to have stuck with the same them for the last 10 years, and has nude adolescents dating back throughout his collection. I agree there's a line to be drawn, but I must say the last 25 years have pushed this line dangerously close to the absurd. I wonder when catalogues will no longer be able to depict clothed children. At this rate this idea isn't as strange as it seems.

 

[MACollum]

I skipped most of the replies to this thread (forgive me) but wanted to make a comment. While the intended purpose was art, there is a serious issue surrounding the actual use of such imagery. An artist may intend for it to be art but if it is public there are going to be perverts who will use it for other purposes. Children should be protected from this sort of thing whenever possible. I have pictures of my kids naked but no matter how artistic they may be, they would never be made public for the simple fact that they would be used as pornographic material by some.

As for the Vanity Fair pictures, my real problem with that situation is that children should not be sexualized. Making sexy photos of teens sends a message to teens and society that they are sexy and, possibly, available sexually. Children are not sexy and should not be portayed as such.

Keep in mind that this is JMO, but parents should be leery of allowing this type of photography to be publicly displayed because of the possible USES AND PURPOSES of others. I wouldn't allow it because I have a real problem with the idea of some pervert (even just one) getting their jollies while looking at a picture of my kid. I am NOT questioning the intentions of the artist. However, an artist should be sensitive to these kinds of societal issues with regard to the art they create.

 

[maytay20]

I agree here while it is art, it should not be on public display for the protection of the subjects. I even photoshopped my 3yr olds newborn photos to not show anything. And yeah if that was done here in the US the photographer and parents would be in jail. There are actually parents that have went to jail because a 1hour film developing person called the cops for naked pictures of their kids. And they weren't even sexual. We all have our views of what art is but we also need to fallow our country's laws / rules. There is NO way I would take a 12yr olds pics naked even if the parents said they were ok.

While the intended purpose was art, there is a serious issue surrounding the actual use of such imagery. An artist may intend for it to be art but if it is public there are going to be perverts who will use it for other purposes. Children should be protected from this sort of thing whenever possible. I have pictures of my kids naked but no matter how artistic they may be, they would never be made public for the simple fact that they would be used as pornographic material by some.

As for the Vanity Fair pictures, my real problem with that situation is that children should not be sexualized. Making sexy photos of teens sends a message to teens and society that they are sexy and, possibly, available sexually. Children are not sexy and should not be portayed as such.

Keep in mind that this is JMO, but parents should be leery of allowing this type of photography to be publicly displayed because of the possible USES AND PURPOSES of others. I wouldn't allow it because I have a real problem with the idea of some pervert (even just one) getting their jollies while looking at a picture of my kid. I am NOT questioning the intentions of the artist. However, an artist should be sensitive to these kinds of societal issues with regard to the art they create.

 

[MACollum]

Maytay, I think you nailed it. The article in question appeared to be assuming that the photographer is a pervert (which is not cool). He probably is a decent guy who was looking at the naked form as art. Sex probably never even crossed his mind, which is why he can't understand the public's reaction. The public at large though, tends to be less trusting of a person's motives. I'm sure there are many who are simply questioning the uses to which the photos could be put.

Of course, I don't know how much of a problem child abuse is in Australia but in the US, it is rampant. The statistics are staggering, especially considering that they are based on actual reports. It is well known fact that many incidents are not reported. All of this combined leads to public paranoia. With regard to this particular issue, paranoia may be the best reaction, if only to protect children from the few who would exploit art for perverse reasons. The damage to children can be immense and permanent.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

The problem a lot of you are having is trying to define intent. Hey, if I shoot pictures of hands and there is a hand fetish pervert out there, he will use my shots however he wants to, to please himself. There is not a damn thing I can do to stop that. Some of you are implying, well, we should not give material like this to perverts. You would let common sense be overruled by a few wackos? Get real.

This crap is absurd. There is absolutely nothing sexual in those photos. Sally Mann and Jock Sturges have been doing this type of photography for years. When I view their works, I see artisitic beauty symbolized by youth and innocence. I see absolutely nothing sexual in the images. For those that do, then that is their problem.

Man has been painting nudes, photographing nudes, even nudes of children, since time began.

I, for one, am sick of the thought and morality police. This is not porn. And those who view it as such, really should get a clue and get a life.

There is not one damn thing wrong with taking a beautiful, artistic, nude photo of a child. Nothing. It is not pornography, except for those with tiny, dimwitted minds.

 

[MACollum]

The problem a lot of you are having is trying to define intent. Hey, if I shoot pictures of hands and there is a hand fetish pervert out there, he will use my shots however he wants to, to please himself. There is not a damn thing I can do to stop that. Some of you are implying, well, we should not give material like this to perverts. You would let common sense be overruled by a few wackos? Get real.

There's quite a difference between a hand fetish and pedophilia. Pictures of naked children encourage pedophiles. Pedophiles don't think about these things in the same way as normal people. I think you, like the artist, are having a hard time understanding it because you (I assume) don't look at these types of pictures that way. If you were a pedophile and saw an artistic photograph of a nude child your mind would be screaming free (and legal) PORN. I wouldn't think they were pornographic either unless they were overtly sexual but children still need to be protected from perverts.

I wonder if these children and their parents would have consented if the photographers would have told them that there was a possibility that some people would be getting off at looking at the pictures of the children but it's OK because the artistic element is more important. I think there's something seriously wrong with people who would put children at greater risk simply to make an artistic statement.

 

[craig]

This where conversations like this go south. We assume that there was a victim and an evil photographer with bad intentions. MacCollum needs to post some articles or anything proving that the children and parents had no idea what was going on.

Hensen is a nationally if not world renowned artist. Why would Roslyn Oxley 9 Gallery put them selves in a dicey situation with the subject or their parents? I believe all parties involved had good intentions. It is the closed minded government officials who are to blame.

Love & Bass

 

[Socrates]

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.

The logic isn't so strange if you look at the flip side and forbid nothing. Sorry mums, the billboards will display photos of baby rape and, if you don't like it, don't look.

Just about legal decision has the problem of determining just where to draw the line and just about everybody wants the line moved in one direction or another.

By the way, I haven't seen these particular shots and it's entirely possible that I'd agree with you in this case. Then again, I might say "Hang him!"

 

[Joves]

Well reading some of these posts Im guessing many of the painting depicting under aged people would be banned fro the Louvre or, any other art museum. If anything I looked at the photos and, they are very dark&harsh images. I personally didnt find them the least bit erotic because they were more towards the gothic end of imagery. If anything Struges, Hamiltons and, Mann images to less extent are more in the erotic end but, not in the porographic end in any way. Alot of Hensens seem to depict the darker edge of people and, places.
Also I must add in the US nude photography is not outlawed but, what is pornogrphy and, not is clearly defined. Photographing anyone under the age of 18 in lewd or, poses which are sexual in nature is illegal. And that is very easy to interpet because it is obvious. Some store or processor calling the cops over the naked baby on the bearskin rug just doesnt survive the pornography test. The one thing that seem lacking anywhere, anymore is common sense when it coes to this matter. All of the over reaction to anything really has become the norm.

 

[Garbz]

The public at large isn't involved in the case of bad intentions. The only person who should be concerned about this is the subject and the parents. As stated before, the perverted pedophiles will find there gratification in things as basic as an under wear catalogue, or even just a normal photo of a child playing. (I've seen cases of someone reporting a flickr account where all the accounts favourites were photos of children on other accounts).

So does it mean in the name of protecting the children we should never display their pictures ever? Another opinion of mine is that you're not protecting a child by removing his photograph. The only time protection by hiding the photo comes into it at all is if the subject is under witness protection or in hiding. How does it hurt the model if some twisted person missuses the photo for sexual intentions? How is the subject put "at risk" in any way if they are neither abused nor exploited.

Also given the fuss about pedophilia world wide, I am sure there isn't a parent in the developed world at the moment who doesn't have an idea that any photo of their child can be used for some perverted means. Rick highlighted that well. There are plenty of fetishists out there that could take a perfectly normally photo of a fully clothed person of any age and make it perverted. Should we no longer post any portraits ever in the name of protecting the subject?

Craig you hit it right on the head. Roslyn Oxley 9 publically defended him and have sworn the gallery will be reopened as soon as possible. The curator of the state gallery of NSW has publicly defended him. The only people who seem to attack him are those who have a problem with seeing the human form as anything other than pornography.

 

[Jedo_03]

Interesting discussion...
So what would the Mods do if someone posted an 'artistic' image of a nude child to this board...???
Jedo

 

[passerby]

passerby what you are saying goes back into the debate of pornography vs art. When does a picture of a naked child stop being art and start being pornography?

There is no reason to undress the child to produce an artistic expression. The universe and it's content is an artistic expression in it's own, a grandeour gigantic creation, endless. The earth is spacious for never ending landscape of artistic expressions, and there are billions of adults ready to perform naked.

I loved running around naked as a kid, and my parents have plenty of photos to back that up. Does that make them liable under these laws if they happen to display them?

I know it is just kind of rhetorical question from your behalf but I can't see the reason why they will do that.

The laws in this country do cover pornography and the exploitation of children. Especially laws against underage children depicted in sexual acts. But does the mere lack of cloths make the act of taking the photo sexual or perverted?

Garbz I can't see why the child must pose naked to make an artistic photo. Is this the only way for his vast ability that earned him "master" title to produce artistic expression?. Art is the expression of the heart. What art to you not necessarily as an art for me, or for anybody else.
That naked children pose were from his heart.

As you said you can not picture your children posing naked in a few years, but does the fact that both the child and the parents consented to this mean that there was any exploitation? Expanding on that, the parents consented, so if this is judged to be child pornography can the parents be prosecuted for selling out their children in such a way?

Yes they can, this is pure exploitation for the defensless creatures. Parents should work like me and make the kids happy with the material produced, not the other way round. In my belief children are a God's trust on our shoulders, not the source of income, or fame. That is what I believe in. As long as they are children they are belong to God, and we are the temporary guardians.

You know ever since the government produced that Baby bonus payment for every childs born, now the number of prams roaming the shopping centres increased? Did they do it for the love of children? no man no, they get pregnant and gave birth because money. They don't give a sh?t about those defensless creatures. They keep them as long as they can milk them. The parent of that childr is in the same boat, heartless greed.

Baby bonus is worth $5000 per baby btw, here is the link.
http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/payments/pay_how_maty.htm

And for the fame and money or both, some human become so heartless and fail to see the limit.

http://www.chron.com/commons/person...ebobPost:090862f2-c681-4019-bfdb-abb8aae0c306

 

[RubyMagic]

Your views are fascist and unjust, passerby.


Im simply disgusted with Government in general.


ANARCHY!

 

[usayit]

Just making a few points

I do not have a problem the photos displayed in the gallery. I actually find the Miley Cyrus photo in its original content within Vanity Fair a more disturbing. The reason is the way the photos are being displayed/used. These photos were in an art gallery..... thus being displayed for the intention of art... they are also out of the public eye. Don't like it don't go to the gallery. Art has always been subjective according to the eye of the beholder.

On the other hand,

The difference between art and pornography is such a grey and subjective area. Law's are concrete and thus are limited in defining what is pornography and what is art. It is difficult to write into law guidelines that define one photo of a nude child as art and another as pornography. What the laws can do is write limitations based on age which is a concrete. Yes.. the laws do protect children from exploitation. Yes... the laws do make some "artistic" photographs of nude children illegal. It is an imperfect system erring on the side of protection from child exploitation... we have to live with it until a better solution is available.


With that said... I have no problems with the ARTISTIC nudes of children in that gallery BUT if laws were violated, then those involve must fiight to have those laws changed (for the better) or take on the consequences. If the government is intentionally expanding the laws beyond their original intent (like here in the US.... trampling over freedom of speach) then I also have a problem with it. Laws are agreed upon... whether you agree or disagree we should abide by them and work towards change if necessary.


I like pot.... I smoked it in the past and still turned out to be a decent person in our society. I see no problem with it BUT I also know it is illegal thus no longer touch the stuff. If at some point, the laws change.... serve me up more. The only thing I light up now are cigars...

 

[Socrates]

Your views are fascist and unjust, passerby.


Im simply disgusted with Government in general.


ANARCHY!

Just dripping with logic and thought.