Not again, this time a police raid was involved

[Garbz]

I'm curious as to where you would draw the line, or would you draw it at all? Would you accept ANYTHING AT ALL in the name of art?

No I have a line. My own personal line is the point where the image stops being about the human form and starts being about sexual arousal. A naked man or woman of any age just standing there is fine (well if it has artistic merit, obviously a P&S snapshot of a naked kid would make me err on the side of uncomfortable as to the intentions of the photographer and the purpose of the picture).

Things beyond acceptable to me as art: naked girl with legs spread at all showing full genitalia, male naked with visible erection, things designed to arouse for me stop being about art and start being about pornography. This includes two naked models with any kind of arousing interaction (kissing is really pushing it, licking is over the line).

Now I did mention met-art in the other thread, that even some pornography still has some artistic merit. Where I draw the line there though is if the model is under age, that IS child pornography and is not on regardless of the intentions of the picture, that is my moral boundry. But then given the above criteria even some of the met-art (well about 4/5th of them actually) stop being artistic in showing the form and start being pornography, not that there's anything wrong with it given their models are of legal age, but it gives a very different meaning to the photo.

We live in a world where majority rules and until the majority can get past outdated ideology, this battle will never end muchless get to the one that will soon follow.

And that to me is a sad truth. The world changes and ideologies change in very different ways. The word terrorism wasn't common vocabulary at the turn of the century, now the ideology of fear has set in. Just like this whole debate wouldn't have happened in a gallery in Europe, or 20 years ago where the topics of paedophilia wasn't in the public agenda. (I hope that's what you meant by that statement, at least that's how I understood it)

 

[Senor Hound]

I don't see what the problem is. The photographer was OBVIOUSLY trying to push the envelope with obscenity here. You don't take photos of underage children naked and expect people to be okay with it. If he did, he's an idiot. But he's not. He knew exactly what he was doing, and I think in a way, the photographer is happy that his photos got pulled. Cause it caused discussion, and created intrigue and interest. Now, people will better remember the photographer's name, and the model might even get some career play off of it. Sure, there's a question as to whether its art, but having many differing opinions debate on the definition of an undefinable subject is silly. You all are wasting your time trying to have the other understand your viewpoint.

And you Australians should be lucky, cause as I said before, if this was done in the US, the photographer would be in jail for YEARS and have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his LIFE because he was creating child pornography. There would be a trial, but there might as well not be one, cause it wouldn't matter.

 

[Joves]

The same could be said about the authorities that shutdown the gallery. It is their discretion to determine what is acceptable and not acceptable within the guidelines of the laws on the books....

Depends on if the gallery is a private gallery or, privately held. If it is a private gallery then it is at the discretion of the owner what to display so, long as it does not break the law. If it is public then the government has the right to close it down. Maybe Garbz can tell us which it is. Either way it is a political closure, to make some officals look like they are protecting the sheeple.

 

[Battou]

We live in a world where majority rules and until the majority can get past outdated ideology, this battle will never end muchless get to the one that will soon follow.

And that to me is a sad truth. The world changes and ideologies change in very different ways. The word terrorism wasn't common vocabulary at the turn of the century, now the ideology of fear has set in. Just like this whole debate wouldn't have happened in a gallery in Europe, or 20 years ago where the topics of paedophilia wasn't in the public agenda. (I hope that's what you meant by that statement, at least that's how I understood it)

No it's not, but don't think I fault you for your interpretation though, It's not that far off. The core ideologies do not change as rapidly as the world around it. The outdated ideology of which I speak is that of the human body in it's natural state as being viewed as inappropriate and automatically sexual. Contrary to popular belief the majority is beginning to accept nudity at some level (thus the increase and maintaining or profits in the pornography industry). However people are still a little hesitant to admit that they believe there is nothing wrong with looking at nude imagery much less traditional porn simply because they where raised to believe that the human body and sexuality should be concealed. When it comes down to children and their involvement with anything pertaining to nudity these hesitations become amplified and warped. Pedophilia is a diagnosed mental disorder and it does exist, however what is it is also warped by fear and speculation. When you add this fear and speculation to ones unwillingness to admit they find the human body acceptable it becomes unacceptable.

Where all of this really gets shot in the foot is the common misconception of what pedophilia is. People seem to believe that anyone who looks at an underage individual in the nude or in a sexual way is a pedophile....Wrong. That that determines underage is local law, laws can not in any way shape or form cause mental illness. So what exactly is pedophilia....well It's a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Prepubescent is the key word here, explain to me how it is that the word pedophilia comes up pertaining to fourteen, fifteen and sixteen year olds? It's modern ignorance. This ignorance paired with conformed cases in some of the worlds most sacred places is driving up the public awareness of pedophilia to unnatural levels reiterating the fears that there is a pedoperve around every corner. Now with that fear at such high levels anything that would provide the slightest resemblance of the dictionary definition of pedophilia tendencies gets blown that much further out of proportion just as you said. In a world where majority rules, any cases where judgement is involved those who understand the situation in it's correct context will alwas clash with those who don't, and in this case, those who understand it are in the minority.

 

[Garbz]

Just an update. The ABC just displayed all the pictures that were confiscated censored of course. This is actually rather far from the line I mentioned above. At no point were genitalia (male or female) visible in any of the photos. In 2 of the photos the girl had her breasts exposed. The photos themselves provoke a very similar feeling to his previous photos, and he brings the theme of uncertainty in adolescence across very well.

The most revealing photo was a photo of the girl shot almost front on, standing up and looking to one side slightly. Beautifully backlit, low key, and with dark cold tones like the rest of his photos. She is naked but her hands are crossed in front of her so only her breasts are visible. And that is about right up there with every other photo of nude girls which can be described as artful and in no way at all pornographic or sexually provocative.

Battou great timing on the definition of paedophilia. Because the report interviewed many artists, gallery owners, art associations, but also interviewed some stuck up psycho from the Bravehearts group (some child protection group) who seem to think that 1/5 people have been sexually assaulted (a statistic which I find hard to believe and is entirely off topic anyway) But the point is that she said they are "actively trying to prosecute the photographer, called the photos pornographic in nature, and used the the word paedophilia several times.

I am beginning to think the only person who is having a problem with this photo is her (probably because the girl in the photo looked fit, and the woman interviewed was the size of a small blue whale, but I didn't just say that )

 

[Battou]

Just an update. The ABC just displayed all the pictures that were confiscated censored of course. This is actually rather far from the line I mentioned above. At no point were genitalia (male or female) visible in any of the photos. In 2 of the photos the girl had her breasts exposed. The photos themselves provoke a very similar feeling to his previous photos, and he brings the theme of uncertainty in adolescence across very well.

The most revealing photo was a photo of the girl shot almost front on, standing up and looking to one side slightly. Beautifully backlit, low key, and with dark cold tones like the rest of his photos. She is naked but her hands are crossed in front of her so only her breasts are visible. And that is about right up there with every other photo of nude girls which can be described as artful and in no way at all pornographic or sexually provocative.

Battou great timing on the definition of paedophilia. Because the report interviewed many artists, gallery owners, art associations, but also interviewed some stuck up psycho from the Bravehearts group (some child protection group) who seem to think that 1/5 people have been sexually assaulted (a statistic which I find hard to believe and is entirely off topic anyway) But the point is that she said they are "actively trying to prosecute the photographer, called the photos pornographic in nature, and used the the word paedophilia several times.

I am beginning to think the only person who is having a problem with this photo is her (probably because the girl in the photo looked fit, and the woman interviewed was the size of a small blue whale, but I didn't just say that )

I'm glad to see this is not going unchallenged just because a politician agreed so publically with those who started the ball rolling. Challenging it publically is the only way to really get the point across that not everyone is out to sexually exploit everything they see.

 

[Roger]

Sadly a similar discussion I started on an Oz forum, had most people buying into the hysteria and agreeing with the censorship and criminal proceedings. Ignorance and fear reign supreme and a number of people said that children need to be protected and there's no way a 13 y/o girl is capable of consenting to such photos and to top it off they felt the parents had no right to give permisson and should also be investigated and or charged. I can't believe it. Garbz the woman you mentioned is on a mission as she is a survivor of CSA and so is not able to be objective at all. She is calling for a review of all of his works in all galleries....she smells power for her cause at present and if not stopped will do a lot of damage. Sadly her mission will damage the very children she says have been abused by this photographer, the amount of publicity, public hysteria and political posturing will cause these kids embarrassment and humilation. Some idiot legal person said the children might be able to sue the photographer later on if they feel they've been traumatised by this event. Well they are certainly trying to make sure of that!

 

[Socrates]

No I have a line. My own personal line is the point where the image stops being about the human form and starts being about sexual arousal. A naked man or woman of any age just standing there is fine (well if it has artistic merit, obviously a P&S snapshot of a naked kid would make me err on the side of uncomfortable as to the intentions of the photographer and the purpose of the picture).

Things beyond acceptable to me as art: naked girl with legs spread at all showing full genitalia, male naked with visible erection, things designed to arouse for me stop being about art and start being about pornography. This includes two naked models with any kind of arousing interaction (kissing is really pushing it, licking is over the line).

Now I did mention met-art in the other thread, that even some pornography still has some artistic merit. Where I draw the line there though is if the model is under age, that IS child pornography and is not on regardless of the intentions of the picture, that is my moral boundry. But then given the above criteria even some of the met-art (well about 4/5th of them actually) stop being artistic in showing the form and start being pornography, not that there's anything wrong with it given their models are of legal age, but it gives a very different meaning to the photo.

What would be your reaction if someone took and displayed photos of children that fit your description of pornography?

 

[passerby]

I saw in today paper even the actress Cate blanche making personal plea to the PM.

Maybe the best way for this is just make it legal to hire any youngster to drop their clothes in the name of art, by anyone who think he/she is an artist. If the artist credantials is questionable than he should not publish the photos but he is allow to keep it.

I have the right to claim to be an artist since I have a camera just like that master. So yeah why not, lets do it at anytime anywhere in hiring the youngsters without unnecessary bickering and without fear. No one on earth can deny me from persuading any young girl or boy to pose naked for my artistic expertize once it is legal. Any person who think that this idea is crazy than he better point it out to me why.

It is better of to hire them while they are still young since they are not that expensive and submissive.

 

[craig]

I saw in today paper even the actress Cate blanche making personal plea to the PM.

Maybe the best way for this is just make it legal to hire any youngster to drop their clothes in the name of art, by anyone who think he/she is an artist. If the artist credantials is questionable than he should not publish the photos but he is allow to keep it.

I have the right to claim to be an artist since I have a camera just like that master. So yeah why not, lets do it at anytime anywhere in hiring the youngsters without unnecessary bickering and without fear. No one on earth can deny me from persuading any young girl or boy to pose naked for my artistic expertize once it is legal. Any person who think that this idea is crazy than he better point it out to me why.

It is better of to hire them while they are still young since they are not that expensive and submissive.

With all due respect I feel that you are missing the point here. We are not talking about hypothetical photos. Your thoughts are your own and we respect that. Please refrain from making generalizations about the subjects and an art form that you know nothing about.

Love & Bass

 

[passerby]

With all due respect I feel that you are missing the point here. We are not talking about hypothetical photos. Your thoughts are your own and we respect that. Please refrain from making generalizations about the subjects and an art form that you know nothing about.

Love & Bass

This is what I mentioned earlier in page one, that "what an art to you is not necessarily an art to me". So if it can be done in the name of art by one party which to me is not an art - than I can do the same. The only objection came from others against me is by saying that my art is not an art.

There was one case here in the news the dispute between a well known artist against the art gallery manager and judge. The manager point of view was that his work in that particular painting was devoid of any artistic expression. The artist felt offended and took him to the court and sued him. This happen here in Sydney few years back.

What the police did in raiding the gallery (or the private house) was in accordance with the existing law. If this law changed to make it legal to hire younger people under 16 to pose nude than there wouldn't and won't be any problem by it.

The laws were created to protect the weaker party from the unjust action of the stronger party. If one law is lawful to one party than it is lawful to all parties. If one law is unlawful to one party than it is unlawful to all parties. That is why justice is about the just laws.

 

[Garbz]

Sadly a similar discussion I started on an Oz forum, had most people buying into the hysteria and agreeing with the censorship and criminal proceedings.

Yes funny that. Talk to many Australians and they agree with it. Talk to many Europeans and they completely disagree with it. Now I don't want to use the word culture in a derogatory way so I will just leave this sentence here.

On a legal point of view, I am not a lawyer, but my sister is. It is her opinion that there's no way the photographer could possibly be persecuted under the act that they are trying to get him for. I seem to remember my sister saying to the TV while the lady from the Bravehearts was talking "Sweety, you haven't even read the act have you?" But you never know. American stories have proved time and time again that judges often side with the popular opinion rather than interpretation of the law, and this is a pretty big topic.

Looks like the art world seems to agree too. During the 7:30 report on ABC1 they mentioned that they are more worried that this case would tarnish his reputation and force him underground than they are of him actually losing and being criminally persecuted. Everyone seems to think this is unlikely but then the people interviewed are not quite without bias.

What would be your reaction if someone took and displayed photos of children that fit your description of pornography?

I would have to say very similar to the negative reactions that are causing a stink with some of the other people here. I don't disagree with their reaction. I disagree that their own line personally is causing massive problems for one of Australia's leading artists over a set of photos that many of the art world and a vast number of people outside it don't consider at all to be offensive.

And I will say this (probably pushing it), but anyone who could get off on one of his photos has some serious serious mental problems.

 

[Battou]

On a legal point of view, I am not a lawyer, but my sister is. It is her opinion that there's no way the photographer could possibly be persecuted under the act that they are trying to get him for. I seem to remember my sister saying to the TV while the lady from the Bravehearts was talking "Sweety, you haven't even read the act have you?" But you never know. American stories have proved time and time again that judges often side with the popular opinion rather than interpretation of the law, and this is a pretty big topic.

Have you ever seen the movie "Snap Decition", The situation is different but overall it has many similarities.

 

[Socrates]

I would have to say very similar to the negative reactions that are causing a stink with some of the other people here. I don't disagree with their reaction. I disagree that their own line personally is causing massive problems for one of Australia's leading artists over a set of photos that many of the art world and a vast number of people outside it don't consider at all to be offensive.

My only point is that we all agree that a line must be drawn but, if you poll a thousand persons, the line will be drawn in a thousand locations. It's not a cut-and-dried situation and, in fact, there is no law that is. By the way, I don't accept that a "leading artist" should be exempt from the law.

 

[Garbz]

Battou no I haven't but holidays in 3 weeks so I'll keep it in mind.

Socrates I know the line will be drawn in a thousand locations. The question is where you average them. Poll 1000 artists and the average will be very different from polling 1000 child abuse victims. Also I don't think I ever said a leading artist should be exempt from the law. And I fully agree with you that he shouldn't. I just said that the only actual lawyer I know doesn't think there's a hope in heck that the law applies in this case to that photo.

There's a topic on slashdot today about the UK considering banning child pornographic drawings (such as those seen in many Japanese hentai magazines). The best food for thought on the discussion that came out of it was that in the US creating child pornography carries a 20 year minimum sentence. That's a very very high number considering the fact that child pornography was in no way defined at all in the law that was written.

The lack of a clear line is exactly what every single one of these posts in the last few months has been fundamentally about.