Curse

Terrokian · May 27, 2008, 11:04 PM // 23:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by pamelf

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

Ms Elenberg did not pose nude - she and her mother had decided that "under no circumstances" would she take her clothes off, even though they said Henson did not directly ask her.

From the self same article you pointed out.Let's ask one of the naked kids what their thoughts were.

Ooops we have no dialect from them.

Gee wonder why.

IMO there is no "tasteful" way to display children of those ages naked as art.Otherwise you really need to go back and every naked child that some pedophile/pervert/whatever collection that got them landed into prison needs reexamined.Perhaps their collection was merely art.The bottom line is you can't call one thing art and something exactly the same as pornography.

Now your 6 month old in the bathtub(cause someone did try and argue this)is different.Why?Cause as a general rule of thumb they don't send it out for the world to see proclaiming it as art.They treat it as a memento of their child.Of the joy in a newborn.

How come they don't continue this practice?How come parents don't have pictures of there 12 year old daughter taking a shower?Hmmmmmm.

But isn't this another facet of it?Enjoying naked children?Wow even when you call it art it still hits that spot of nastiness between pedophilia and bestiality.

Terrokian · May 27, 2008, 11:14 PM // 23:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by quickmonty

Are the pics in Playboy art or porn?

You know I believe upon review this sums the WHOLE thing up.

Is Playboy art or porn?

Is Hustler art or porn?

Is Penthouse art or porn?

If you answered porn to any of the above when I can probably show 10K+ "tasteful" solo shots of the models in no sexual position at all.Then your 12-13 year old girls are EXACTLY as stated.Kiddie PORN.Why?You KNOW why.

Bryant Again · May 29, 2008, 10:57 PM // 22:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrokian

Is Playboy art or porn?

Is Hustler art or porn?

Is Penthouse art or porn?

Depends on what's in the magazine. Each one has varied content, some far more tasteful than others.

But then, who determines what's "tasteful" or not? The line becomes blurred even more.

big papi · May 29, 2008, 11:50 PM // 23:50

i just find it disturbing that people can even look at such pictures as art. go find something else to take a picture of

imo

Terrokian · May 30, 2008, 02:33 AM // 02:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by big papi

i just find it disturbing that people can even look at such pictures as art. go find something else to take a picture of

imo

I am in agreement here.

BUT for sake of argument I can post what I consider TASTEFUL pictures from the 3 aforementioned magazines.

Now if 1(one) just ONE(1) of those poses can match your 12-13 girl/s AND if it predates Mr Bill Henson then I say crucify the MFer.Because then it is KIDDIE PORN.

Unless of course Playboy,Penthouse,and Hustler ARE NOT porn.But they are ART

DreamRunner · May 30, 2008, 04:37 AM // 04:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by big papi

i just find it disturbing that people can even look at such pictures as art. go find something else to take a picture of

imo

Amazing. It seems that thinking its NOT art because people simply disagree with the content and rather trying to justify with reason into why it is NOT art but porn, instead lets all hound Bill Henson.

Why don't we censor other contents because we feel like its "damaging" to society or "we don't like it", reminds me, when burning books was popular.

arcanemacabre · May 30, 2008, 06:08 AM // 06:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Depends on what's in the magazine. Each one has varied content, some far more tasteful than others.

But then, who determines what's "tasteful" or not? The line becomes blurred even more.

Exactly this. You can't dismiss everything in porn magazines as porn, just like you can't dismiss everything in a gun magazine as guns. Just because that is the focus of the magazine (or website, etc), doesn't mean that is all there is. Unless you want to argue that displaying the Mona Lisa in Hustler suddenly makes it porn.

The whole point is that this is a very blurry line thanks to modern society, made up of a train wreck of cultures and ideals. I don't think anyone can give their view of 'what is considered porn' in any way objectively. This line of what is considered socially acceptable versus compelling and controversial is a line artists must walk; pushed and pulled from every direction.

Personally, I say more power to him. As long as these children aren't acquiring any mental trauma for posing nude (which is iffy - I'm no psychologist), then I see no problems with it. It isn't my cup of tea, and I'm not going to pat this guy on the back, but I will support/encourage art (and the freedom thereof) in all forms.

Bryant Again · May 30, 2008, 03:36 PM // 15:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrokian

Unless of course Playboy,Penthouse,and Hustler ARE NOT porn.But they are ART

They are classified as porn because while they do contain tasteful images, they also contain a bit of what would largely be considered "pornography".

Targren · May 30, 2008, 07:03 PM // 19:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

They are classified as porn because while they do contain tasteful images, they also contain a bit of what would largely be considered "pornography".

You must read a different Playboy than I do. Most racy thing in there is naked women posing. Naked != Pornography.

dunky_g · May 30, 2008, 07:20 PM // 19:20

Actually just saw the picture.

and yes, its wrong.

Terrokian · May 30, 2008, 10:25 PM // 22:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by big papi

i just find it disturbing that people can even look at such pictures as art. go find something else to take a picture of

imo

I agree.I can't find one,NOT ONE,legitimate reason to have a 12 year old girl naked AND take pictures.Why couldn't this CHILD have an artful picture of her taken with clothes on?Seeing as she was so tasteful and pretty.

pumpkin pie · May 31, 2008, 01:41 AM // 01:41

if Bill Henson is such a good photographer/artist he could have deliver what he wanted to deliver (whatever message) with his "art" by taking photo of a FULLY CLOTHED 13 year old.

subject does not even have to be human lol.

Dante the Warlord · May 31, 2008, 03:54 AM // 03:54

Personally i feel its the actions that describes what "porn" is. The problem with the art are old perverts who do look at that kind of thing as some kind of sexual fetish. That is what is wrong with the system today is that people are becoming more paranoid. I mean think about it, a lot of parents bathe their children until the old enough to do it themselves, thats not at all sexual. On top of that nudists also do the same thing, they feel nothing sexual about it and its ok. I would say if the children knew they were being photographed, agreed to the terms, had their parents agree to the terms, and were not involved in anything "sexual" it might be borderline ok ( i would not go see it personally). As long as the images portray a message and its held in a private place, whos spectators are people of art, its borderline ok...

NOTE: Terrokian, i absolutely agree with your morals, and i do find it disturbing. I don't want to look at the pictures, but i feel that none of us can criticize it without looking at it. And most of all you might be playing into the artists traps, sometimes they want to spark controversy, how do you think Deigo Rivera got his name into history, he painted man at the crossroads and made it so controversial that no one forgot his name..

pumpkin pie · May 31, 2008, 07:10 AM // 07:10

PS: Just wandering, how much did the parents get for letting their underage child to be photographed naked...

pamelf · May 31, 2008, 02:52 PM // 14:52

Ok to you know it all's about thinking all children who are photographed naked are pandering to paedophiles and are exploiting children...what about photographs of holocaust or famine victims under the age of 12 who are unashamedly photographed naked to show their emaciated forms. That's not art, but you could also NEVER call it pornography; yet it is still a naked child's form...

Like I've stated previously, it's all about context.
Nudity isn't enough to provoke sexualization...it's just nudity.

Anyway, Bill Henson has been making amazing art for a lot longer than some of the people on this Forum have been alive, so I really don't think he needs, or cares for your approval.

He'll continue to make amazing art, which people with culture can continue to appreciate.

Tatile · May 31, 2008, 03:04 PM // 15:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by dunky_g

Actually just saw the picture.

and yes, its wrong.

Got a link? I'd like to make my own mid up on this subject, rather than just reading the views of others. Thanks

Terrokian · May 31, 2008, 09:40 PM // 21:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by pamelf

Ok to you know it all's about thinking all children who are photographed naked are pandering to paedophiles and are exploiting children...what about photographs of holocaust or famine victims under the age of 12 who are unashamedly photographed naked to show their emaciated forms. That's not art, but you could also NEVER call it pornography; yet it is still a naked child's form...

Like I've stated previously, it's all about context.
Nudity isn't enough to provoke sexualization...it's just nudity.

Anyway, Bill Henson has been making amazing art for a lot longer than some of the people on this Forum have been alive, so I really don't think he needs, or cares for your approval.

He'll continue to make amazing art, which people with culture can continue to appreciate.

Very true.The pictures of the holocaust children were most definitely not porn.They were taken to show people what had happened to Jews.In the vast amount of those that survived those camps clothing and food were pretty much non essential as far as the Nazis were concerned.Survival was all that mattered.The degradation that they suffered can only be guessed at,at best.

So how do you even begin to equate Henson's art on the same level?He is not trying to show horrific suffering.He is simply saying "Hey look this is a beautiful naked child" and this is art.I'm sorry,but naked children are not art.Even when the Master's(Da Vinci,Rembrandt,etc etc)showed naked children in their paintings they made sure to hide certain things.They made sure to represent them as cherubs and heavenly.They also made sure to show them as very very young.Like babies.

Henson's work is simply not art.At least in the aspect of naked 12-13 year old girls.

As a final note.If Henson has been making art for more than42 years,then you are right.He has been around longer than me.But if he hasn't,well then I guess my opinion is valid.

Dante the Warlord · May 31, 2008, 11:26 PM // 23:26

Interesting... Well i tried to see what Henson's art is usually like and so I went to google image search and typed in his name. I found that a few of the pictures were of naked people. At first i thought, wait what is the difference between this and porn, but actually, it captures no "sexual" actions or does it have anything to do with anything erotic. I actually found it sad in some cases it seems to be similiar for everyday life struggles, as there is so much darkness in all of his shots. They are not pictured to be models with beauty and glamor, rather it might be a depiction of human struggle. Im sorry, but i have to respect him for this...

Terrokian, i know you hate child nudity, but not all his work is child nudity, look at his other pictures on google image search... A lot of them are with adults and click one of them and see it from his point of view. Although i know you feel strongly about it, you cant criticize anything without looking at one of his works. Im not even sure you are debating about the picture itself anymore but about how child porn is bad....it is, but i don't neccesarily think this is child porn...

Nazar Razak · Jun 01, 2008, 12:00 AM // 00:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrokian

I agree.I can't find one,NOT ONE,legitimate reason to have a 12 year old girl naked AND take pictures.Why couldn't this CHILD have an artful picture of her taken with clothes on?Seeing as she was so tasteful and pretty.

Its art, does any piece of art have a "reason"?
By your logic. Lets burn all Art, it has no reason. Hell, this forum, has no reason to exist because its about a game, that has no real reason. Lets all Wear Metal Coats and drink naught but Water and eat nothing but Bread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrokian

So how do you even begin to equate Henson's art on the same level?He is not trying to show horrific suffering.He is simply saying "Hey look this is a beautiful naked child" and this is art.I'm sorry,but naked children are not art.

So anything that doesnt depict horrific suggering is wrong? hmmm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrokian

Now your 6 month old in the bathtub(cause someone did try and argue this)is different.Why?Cause as a general rule of thumb they don't send it out for the world to see proclaiming it as art.They treat it as a memento of their child.Of the joy in a newborn.

What of the natural joy of Puberty? he is simply trying to capture something in a picture. For the future to see.

Sorry if im being a tad.. Volatile, but im really against your ideas. Why not Burn him at the stake and claim witchcraft allready?

DreamRunner · Jun 01, 2008, 03:28 AM // 03:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrokian

So how do you even begin to equate Henson's art on the same level?He is not trying to show horrific suffering.He is simply saying "Hey look this is a beautiful naked child" and this is art.I'm sorry,but naked children are not art.Even when the Master's(Da Vinci,Rembrandt,etc etc)showed naked children in their paintings they made sure to hide certain things.They made sure to represent them as cherubs and heavenly.They also made sure to show them as very very young.Like babies.

Henson's work is simply not art.At least in the aspect of naked 12-13 year old girls.

As a final note.If Henson has been making art for more than42 years,then you are right.He has been around longer than me.But if he hasn't,well then I guess my opinion is valid.

All I can say is... whoa. You just lost your creditability because he just didn't say "hey look this is a beautiful naked child". His photo's are dark, edgy and provoking to the extent that undoubtedly you will never reach in understanding. If it isn't art, then what is art? Because I really think from what you have said in this topic, you haven't given a good reason why Bill Henson's' work isn't art but porn.

However, from your response, since art is meant to give a feeling, I guess Bill Henson's' more artful than you realize.