Curse

DreamRunner · May 24, 2008, 05:55 AM // 05:55

Bills Henson's' art got removed from art galleries in Sydney. Kevin Rudd called the photo's as 'obscene' and 'disgusting'. Its really in a debate on what is pornography and what is art. The photographs had girls and boys between ages of 12-15 naked, and as much as I respect art and that child photography is one of the most revolting acts on the planet; I respect artist in their work and while I can't even fathom how this is could be child porn, I am really not happy about the removal of the art work. The confiscation of the art work is disgusting and goes into why I hate our labour or collectivism thinking government.

65,000 people saw the art work in the NSW art galleries and staff of the art gallery didn't receive a single complaint, but now Kevin Rudd has said something, its called called child porn. Naked paintings and photo's of men and women above 18 can be called art, but once they are in their teenage years, its child porn. Amazing.

Avarre · May 24, 2008, 06:33 AM // 06:33

There's obviously going to be a distinction between the categorization of two age groups.

Snograt · May 24, 2008, 04:26 PM // 16:26

NSW art galleries? Surely NSFW...

Terrokian · May 24, 2008, 04:59 PM // 16:59

Well seeing as anything under 18 and naked can be construed as art in your words,why not get a couple 12 year old girls naked and kissing?Wouldn't that be artful?Wouldn't that express a child's love for another human being?Come on.Naked CHILDREN IS ART.Right?

Dude get a RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOING GRIP.Child pornography is FLAT NASTY AND THERE IS NO DEFENSE for it.

Malice Black · May 24, 2008, 05:08 PM // 17:08

Depends how the child is portrayed.

Terrokian · May 24, 2008, 05:15 PM // 17:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malice Black

Depends how the child is portrayed.

Tell you what.I will sit and take every TASTEFUL NAKED picture of a child YOU can imagine.If you can come up with ONE reason why I should take a picture of a child(say 8-17),who is also naked I'm all ears.

Of course we will ignore the fact I'm an adult with someone else's child naked.We will also ignore anyone else looking at these pictures in anything but an artful taste.

After all it's just ART.Right?

Malice Black · May 24, 2008, 05:38 PM // 17:38

Nudity doesn't always have to be intertwined with sex. It is possible to look at a naked child and not be a pedophile.

Snograt · May 24, 2008, 07:42 PM // 19:42

It's not so black-and-white, Terrokian.

I can see you obviously have very strong feelings on this issue, so I won't press it. What I will say is that there is so much paranoia about kiddy porn in England that you can get arrested for taking a photograph of your own child in the bath.

Remember all those cute pictures of babies naked on a bear-skin rug? No more.

/end input.

dunky_g · May 24, 2008, 09:55 PM // 21:55

I suppose its how you look at the pictures.

If you think about sex when you see a picture of a naked child, I would think it's you with the problem, not the artist.

If it's done in a tastefull way that's not portraying anything of a sexual nature, then it's up to you as the audience to the piece to take it in your own way, there for some people might see it as art and some as child porn.

DreamRunner · May 25, 2008, 01:49 AM // 01:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrokian

Well seeing as anything under 18 and naked can be construed as art in your words,why not get a couple 12 year old girls naked and kissing?Wouldn't that be artful?Wouldn't that express a child's love for another human being?Come on.Naked CHILDREN IS ART.Right?

Dude get a RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOING GRIP.Child pornography is FLAT NASTY AND THERE IS NO DEFENSE for it.

The problem is that I think its art while you think its child porn. Where the hell did I say I was defending child porn! Thats a god damn insult. I am defending Bill Henson's' work. Have you even seen the photo's?

Just because people are naked, its seen as porn! Just like yours truly. By your logic everything you see naked in photo's and paintings must be be porn.

pumpkin pie · May 25, 2008, 05:47 AM // 05:47

You've just stated the problem with his 12-13 naked girls photography exhibition DreamRunner. We, actually no one can control what anyone will think and see and the results of showing these photographs.

Does bill henson wants to be responsible if the 12 year old model was attack and rape?

Sure he said its art piece, he got fame and money out of it, so why not, its not his daughter, has nothing what so ever to do with these children that he exploited to gain fame and money. sure he said its art.

but will he, bill henson assume the responsibility if his works contributed or make people think that child pornography is okay? if he is permitted to do that, exhibits naked 12-13 year old girl in an art gallery, what if child pornography pusher claim their website is ART, just like bill henson?

ilipol · May 25, 2008, 06:16 AM // 06:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

Does bill henson wants to be responsible if the 12 year old model was attack and rape?

Do you think naked pictures are to be blamed for the rapists of this world? Then maybe if we started by destroying all naked statues that problem would be solved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

You've just stated the problem with his 12-13 naked girls photography exhibition DreamRunner. We, actually no one can control what anyone will think and see and the results of showing these photographs.
...
but will he, bill henson assume the responsibility if his works contributed or make people think that child pornography is okay? if he is permitted to do that, exhibits naked 12-13 year old girl in an art gallery, what if child pornography pusher claim their website is ART, just like bill henson?

I don't pretend to understand most forms of art.
I don't pretend to know the motives behind Bill Henson's work, I don't even know if it's art.

The one thing I know for certain about art is that it has the purpose of making people THINK.
Art's purpose is not to be pleasing to the eye or the ear ( that's pop culture btw).
It's to stir things up... to argue and fight for what we believe. And to wake up and see the world around us.
I don't know if Bill Henson's work is art or child abuse, but if people start reacting to it then something good has come of it...
...one the other hand we can simply take down the exhibition and go back to sleep.

pumpkin pie · May 25, 2008, 06:24 AM // 06:24

It has nothing to do with what I think, ilipol.

The point is, you cannot control what another person will think.

If you have seen in real life naked statues in, I have to say Rome, cos those are the one I've seen, you would not compare Bill Henson's naked 12 years old photography to those, its an insult to the Old Master!

quickmonty · May 25, 2008, 10:36 AM // 10:36

Are the pics in Playboy art or porn?

DreamRunner · May 25, 2008, 10:52 AM // 10:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

You've just stated the problem with his 12-13 naked girls photography exhibition DreamRunner. We, actually no one can control what anyone will think and see and the results of showing these photographs. ... but will he, bill henson assume the responsibility if his works contributed or make people think that child pornography is okay? if he is permitted to do that, exhibits naked 12-13 year old girl in an art gallery, what if child pornography pusher claim their website is ART, just like bill henson?

As I said. Many people have seen his work before this exhibition and no one has many a complaint. His works of being "famous" for a excellent photographer has been going on for last 15 or so years. The photographs are actually very dark and edgy and comparing that photograph of an porn shot in an magazine as a product to buy, then I failed to see how this is porn.

Porn is a product that sells towards the public. I'll argue that if a child pornography website claims to be ART and is able to be viewed on the public as a product and how the photo is shot in any sexual emphasis, then that is NOT art.

Malice Black · May 25, 2008, 01:16 PM // 13:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by quickmonty

Are the pics in Playboy art or porn?

Art. They're naked, nothing more.

Nakedness and porn are completely different. To be porn they'd need to show more then a little pubic hair (or lack of in some cases)

They're are many sites, which show naked women, but they focus on the naked body as a whole and not just the genitalia.

Some people are just complete prudes, and anything with a bit of flesh is sin/evil/porn etc

pamelf · May 25, 2008, 01:39 PM // 13:39

Bill Henson is a genius and should not be held to the laws of mere mortals. Seriously, i've been to most of his exhibitions here in Melbourne and his art always has a flow to it. A picture taken out of context can be taken as inappropriate, but in context can be simply beautiful. Naken is not necessarily pornography, and Bill Henson's work is Art, NOT Pornography.

Kevin Rudd has just shown himself a conservative prude in my book, and believe it or not I will actually be re-thinking my vote next election. The last thing we need here are heavier censorship laws.

By the way Pumpkin Pie, Bill Henson's work certainly IS comparable to the old masters. He is an absolute photographic genius. His art is evocative, provoking, and utterly beautiful. I went to one of his exhibitions for the first time when I was 11 years old. His images didn't offend me then, and they certainly don't offend me now. He is not exploitative in anything he does. And like I said, his images often need to be in context of the series they come in to understand the mood they evoke. Take into account also that the naked 13yo was in fact consenting. His models are often under contracts. It's not likehe grabbed a girl and said "hey kid, I'll give you 20 bucks if you pose naked." She would have known her pictures were to be displayed, and if she's anything like me would probably be honoured to appear in the work of an artist. What greater compliment is there to appear in a work of a world famous artist, known for the sympathetic way in which he displays his models. It's certainly less exploitative than the world of fashion photography.

Here's just a short article I thought you nay-sayers should read... http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/this...653846181.html

Taninim Nurin · May 25, 2008, 10:00 PM // 22:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamRunner

Kevin Rudd called the photo's as 'obscene' and 'disgusting'. Its really in a debate on what is pornography and what is art.

Art takes on many shapes and forms, as does the history. I find that expression of ones intake of beauty is indeed their own right. Nudity of children between 12-15 stands on the keel of being pornographic. I respect his interpretation, but none the less. That age is the sense of growth in children. They are developing, maturing they are defining puberty. Advertising that with nudity, makes it profane. He would have been better off, leaving more to the imagination.

RedNova88 · May 26, 2008, 12:02 AM // 00:02

I don't want to offend anyone by this being so bluntly put... But here it goes I guess.

If someone uses anything as a form of pornography (anything, even a crude drawing on a stone wall) then it's pornography TO THAT PERSON. However another person may see it as art, and may see some sort of message in the drawing.

so I guess if it's used as porn, it is. If it's treated as art, it is. It can be separate, both, or neither, it just depends on the person looking at it, or not looking at it.

On a personal note, thanks to how messed up this world has become. I get shunned for going out with a girl thats roughly 2 and a half years younger than myself, all because I'm 19 and she's 17(in a month). ALL because I'm technically an adult, and she is technically not an adult. But now I'm just drifting off topic.

I guess in my own personal opinion, pictures depicting children nude should have to follow specific guide lines to ensure that people don't view the art in the wrong way, and so that it doesn't draw the wrong sorts of attention. It's a very fine line to walk these days, like someone said, it's hard for people to even have pictures of their own kids playing in the bath tub and whatnot.

DreamRunner · May 27, 2008, 12:27 PM // 12:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snograt

NSW art galleries? Surely NSFW...

Art Gallery of NSW.

http://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/