![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
marguerite_kruxIf people honestly believe that a male adult taking pictures of naked 12-13 year old girls and exhibiting them as ‘art’ for the whole world to see is a good idea, shoot, there’s still freedom of thought in this country. But for some reason, the people defending him aren’t participating in this debate. And I can’t figure out if it’s because they have no legitimate argument in support of him so they’re trying to confuse the issue or if they’re really that willful and blind.
‘Look at the controversy raised by Young & Jackson’s Chloe…the model for Chloe was only six years older than Henson’s model. Is there really any difference?’- Darius West.
The naked kid in the picture? 13 years old. And she wasn’t even the youngest model to pose for Henson. The model for Chloe would have been 19. As in, legally an adult, legally allowed to pose naked for whatever the hell she wanted, able to provide informed consent and understand the ramifications and implications of her actions.
Dear gods, when I compare myself at 13 to the person I am now at 19, there has been so much change and development I may as well be a whole new person. I was certainly a heck of a lot more innocent at 13. I was wearing Mickey Mouse jumpers, fcol, I was all into Disneyland characters. Didn’t get sexual innuendo or dirty jokes. I was pure, my mind unsullied…yeah, ‘kay, slight exaggeration, but still. Adolescence is all about struggling to find out who you are and what you stand for and believe in. To suggest that a kid just beginning to explore her identity is akin to an adult is the height of idiocy. Why do we even have a legal distinction between child and adult if a 13 year old is considered to be no different to a 19 year old in terms of maturity, wisdom and autonomy? There would be nothing wrong with the kid going out and having a sexual relationship with a 40 year old guy, because there’s NO DIFFERENCE.
Okay, I’m now rephrasing the point of the debate to include the ever emotional and squicky topic of pedophilia. To get people worked up and outraged because everyone agrees pedophilia is wrong and to connect this painting with that topic would win a lot more support from people. But at least I’m admitting playing to people’s sense of morality, others aren’t so forthcoming.
Back on topic, I ask you to consider this quote from Bill Henson himself:
‘I meet people who have had, for many years, a very intense relationship with one of my pictures hanging on their wall, over their bed…’
Now, I understand there is context missing from there, but how much is there to interpret? Henson’s pictures are spicing up people’s sex lives! Artistic inspiration for the bedroom! You honestly think a 13 year old kid is going to consider the possibility that there are people buying pictures of her, putting it over their beds, and having her in mind while doing it? Heck no. At 13, the girls in my class were taking teddy bears to camp with us, giggling about boy germs while secretly imagining holding hands with their crushes and just being kids.
‘Clothes don’t protect children. Nudity isn’t immoral.’- Paul Rapoport
I’m in shock over this one. There are just…I can’t describe how wrong the first half of that statement is. What the hell does that even mean? Is he saying a picture of a clothed kid leaves them just as vulnerable as a picture of a naked kid? O.o
Profiting over the picture of a naked kid who couldn’t have given informed consent IS the problem. And if parents can legally be allowed to give informed consent on her behalf in this situation, how far do you take it? We don’t recognize child brides or grooms in this country, but maybe we should let parents give consent for them to get married at 12 or 13. Okay, okay, grandstanding again, but really, parents are supposed to protect their kids, not let them be sexualized or exploited like this.
Just imagine the girl now- nobody’s interviewed her or anything, but I can just see her being at school and there are all these kids whispering and giggling at her, boys making lewd crude comments about seeing her naked, her image on display in newspapers and on tv. Kids can be cruel; I was given a hard time by bullies over NOTHING, when there was literally an ABSENCE of fodder for their vicious rumors and innuendo, so how about this kid, when there is a wealth of material available to use against her? When my class were on camp, there was a rumor some guys had seen me showering and everyone was talking about it [even though it later turned out to be another girl] and I felt so violated at the thought- it wasn’t real, it never happened, but the way all the guys were looking at me, the suggestive comments they made; the way all the girls were acting shocked and appalled while lapping all the drama up…it was sickening, it hurt me and I just wanted to run away and hide away from all of them.
So, 'kay, maybe I'm projecting here onto the girl and she really couldn't care less and she's the most popular girl at school and there isn't anyone backstabbing her over this thing- but no one can ensure that, no one can predict exactly what the fallout will be and I just think protecting the kid, even if it's something she wants to do, should be the more important thing here.
So, 'kay, maybe I'm projecting here onto the girl and she really couldn't care less and she's the most popular girl at school and there isn't anyone backstabbing her over this thing- but no one can ensure that, no one can predict exactly what the fallout will be and I just think protecting the kid, even if it's something she wants to do, should be the more important thing here.
A poll in the newspaper:
‘Should police be concerned about Bill Henson’s photographs of naked minors?’
I have a huge problem with the phrasing of the question. It suggests that the police are *choosing* to involve themselves in this situation, they’re kinda inviting themselves to the party to weigh in on the dude’s art. Bill Henson supporters are shrieking about censorship and how our rights are being infringed and acting like the police are uncultured bullies who just want to ruin everyone’s fun. PEOPLE, it is ILLEGAL. A crime was reported, the police investigated, charges may and *should* be laid. End of story. But nooo…
‘The NSW police should be kicking themselves for being stupid on this one. They are holding the law up to scrutiny as an art critic and trying to make Australia look like a nation of retarded wowsers to international eyes’- Darius West
The police should be praised for doing their jobs and upholding the law. They’re not being art critics, else a heckload of so-called art would be in the garbage right now. I see some paintings that are worth thousands and can’t believe my eyes because my nine year old cousin could do a better job. Besides, I’m pretty sure the police have more important things to do than lurk around art galleries to pick at people’s craftsmanship. I mean, I’d be seriously concerned if they were lounging around being all sophisticated and classy at art galleries while on duty, you know?
And how does protecting our children make us look retarded to international eyes? I mean, at the least they have to give us credit for safeguarding the kids’ safety, physical and emotional wellbeing. I don’t believe that looking out for the kids has ever been a crime worthy of international censure.
Btw. Still not 100% up-to-date with my comprehension of Australian slang. ‘Wowsers’? Wtf? O.o
In response to the newspaper poll mentioned above:
‘Probably not. I haven’t seen the photographs but I understand they’re not what constitutes pornography because pornography has explicit intent to arouse’- Marina Vassiliouk
It’s not a question of what constitutes art as opposed to porn. I’m not touching the ‘porn’ angle of this whole thing because that’s a whole other issue. This debate here is about an UNDERAGE GIRL POSING NAKED IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW AND COMMON DECENCY. For frak’s sake, people, get it straight.
If it’s not the irrelevance of art v porn, it’s supporters accusing the critics of being afraid or unduly condemnatory of nudity. For my part, I’m not a prude, I’m not easily embarrassed or offended, I’m not some old-fashioned Victorian maiden out of the regency romances who gasps at the display of an uncovered ankle. The newspaper printed a small copy of that Chloe painting, and I’m like, ‘yeah, image of the naked female body, all righty then’. Aside from wondering since when the papers were allowed to publish pictures like this- I think it’s because it’s a painting, as opposed to real life person- I didn’t react negatively to the nudity. Because the nudity itself doesn’t bother me, the age of the model does.
‘Insidious censorship is creeping through this country and through every aspect of life. Political correctness and currying of favor is rife. Unfortunately, ‘freedom of expression’ means having to get permission to actually express yourself’- Blair Edgar
I don’t know why these people are fighting so hard to defend the pictures. Look, maybe this makes sense or maybe it doesn’t, but if Bill Henson used his imagination and painted a realistic looking representation of a naked kid, well, personally, I wouldn’t pay money to see it, but whatever. It would get me off his back, I wouldn’t be wanting some sort of penalty imposed, I wouldn’t be ranting here now. Freedom of expression, I’m cool with that. I certainly don’t think these types of pictures cause pedophilia, or are the sole cause of pedophiles attacking kids any more than I believe watching crime shows is the sole cause of people going out and committing crimes. [All the tv I watch and still not one murder to my credit. How disappointing.]
The only concern, the single uppermost concern I have is that he went and told these vulnerable little girls to take off their clothes so he could photograph them. At that point, he crossed the line from expressing himself to exploiting kids. Freedom of expression, for me, is putting yourself up to the scrutiny of the public, not innocent children. For all that Cate Blanchett is on my hate list now for her attempts to use her celebrity to convince the Prime Minister to let this go and think about Australia’s cultural reputation rather than the wellbeing of a child, I recognize her right to express this opinion, even as I hope that the blinding light of her fame and fortune does not unduly influence the PM to make up his mind in her favor.
‘In a society replete with sexual images in television shows, advertising and books, and the dividing line between childhood and adulthood decidedly and increasingly blurred, are these pictures likely to be seriously shocking or potentially damaging?’- Michelle Grattan, Age writer]
‘Maybe she should turn to fashion modeling instead, where trussed up in a miniskirt and stilettos in impersonation of a 21 year old…she’d be lauded…’- Larissa Dubecki, Age writer. [May not be obvious from this snippet, but in context, she’s actually supporting Henson, and using sarcasm here to suggest that the girl would be in an analogous situation in modeling as she would posing for his art]
I love this. The whole ‘if you can’t beat them, join them’ attitude. In a society where awful crimes like battery, rape and murder occur, why bother enforcing the law against offenders, why not give it up and join in?
Seriously, though, they’re saying that because kids are so heavily sexualized these days, that makes it OKAY to go ahead and do it? That is CRAP. Besides, there was a whole lot of drama lately in the fashion industry when these 14-15 year old models were ditched from various shows and a new standard of allowing 16-and-above only was enforced. So now that the fashion industry is cleaning up its act and trying to look out for the welfare of kids being thrust into the limelight too soon, whether by their own desire or stage parents, refusing to employ them for their own good- THIS is the time that the women above would care to relax standards on exploitation of minors?
And fcol, there is a huge difference between trussing up a kid in a halter neck and mini skirt and actually displaying her naked. Even putting her in a swimsuit would be less exposure than naked. SOMETHING is always more than NOTHING. That woman uses the stupidest logic I’ve ever heard. Fashion is shallow, art is worthy, therefore swapping swap nudity for clothing- however scanty- would be awful, that would leave the kid much worse off than she was before because at least when she was naked, she was standing for some sort of ideal and that makes it better than- oh the horror- wearing clothes to advertise a brand. TOTALLY.
‘It’s not the picture of the person in her natural state that is the problem, it’s the sick mind of the deviate who cannot separate nudity from sex’- M. Rickard
I’m not sure about his English. I’m so disgusted with his statement that I’m going to pay out his phrasing because I’m vindictive like that. Now, a person can ‘deviate’ from the norm; a person who does so is a ‘deviant’, but I’ve never heard a person or a group of people referred to as ‘deviate/s’. Wanna grab a dictionary, much?
Hey, I can be petty, the dude is calling me a sexual deviant. Just because I feel that taking pictures of a naked little kid to display to the whole word for profit is wrongful exploitation of their innocence.
‘Art, beauty and even pornography is in the eye of the beholder. People who see [Bill Henson’s work] as pornography surely need some help to control the dark thoughts they are struggling with.’- Alan Elliot
I see. The guy taking photos of naked children isn’t to blame, it’s the people trying to protect kids and prevent them being used and abused who are at fault. Dark thoughts, ha. Thoughts about AIRLOCKING YOUR ASS… >:D
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-31 01:32 am (UTC)If she had a daughter, would she let her pose for him? I'm betting she wouldn't. But she has boys, so it's not an issue for her.
As for the term wowser, it's like someone who's ruining someone else's fun. Argh. Don't know if I explained it properly.
Oh, found a wikipedia definition, which sums it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wowser
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-31 06:29 am (UTC)But she has boys, so it's not an issue for her.
That's an interesting point- Bill Henson also used boy models, yet no one's brought them into the picture, they've just used the girl as the 'face' of the debate. Is it because people associate females with victims and weakness in general, but not males? So boys posing naked isn't as big a deal as girls? If Cate Blanchett said sure, she'd let her boys model for Bill Henson, would that be totally different to letting a hypothetical daughter pose for him? Hmm. I'm not sure what to think on this aspect of it.
Thanks for the link! Wowser: one whose overdeveloped sense of morality drives them to deprive others of their pleasures.
I feel so bad for wanting to deprive these poor people of the pleasure of gazing at pictures of naked kids on their walls. My heart bleeds for them. XP
I love how people are all so fired up about bans on drinking and smoking, they're all against the government legislating away our rights out of concern for our health, but THIS is the area they choose to pick a fight *against* a policy that is only trying to look out for the safety of kids. Seriously, wtf?
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-31 07:54 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-31 08:23 am (UTC)Bill Henson has not, in fact, done anything illegal. The fact that you disagree with the fact that he has taken them, even that you find them offensive (though I fail to see how they bear any relationship to child porn) still doesn't make them illegal.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-31 08:36 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-02 03:41 am (UTC)'It is not illegal to take photographs of naked minors, or every parent in this country would be up on criminal charges.'
The crime isn't in taking the photos, and of course, many proud parents have photos of their newborns in photo albums. My own do, and I certainly don't expect them to be locked up for it. The difference between all these parents and Bill Henson is that he's exhibiting his 'art', making it available to the whole world and profiting from it. That's the part where the law steps in, depending on how the courts would interpret the legislation in relation to the facts in this case.
Nor is there a shred of evidence that Bill Henson's models have been in any way abused (they all maintain the opposite).
Asking people whether they consider themselves victims isn't always the standard by which a crime is judged. Depending on factors like the type of act that took place and the age of the parties involved, a crime could've been committed even if none of the parties directly involved complained.
The photographs are not, in fact, taken for purposes of sexual titillation. This is actually unarguable.
Stating something is 'unarguable' doesn't actually make it so, but I appreciate the attempt. And really, would anyone asked the question of whether they took photos or bought photos for 'sexual titillation' actually admit to it on record? I don't think so.
Bill Henson has not, in fact, done anything illegal.
Well, that's for the courts to decide. They may hold that his actions didn't contravene the relevant legislation, that it wasn't sufficiently 'indecent' or they didn't find the children overly 'sexualized' and that he is innocent of wrongdoing. At that point, I will agree with you, he hasn't done anything illegal, although I'll still find it morally wrong. But til then, I'll stick to my opinion that on the face of the facts, his actions were illegal and plain wrong.
Henson was one of the reasons England got the SOA 2003
Date: 2008-06-03 02:27 am (UTC)When England outlawed vulgar photographers taking U18 naked photos of teenage girls,
it was decided there was at least one person in the Commonwealth who was likely to plead the case of being up-market, so Bill Henson's stuff is illegal as well, no hobbies, no art, no research, same for Pete Townshend, Gary Glitter and Bill Henson.
Henson was a problem, he was protected by his friends in Australia, obviously it would have been better if he was dealt with a while ago. In England, a guy running a gallery is not in charge of their policing and nobody cares what they think, why should they?
Re: Henson was one of the reasons England got the SOA 2003
Date: 2008-10-02 07:19 pm (UTC)Im not an artist, nor am i a politician, but i am human, democratic and believe in freedom. Unfortunately we dont live in a perfect world anymore where we can prounce around freely. Australia has one of the highest rape, sexual assault and child porn statistics in the world.. NOTHING to be too proud of. Australia is a growing country which needs to be careful, its no longer as safe as we all think it is and trust me we have to be ashamed of the recent spate of attempted child abductions, rapes, murders and priests having fun with school kids... I know Bill Henson is an artist, but he cant control some sicko walking into the gallery, getting off on his pics and then heading out to harm some kid... none of us can.. but we can work together to minimise it... no one , no one can point fingers at the government, our next door neighbours, the law because we need to protect the kids of this country ourselves. If we dont, WHO will. Bill i respect your love of the human body,, but take some pics of grown women and men.. please dont apetise these sickos more than they need to be.. Each day we are shocked at the violence towards children.. small hands make one big hand, we need to help these kids together.. I am ashamed to be Australian because of the amount of child violence that exists, i live in Europe part of the year and i have tears in my eyes when i read the headlines each day. PLEASE and i mean PLEASE... think of the sick people that are walking down the street, this is not ART to them, they GET OFF on it... And they arent the bums on the side of the road, they are doctors, lawyers, teachers, fathers, priests... the people we LEAST expect.. In a perfect world we can think perfectly free... BUT in a world that aint no longer perfect, we need to be cautious... I DONT wanna be a kid right now, nor in the future, THEY arent enjoying the freedom we had as kids. PROTECT them and DONT TAKE YOUR EYES OFF them. Hope this makes sense and bless the safety of every kid you know. Thanks
Help for downloading for free
Date: 2009-05-01 11:12 am (UTC)I'm so need this magic program! It's can break captchas automatically! Activate accounts via email automatically too! Absolutely great software! Help me!
And did you hear news - price for XRumer 5.0 Palladium will grow up to $540 after 15 may 2009... And XRumer 2.9 and 3.0 - too old versions, it's cant break modern catpchas and cant break modern anti-bot protections. But XRumer 5.0 Palladium CAN!!!!
So help me for download this great program for free! Thanks!