Political correctness & other nonsensical rubbish

[Dyer'ere]

This is a link to one of Henson's most controversial images:

www.theage.com.au/.../05/24/1211183189567.html

I think most would agree that it's not meant to be a sex shot. Personally I reckon this one is about the stuff it purports to be about- adolescent moment, vulnerability, light and dark.

A couple of notes.

He's been doing this sort of thing for twenty odd years. I wonder why it's offensive now.

If it were a painting rather than a photograph nobody cares. I don't mean a cubist painting cause nobody would be able to recognise the subject then anyway. But a portrait. And I'm not sure that the law would be interested anyway.

This is a Caravaggio with a model of similar age. Because it's a painting and old nobody cares.

And this is a moment that might be a bit like the one Henson is looking for:

 

[Tiger74]

This is a link to one of Henson's most controversial images:

I think most would agree that it's not meant to be a sex shot. Personally I reckon this one is about the stuff it purports to be about- adolescent moment, vulnerability, light and dark.

A couple of notes.

He's been doing this sort of thing for twenty odd years. I wonder why it's offensive now.

If it were a painting rather than a photograph nobody cares. I don't mean a cubist painting cause nobody would be able to recognise the subject then anyway. But a portrait. And I'm not sure that the law would be interested anyway.

This is a Caravaggio with a model of similar age. Because it's a painting and old nobody cares.

And this is a moment that might be a bit like the one Henson is looking for:

A couple of things here:

1) 400 years ago 13 and 14 year olds were marrying, but standards have changed as to the age when a person moves from childhood to adulthood

2) They have become an issue now because a child abuse lobby group made a specific complaint about the NSW exhibition

3) The issue of sexual overtones will be the key, as this is the legal measure to determine if something is art with children or child porn. The sad thing is many in the art community have defended these items as saying the explore the naked innocence of a child and only a sicko would see them as sexual, but unfortunately pedophiles are sickos and they love the imagery of sexual innocence. If the line between innocence and sexual innocence has been breached, there will be a legal situation ahead. That being said, given the age of the pics and the consent of all all parties (parents, child, gallerys - both private and public) I would expect this to be more a "put the drawbridge up" kind of decision rather than a "jail the perv" one.

 

[Dyer'ere]

Sure T74 standards have changed. And it may well be that Henson's stuff is illegal ATM. Photos are considered the only porno these days.

You may recall a manga cartoon outside Polyester for many years. Pretty controversial as it was but the joint would have been on fire if it were a photo.

Which raises a question just how old are the female sprites in those manga cartoons supposed to be? Should they be making those noises while they're tied up?

And just why is a 13yo on an ad pouting and posing in that skimpy outfit? Pervy stuff in its way.

My points about the Caravaggio are about the use of similar (adolescent) subjects, the difference between the way we react to photos and paintings, the use of light and dark and that we make excuses based on the lapse of time. BTW nude paintings of people have been controversial for a long time. We have rolling phases of horror and tolerance.

My point about the Birth of Venus is that the artist Boticelli is pinpointing a moment when bud changes to bloom. It's an ancient artistic preoccupation, very much the one that Henson is exploring.

Maybe that's revolting. Maybe it's porno. But it doesn't have either of those effects on me.

I'm interested in why it's interesting. My guess is that people who aren't into evil don't know where to look for it. A fraction more effort would find a great deal more evil.

There are plenty of Australians fostering hardcore kiddie action. Henson aint one of em.

 

[Tiger74]

Sure T74 standards have changed. And it may well be that Henson's stuff is illegal ATM. Photos are considered the only porno these days.

You may recall a manga cartoon outside Polyester for many years. Pretty controversial as it was but the joint would have been on fire if it were a photo.

Which raises a question just how old are the female sprites in those manga cartoons supposed to be? Should they be making those noises while they're tied up?

And just why is a 13yo on an ad pouting and posing in that skimpy outfit? Pervy stuff in its way.

My points about the Caravaggio are about the use of similar (adolescent) subjects, the difference between the way we react to photos and paintings, the use of light and dark and that we make excuses based on the lapse of time. BTW nude paintings of people have been controversial for a long time. We have rolling phases of horror and tolerance.

My point about the Birth of Venus is that the artist Boticelli is pinpointing a moment when bud changes to bloom. It's an ancient artistic preoccupation, very much the one that Henson is exploring.

Maybe that's revolting. Maybe it's porno. But it doesn't have either of those effects on me.

I'm interested in why it's interesting. My guess is that people who aren't into evil don't know where to look for it. A fraction more effort would find a great deal more evil.

There are plenty of Australians fostering hardcore kiddie action. Henson aint one of em.

Agree the artist is not a porn peddler, but if there is an issue here, it may just be about being more careful with subject matter.

Don't get me started on kids in advertising. The eroticization (?) of tweens today is a disgrace. I know one retailer here (and in the UK) actually tried to sell a pole dancing kit for 8 year olds, with the slogan on it "to bring out your inner sex kitten"

 

[Dyer'ere]

LOL The pole dancing kit for 7yos. Unbelievable. This *smile* turns up every five minutes although seldom as choice as that one.

FWIW T74, I reckon it's a great case of the artist holding a mirror to people. Most of us don't like the look of our double standards. What are we doing about the kiddie porno industry? Bringing any front page charges ATM?

If the one I posted the link to is the most shocking of them it'll get thrown out of court I reckon. But the whole affair raises dozens of interesting and complex questions.

 

[jb03]

Just about all art should be banned from public viewing - generally it is all crap. I'm still having nightmares about the Silver K Gallery - I'm sure they are having another exhibition of Simpsons cells.

 

[Knighter]

In fairness the Stones one was good Jim Bob.

 

[jb03]

In fairness the Stones one was good Jim Bob.

I'll take your word for it.

 

[evo]

Just about all art should be banned from public viewing - generally it is all crap. I'm still having nightmares about the Silver K Gallery - I'm sure they are having another exhibition of Simpsons cells.

Philistine

Sister in law has a Bill Henson that he gave her as part of the payment for designing his house about 15 years ago--worth heaps.Hopefully the controversy continues for her sake,it always adds value ;D

 

[jb03]

Philistine

Pretentious snob.

 

[evo]

;D harsh.

you seriously don't like any art at all?

What about missing33's moving avatar?

 

[jb03]

;D harsh.

you seriously don't like any art at all?

If i can ever work out to have a wager on it then maybe.

;D harsh.


What about missing33's moving avatar?

OK, missings avatar is one of the best pieces of art I've seen. Now if he'd only cark it we could sell it for thousands.

 

[Knighter]

OK, missings avatar is one of the best pieces of art I've seen. Now if he'd only cark it we could sell it for thousands.

I'll do what I can.

 

[Legends of 2017]

Just about all art should be banned from public viewing - generally it is all crap. I'm still having nightmares about the Silver K Gallery - I'm sure they are having another exhibition of Simpsons cells.

Agree, art is one big pretentious wank.
With a few notable exceptions.
1. the Richmond Team of the Century
2. any of the prints with the dogs playing pool or poker ;D

 

[Dyer'ere]

This one has some legs I reckon.

PM Rudd is serious when he says that such images compromise the innocence of children. Many, I'm sure, agree.

Hetty Johnston of Bravehearts, a Qld based child sexual assault victim support organisation, on the seven-thirty report tonight suggested that such images were painful to the young people she seeks to represent. She also suggested that if the images were not illegal the laws should be changed to make them so.

A spectrum:

Would any of us object to one of our 13yo children posing naked for photos for a medical journal? Maybe. But many, maybe most, would accede if the idea of th greater good could be invoked.

At the other end none of us would allow a pornographer to photograph our naked children anywhere.

Somewhere in between is the question of what constitutes the greater good and whether art might be considered a part of it. Is it right to allow your 13yo to pose naked for a photographer? Pretty controversial in most circles.

One thing is clear in my mind - that Henson's images are not erotic. Some people don't distinguish between erotica and nudity. Perhaps in some cultures including this one there is not much difference. But there is a difference.

Part of the power of the work is that it verges on taboo. Is that the same as taboo itself?

 

[jb03]

This one has some legs I reckon.

PM Rudd is serious when he says that such images compromise the innocence of children. Many, I'm sure, agree.

Hetty Johnston of Bravehearts, a Qld based child sexual assault victim support organisation, on the seven-thirty report tonight suggested that such images were painful to the young people she seeks to represent. She also suggested that if the images were not illegal the laws should be changed to make them so.

A spectrum:

Would any of us object to one of our 13yo children posing naked for photos for a medical journal? Maybe. But many, maybe most, would accede if the idea of th greater good could be invoked.

At the other end none of us would allow a pornographer to photograph our naked children anywhere.

Somewhere in between is the question of what constitutes the greater good and whether art might be considered a part of it. Is it right to allow your 13yo to pose naked for a photographer? Pretty controversial in most circles.

One thing is clear in my mind - that Henson's images are not erotic. Some people don't distinguish between erotica and nudity. Perhaps in some cultures including this one there is not much difference. But there is a difference.

Part of the power of the work is that it verges on taboo. Is that the same as taboo itself?

If you put it that way JD I fail to see how photographing a 13 yo naked can be for the greater good of anything or in any instance. The line is hard to draw, if 13 is acceptable, is 12? If so what about 11? One year old or even two is possibly ok as well but somewhere there in the middle it becomes unacceptable. And art as controversy makes no sense either.

But obviously verging on something is not the same as something.

As an aside, I had to laugh at Neil Mitchell interviewing some other gallery owner from Sydney today. He kept hammering the guy for supporting Henson by placing one of his works in his own front window. The guy said, well that he was in the business of selling artwork - you know - to make a living. But Neil kept asking - are you supporting Henson by displaying the work in your window. Err Neil, just perhaps the current controversy surrounding Henson allowed the gallery owner to finallly flog off the Henson dust gatherer that Legends would no doubt have covered over with dogs playing pool.

 

[Legends of 2017]

that Legends would no doubt have covered over with dogs playing pool.

Modern day masterpieces I tell ya ;D

I wonder if Krudd will change hismind now that wonderwoman disagrees with him

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23770087-661,00.html

"..........Actor Cate Blanchett and dozens of other 2020 Summit delegates have called on the Prime Minister to retract his criticisms of controversial Melbourne artist Bill Henson.

Just days after Mr Rudd described Henson's photographs of naked adolescents as "absolutely revolting", Blanchett put her name to an open letter calling on the PM to back down......"

 

[Liverpool]

Modern day masterpieces I tell ya ;D
I wonder if Krudd will change hismind now that wonderwoman disagrees with him
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23770087-661,00.html
"..........Actor Cate Blanchett and dozens of other 2020 Summit delegates have called on the Prime Minister to retract his criticisms of controversial Melbourne artist Bill Henson.
Just days after Mr Rudd described Henson's photographs of naked adolescents as "absolutely revolting", Blanchett put her name to an open letter calling on the PM to back down......"

I wonder what Cate's response would be if Henson came to her now and wanted to photograph her children naked for the world to see?
For some reason, Blanchett seems to be the spokesperson for everything 'cultural' but I guess that is because of the Chairman pushing her into the spotlight for the Comrade Convention earlier this year.
It seems this may be coming back to haunt him with the current disagreement.

On the Chairman for a minute....he came out very quickly condemning the photographs as "absolutely revolting" and we have Comrade Brumby saying this:

Victorian Premier John Brumby says he probably leans towards saying that Bill Henson's controversial photographs of naked youths "crossed the line".
Speaking on radio 3AW today, Mr Brumby said he had not seen the photographs.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/henson-crossed-the-line/2008/05/27/1211653993286.html

How can you say it "crossed the line" without even seeing them?

It seems the ALP have come out all guns blazing condemning these photos thinking that this would make them more popular with the population but it seems to be backfiring somewhat.

The way I look at it....child pornography is where children are photographed in suggestive poses or are committing sexual acts. If this is the law and the photos breach this law, then the photos should be banned and the artist charged with child pornography and the parents charged as accessories for allowing it to happen.
If the photos do NOT come under this umbrella then the photos should stand.

I also find it interesting that Henson has had similar works all around the country for years and all of a sudden some of these galleries are being investigated by the police. Surely, if the contents of these photos breached the law, then why has it taken until the present controversy for the police and the law to act?

 

[Dyer'ere]

If you put it that way JD I fail to see how photographing a 13 yo naked can be for the greater good of anything or in any instance. The line is hard to draw, if 13 is acceptable, is 12? If so what about 11? One year old or even two is possibly ok as well but somewhere there in the middle it becomes unacceptable. And art as controversy makes no sense either.

Well, that bit's the nub of it, JB trio. If it's not for the glory of art what the hell is it but exploitation?

BTW the girl depicted in one of the most controversial shots is now 23yo. She made a public statement that she was in favour of the photos. Next day The Age published an article about some legal type suggesting that she could sue. Some people aren't getting this.

Here's one. What about that perv Anne Geddes? Doesn't that lunatic take photos of nude children?

Freaky stuff, eh?

And Neil Mitchell? You're not suggesting that he wasn't on a sling?

FWIW I'm not phased by the photos thing much because I see it more as a hangup about nudity than one about sex. It's a marginal cultural thing IMO. In perfectly civilised European cultures clothes are optional for public bathing. In this one they were not so terribly long ago in limited circumstances.

But I know plenty of people who are going mental about the Henson thing.

One your second point about one or two year olds, why is it so different from twelve or thirteen to you? Or seven or whatever? Do you imagine that adolescents are more interesting to pervs?

 

[evo]

If they banned Anne Geddes,that would be preferable. ;D