Curse

Nazar Razak · Jun 03, 2008, 06:01 PM // 18:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by pamelf

Once again, people are missing the point of what the exhibition is about. Please, to make any kind of educated comment on this issue you all need to actually EDUCATE yourselves on what the exhibition is trying to say and judge it in that context. If then you don't like it that's a different issue all together. But simply stating "OMGz0rs KiddIe Pr0nz!" is certainly not helping any kind of intelligent discussion on the subject.

Btw Terrokian, stating that children are not sexual beings is completely naive and ridiculous. People are born sexual. Toddlers play with themselves and have to be taught by their parents that it's wrong...a girl becomes sexually aware as soon as she hits puberty, which for some girls can be as young as 11 years old, while boys tend to hit it about 14.

What i've really noticed on this board though is there's a great deal of American's imposing American values on this issue as well. Unfortunately that simply can't be done as the artist is Australian and the issues involved are the Australian Censorship Laws; and thus the law is a grey area in this situation. Each state has their own laws as well as federal laws. Sydey's conservative are crying out against the art, Sydney'd Literatti are not. No one is seriously thinking of prossecuting, it's just newspaper sensationalism; which any educated Australian reader knows. Melbourne is already planning the exhibition to show in it's entirety. At the Mnemosyne exhibition he showed a wall of images of a naked (I think he was 15?) year old boy, which no one gave a hoot about. It was simply seen as a beautiful display of the human form. It is only with our change in government, to a ridiculously Christian conservative that this issue has come into play. He didn't like the images, therefore the gallery was forced to take them down. The last government had absolutely no issue with the artist. So you see, American sensibilities simply don't come into play in this issue at all. Once agian, people need education before commenting on the merits of art.

To the posters above who are giving the American High School system as an indication of high school age; Australian high schools start at year 7 where the teens start at anywhere between age 11 and 13 (depending what age they started school). I can guarantee year 7's are already experimenting sexually. It's the year we have our first boyfriend's, it's the age most Australian's will have started fooling around. Generally not complete sexual gratification, but enough to realize that we all have sexual natures, which are usually culminated around the age of 15. (This is the general trend however, and does not apply to all.) I wrote one of my theses' on the trends of global sexuality, so I do actually know what I'm talking about.

Terrokian, everything you say just shows you don't know a thing about the artists. Most of his models are around, undamaged and have in the past done interviews. He has been making controvercial art since 1974 (and probably before, but her first became well known in the 70's). He has never disappeared from the public eye, and he certainly won't now. 10+ years ago these WERE art; they are still art.

Seriously people EDUCATE YOURSELVES. Terrokian, your comments simply make you look ridiculous, since you seriously know nothing about art, the artist, or Australian social values.

You....are my god. You basically have stated most of what i was thinking on this topic, and more.

Since when was the world like this? The human body is merely the human body. Many of you have Inadverdantly stated that the naked human body is evil, and should be covered up. Sadly i see this is the trend in the world nowadays, and Teenagers being stifled by their elders. Yes, teenagers, i find it confusing when people see these models as Little children all full of oblivious innocence. These models have chosen themselves that they wanted to do the photos, with, permission from their parents ofcourse, These are in no way Sexifying the models at all. Its mainly Very Conservative people trying to force what they think is "right" into the subject, but having no idea what the subject IS.

Oh and by the way, I am a teenager myself, so i know what i am talking of. I am also an artist, so i may be abit Biased, but i still see no reason why people still go on with their Arrogant arguments.

Sleeper Service · Jun 03, 2008, 07:19 PM // 19:19

Well theres just so much to comment on and although some people seemed to admit that even Bill's photography was "art" now some say that it stops being art because its purpose is to have a "public".

Once removed (via censorship) this non public art transforms into child pornography.

Its what i understand from their argumentation, i also get the feeling that it was perhaps not exactly what they were trying to convey but nevertheless remains in essence what a couple of people are saying.

IE: pictures of naked teens in a exhibition are to much alike to pictures of naked teens in someones personal computer and thats illegal.

thats where the screaming starts. There is a world of difference between the two and it lies within the process. Although the end (visual/material) result may be somewhat akin, the emotional/phisical result on the subject matter is NOT.

Those photographs are not sending the message "its ok to take pictures of naked children" they can be interpreted as such in fact i don't think the message is "look at these beautiful innocent creatures" EITHER (but they can be interpreted as such) and there lies a big big part of the problem.
because obviously thats exactly what a pedophile would be looking for...no?

interpretation...perception...art.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

Let me ask you, what is art without a public? NOTHING. If no one talks about it its shit, if no one even care what it is its shit, Art is for everyone and everyone has a different point of view towards a subject matters, everyone has different like and dislikes. and if you think art is only for the few "educate people" you are so wrong. so very wrong.

I refrained from commenting on this when you posted, i thought "wow thats exactly what i think...but her previous and following argumentation contradicts that".

and lo and behold

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

Yes, and I repeat, if you do not have a public, no one to appreciate your creations, your creations = nothing. Its logic.

If Katherine Hepburn (4 times academy award winner) did not have people gone to see her movies you think she gotten those awards? No. Its logic. (since she's dead i am not going to say she's nothing, in fact she's very talented, i am just using her to make a point)

Do you think if no one go look at Bill Henson's photography that his photography will be famous? NO it will = nothing. Its logic

Do you think if no one watches soccer that David Beckham would be as rich as he is today? NO, he would be a nobody. Its logic

Hence art without a public = nothing, its logic.

You are mistaken regarding my art without a *public = nothing, I am not talking about your diary, your own poetry or anything you may spend a lot of time making that you hold dear, frankly I also don't care if you have or if I have or have not created anything because that is not what this is about that would totally falls onto another area. I am talking about creation that people intend to show other people to gain fame from to make money from which is what Bill Henson's Photographs are about, fame and money, without a public = nothing

*I use the word public here because I don't want to use audience, public is more "common", to show accessibility by everyone, anyone and not the elite gallery going people.

wrong.

art without a public is nothing i agree. lets take an example of an art piece.

(please let us leave religion out of this)

that is the Earth. if nobody looks at it is it art? Nobody made it after all, there is no inherent message in its existence it just IS, so what is the "art" bit about this? the fact that its a photograph? photographs are just captured light, it happens without us. Is it in the name? the price? (oh how many people mistake that for the reason, another thing i hate about modern art)

no its art because of the emotion that it evokes in the viewer, that process is the "art" else...its just a rock in space.

moving to a smaller scale. take your room, its just your room. now place it in a museum and i guarantee people will say "art".

why?

because it already is art. everything is art as long as theres a person who will take the time to think about it for more than a fraction of a second. Our presence makes things "art".

you talk about diaries and not giving a damn. Anne Frank would beg to disagree.

arts "purpose" is not to be viewed/touched/smelled or exposed to any of our other crude senses. Its has no purpose or than which we give to it when some poor sod some 16000 years ago painted this

he or she did not intend it as "art" they just wanted to transmit something, vital information or a story to others to see. And when those paintings had no viewers for thousands of years i agree, they stopped being art and just became...rock and funny coloured patches.

Fame is not the yardstick by which art is measured. Fame just shows how exposed your art is.

You know i wander round the city with my camera and take pictures of ...the ground, a tag, a broken light, electrical wires, reflections in the glass...stuff that is most definitely NOT art. until someone takes the time to look at it because its not about the object . its about the viewer.

It seems that i have gone way off topic, but without understanding the nature of art you cant really have a discussion on CENSORING it.

ps: galleries are not for the "elite" in fact thats far from the truth. what IS for the elite is attaching ridiculous prices to stuff that is "art" solely based on the interpretation of someone else (critics) and due to the fact that its has a high price.

If you go to an exhibition and you you dont get what the artist is trying to say, well that sucks for the artist. The thing is you still come out of that exhibition with a new thought process.

take the Chapman brothers "Hell", just plastic figures. To me? pointless (but cool) even by their terms it was nothing special, no inherent meaning.

when that version of "Hell" burned during the Leyton warehouse fire in 2004...THEN it became art (at least to me).

Terrokian · Jun 03, 2008, 10:40 PM // 22:40

Where do you draw a line?

If I have a 13 year old boy "making love" to a 13 year old girl and take a picture of that and call it art,by your own words you will defend it because I called it art.

Don't bother saying anything different because you have already defended that exact position.

So long as I proclaim that is art then it is so.

There in lies the problem.So long as you proclaim it as art you are untouchable and that is simply not acceptable.

Pictures of naked children are outlawed for a reason.Not because the general public is trying to get into heaven morally.Not because we can't appreciate art.Not because we don't understand that yes around 10+ years old kids(if you are under 18 you are not an adult so pick a term you like I chose kids)start finding out about relations and the physical aspect of it.Because this world is full of unscrupulous people.

Like it lump it or leave it.And once you start understanding that fact when you open a door for them you best be prepared for what will enter.

If Bill Henson can take pictures of naked children,then you MUST let others do the same.So long as you proclaim it as art,then it MUST be protected.

Now let's get a couple of "born that way" lesbian 12 year olds together naked and call it art.Cause that is where this WILL lead.

This isn't about reading sex into things.And 13 year olds THINK they know all the ramifications of having sex,but they DO NOT.

Herpes,HIV,Hepatitis,Chlymadia,Pregnancy,Syphillis ,Rape,Prostitution,Genital Warts,LVH,Role Playing,Bondage and Discipline,Sadism and Masochism,Gonerhea,UTI,Abortion,Adoption,Abandonme nt ,Joy,Love,Trust,Revenge,Hate are just the tip of the iceberg when speaking of and understanding sex and all the consequences of it.

Now dump that on a 13 year old and tell me what you think will happen.

Most of us go against these type of pictures not because we are uneducated non artistic fools who don't understand an underaged person's(better than kid?)view.But because we have seen the darker side of what becomes of this issue.

Where do you draw a line?

quickmonty · Jun 03, 2008, 11:01 PM // 23:01

Can I walk naked down Main Street because I say I am "art"? After all, I do have a story to tell .... the story of my life that shaped this naked body.

Anyways ... typical thread deteriorating into the usual back and forth argument that goes on endlessly. Some say 'yes' and some say 'no' and I seriously doubt if too many minds are going to be changed here.

Me? I just don't like his pictures. Something too dark and sinister for me.

Dante the Warlord · Jun 03, 2008, 11:28 PM // 23:28

Well looking at the above and the Australian law and their common beliefs...i agree that American culture does have its differences, but people are still people and teenagers are still hormone driven young adults.

Now Terrokian, you ask where do we draw the line? Well the line moves constantly everyday. Racism and the acceptance of different "colored" men was a barrier that we could not justify and people felt that by showing love to these people you "crossed the line". New things are accepted every day and things change, you would be a fool to stop the change, because it is inevitable. Obviously its not the exact same situation, but a freedom of expression, especially if its a persons free will, to depict a message should be at least looked upon as revolutionary. Some other artists were considered garbage at their own time, that what they had was blasphemous and disgusting. Now isn't that similiar to what Henson faces? Obviously using a young girl sparked controversy, and its by no means a positive thing, but there are messages to see.

credit · Jun 04, 2008, 12:21 AM // 00:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrokian

Where do you draw a line?

If I have a 13 year old boy "making love" to a 13 year old girl and take a picture of that and call it art,by your own words you will defend it because I called it art.

Don't bother saying anything different because you have already defended that exact position.

So long as I proclaim that is art then it is so.

There in lies the problem.So long as you proclaim it as art you are untouchable and that is simply not acceptable.

Pictures of naked children are outlawed for a reason.Not because the general public is trying to get into heaven morally.Not because we can't appreciate art.Not because we don't understand that yes around 10+ years old kids(if you are under 18 you are not an adult so pick a term you like I chose kids)start finding out about relations and the physical aspect of it.Because this world is full of unscrupulous people.

Like it lump it or leave it.And once you start understanding that fact when you open a door for them you best be prepared for what will enter.

If Bill Henson can take pictures of naked children,then you MUST let others do the same.So long as you proclaim it as art,then it MUST be protected.

Now let's get a couple of "born that way" lesbian 12 year olds together naked and call it art.Cause that is where this WILL lead.

This isn't about reading sex into things.And 13 year olds THINK they know all the ramifications of having sex,but they DO NOT.

Herpes,HIV,Hepatitis,Chlymadia,Pregnancy,Syphillis ,Rape,Prostitution,Genital Warts,LVH,Role Playing,Bondage and Discipline,Sadism and Masochism,Gonerhea,UTI,Abortion,Adoption,Abandonme nt ,Joy,Love,Trust,Revenge,Hate are just the tip of the iceberg when speaking of and understanding sex and all the consequences of it.

Now dump that on a 13 year old and tell me what you think will happen.

Most of us go against these type of pictures not because we are uneducated non artistic fools who don't understand an underaged person's(better than kid?)view.But because we have seen the darker side of what becomes of this issue.

Where do you draw a line?

I'm sorry, but your punctuation and grammar is horrendous.

pumpkin pie · Jun 04, 2008, 04:23 AM // 04:23

errrrrr, i am not going to debate with you regarding what is art and how to define it Sleeper Service because then we become best buddy and talk about it for centuries to come,

not that I don't want to be your best buddy nor do i think you want to be my best buddy, but I simply have no time to get into that right now. lol please read my post of why I say art is nothing In this case. I probably have time to explain that once more, then I have serious paying work to do, until then I might not be able to defend my point of view.

here goes. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, especially after Pamelf says that only people who are educated about Bill Henson's art can give comment, I retorted with ART IS NOTHING WITHOUT A PUBLIC, why?

1) bill henson wants to show his work, right?
2) it is reasonable to say that he wants a public for his work?
3) is it reasonable to say that without any public his work will be nothing without said public?

HENCE if you desire to become famous and sell your work you need a public and their responses, if there is not this public, no one response, these "un-view", "un-cared-for" works = nothing? How do you think Bill Henson become famous? because he got notice because he show his work to someone, becasue he exhibited his works and the Public came to see it. if no one saw his works, is it not logically = nothing?

yeah, i need to go work now.

Sleeper Service · Jun 04, 2008, 04:54 AM // 04:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by quickmonty

Can I walk naked down Main Street because I say I am "art"? After all, I do have a story to tell .... the story of my life that shaped this naked body.

ah but monty you can. someone will in all likelihood stop you and ask just what you are doing but you can.

And if the message is clear enough people will understand you, because they will have received your message.

but here we enter the domain of taste. Is your message (the story of your life on your body) sufficiently interesting to warrant that type of exposure? And that you see its not up to you to decide. Its posterity.

We have good art and bad art, and if your body is not special your LIFE not special or your message not special then it falls into what most people would consider "bad" art.

Matter of fact someone DID do that, chick called Godivia.

and in more recent times :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...Hyde-Park.html

And Terrokian, I draw the line at people and "thinking" like yours.

people who "know" what other people think because they happen to think that way. You dont know jack, you are just projecting your own fears and insecurities onto others.

case in point. When i was 13 i wanted to KNOW about these things that everybody was so secretive and protective about, closed minded people like you who restrict information in order to "protect the children" force them to look in the most unsavory places you can imagine.
and yes kids will GET that information one way or another better it be in an art gallery, school, home or via some light entertainment rather than in the red light district by some aging prostitute or some dude smelling of beer and stale cigs.

if you look at those pictures and they scream "SEX WITH CHILDREN" at you then either you are very poorly informed or your brain needs readjustment in the form of an orchiectomy....and i cant help but notice your playboy bunny avatar says more about your obsession with the subject that your offended outraged diatribe and clammy hand wringing.

Never have i once said that things being "art" makes them untouchable. There is good art and bad art, constructive thought provoking art or destructive emotionally disturbing art. BUT if it elicits a response, then it damn sure IS.

Yes even a car bomb can be "art". horrible. destructive. anguishing art and no i will not ever defend that because the destruction it entails FAR outweighs any message that it could have possibly carried. By that process the consensus would be that it is NOT art (read bad art) because of the way that it was presented and exposed.

someone mentioned rape? Kubrick would have something to say on the subject.

people hated that movie when it came out, banned in several countries for many many years. they said it was "filth", "obscene" in particular regarding to the rape scene.

how times have changed for we are now living in that very same world of ultraviolence that he warned us against...if only the censorship had been stronger the world would be a different better place ? Or maybe...just MAYBE if people had paid attention to his vision they could have avoided it from happening.

ah shucks shoot the messenger and send back his head, so much more effective.

pumpkin pie · Jun 04, 2008, 06:55 AM // 06:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleeper Service

Yes even a car bomb can be "art". horrible. destructive. anguishing art and no i will not ever defend that because the destruction it entails FAR outweighs any message that it could have possibly carried. By that process the consensus would be that it is NOT art (read bad art) because of the way that it was presented and exposed.

ah see, you draw the line somewhere too. what happens if someone comes here right now and tell you that your comment means nothing until you EDUCATE yourself ...

Sleeper Service · Jun 04, 2008, 06:59 AM // 06:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

here goes. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, especially after Pamelf says that only people who are educated about Bill Henson's art can give comment, I retorted with ART IS NOTHING WITHOUT A PUBLIC, why?

1) bill henson wants to show his work, right?
2) it is reasonable to say that he wants a public for his work?
3) is it reasonable to say that without any public his work will be nothing without said public?

HENCE if you desire to become famous and sell your work you need a public and their responses, if there is not this public, no one response, these "un-view", "un-cared-for" works = nothing? How do you think Bill Henson become famous? because he got notice because he show his work to someone, becasue he exhibited his works and the Public came to see it. if no one saw his works, is it not logically = nothing?

you are asking many questions

. good.

1. bill wants to show his work?

- probably. we dont care, who cares? like monty said i want to show my beautiful body but i don't.

If the public wants to see Bill's work then thats another issue.

2. is it reasonable to say he wants a public for his work?

- nearly the same question...in fact i tried breaking it down and it IS the same question.
-.-

3. is it reasonable to say that without any public his work will be nothing without said public?

no its not reasonable at all. his work HAS a public, its just a certain loud minority are using PC gone mad to censor it and remove it from those who appreciate it while at the same time using arguments that are not only false but intrinsically damaging to the concept of "a free society" as a whole.

Whats more, even if his work had no support. it would have at least one viewer, one person who care about it enough and had thoughts on it. the artist himself.

I do photography myself, and i can tell you ones most faithful follower is oneself...else that moment would have never been captured at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

HENCE if you desire to become famous and sell your work you need a public and their responses(...)

i'll give you a shocker, the driving force for an artist is NOT to become famous, its simply to do something they enjoy.

They (full time artists) do the things that society has no real "use" for, the thing about what they do is that it tends...to make life interesting.

Full time artists tend to be the ones that take the time to stop, wait and listen. They observe and sometimes, comment on what they see. And this commentary is sometimes very clear or very difficult to decrypt as the issues they aboard tend to be vast, amorphous, reaching towards the essential yet irrelevant.

Because the subject matter they wish to expand on is normally a little complex, artist will look at ways on expressing their thoughts in innovative fashions. It happens often that the message that they are trying to convey becomes totally eclipsed by the fashion in which it is conveyed.

However that ceases to matter because what they have created opens new doors by which society can analyze, express and cogitate on and thus fulfilling its role as "art".

Full time artists MAIN use however are to permit society to move forwards, to evolve. They do this by forcing it to reevaluate itself...sometimes in a traumatic fashion.

The real "down to earth" effect is influence.

moving on from full time artists (or pariahs as i call them) to people.

The effects of artists is everywhere, simply because everyone is an artist. People express their creativity in different ways, programmers through the elegance of their coding, architects in their choice of shape and materials, designers in their style and support...where do these professional "second profession" artists get their inspiration from?

other artists and the world around them.

art made by an artist is for THEM, its personal. so happens to be that society picks up on a few of these and says "hey!" because it needs to.

being "artistic" or "creative" is THE thing, THE difference that pulled us to to top of the food chain. Its Human.

One thing needs to be clear. those people. They are the public.

So to answer your question, if you desire to become famous and sell your work you need a public and their response" yes.

Thats really not the point of art but yes, sometimes it works that way.

This leads us to the beginning of your question again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, especially after Pamelf says that only people who are educated about Bill Henson's art can give comment, I retorted with ART IS NOTHING WITHOUT A PUBLIC, why?

Well shucks i disagree with Palmelf on that, you're right anybody can and should be able to comment on it.

Thats just the thing, when one group stops commenting and starts DEMANDING that their views and perceptions on the subject matter take precedence over the views and perceptions of another group resulting in the removal (censorship) of said art simply because the people in power (even if they do not agree) fold over under PC pressure.

It is indeed a vast topic that we have barely scratched. and one that requires a little more thought put into it than "kiddie porn think about the children" reactions.

pumpkin pie · Jun 04, 2008, 07:12 AM // 07:12

then we would be back to this:

"If artists have a responsibility to push at the boundaries of the acceptable, society has a responsibility to push back. After a decade or more in which children have been increasingly exploited, society is beginning to push back and Bill Henson has been a victim: innocent perhaps, but he should have known better."

which you disagree earlier... which makes me very confuse now.

if you read my other posts, you would know, which I reluctantly admit that I do think Bill Henson's work is good and hauntingly beautiful. But I draw the line at using underage nude as the subject. Its not so much a protest on the artistic side of the matter at hand, its the principle side that matters more and the principle is STOP TRADING NUDE FEMALE BODY especially if a minor is concern.

PS: English isn't my first language, I do have to "struggle" to get the correct message thru sometime.

Sleeper Service · Jun 04, 2008, 08:05 AM // 08:05

ah principles, last bastion of the righteous.

of course i disagreed, not going to go over again with what i said in my post responding to that.

christ if you want society to stop using the female body as ...what? an object? you have other cats to flay or something similar.

well....thats not those photos are about are they. If you only see "NUDE FEMALE CHILD" and your reaction is "TAKE IT AWAY" thats fine, close your eyes or whatever.

if its "SEX CHILDREN", well something is wrong but...ok.

i cant do anything about that can i ? nobody but the viewer concerned can, its their perception.

If your reaction is "NUDE CHILD TAKE AWAY" followed by an onslaught of media coverage reminiscent of anti GTA lobbying or whatnot resulting in the censorship of these photos. i'm sorry but i gotta ask WHY.
Giving the answer its "child sexploitation" is not gonna cut it either because that argument is wrong.

If they really want to protect children (like i stated before) there are literally thousands of other ways they can do that because IN THIS CASE:

1. no harm is done.

2. its constructive, thought provoking, esthetic art.

3. they are being manipulated by the media and manipulative of the "facts" given to them.

4. its actually fighting for your "cause" against using the female body as an object by presenting it as what it is not some made up coked up runway model.

5. its highlighting the problems that society has in dealing with the ambivalent status of teens and that fact that they are fast becoming more aware of the world quicker than morals can evolve.

6.7.8.n etc.

this is not about principles this is about the media, horrible things happen in the world every second of every minute. Dont let them fool you into thinking that THIS is what makes the world "bad", its defeat under guise of victory, one whose sole aim is to make cash out of the very thing that you are trying to avoid whilst taking away our common right to simply be as we are.

when these photos were taken down, was there a decrease in child molestation? in child exploitation? in the use of the female form for financial gain?

once again knee jerk reactions have stopped people from attacking the source of a problem while giving those "pro active defenders of the virginal purity of youth" a self satisfied sense of accomplishment. fantastic.

pumpkin pie · Jun 04, 2008, 08:20 AM // 08:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleeper Service

when these photos were taken down, was there a decrease in child molestation? in child exploitation? in the use of the female form for financial gain?

I don't know and cannot say for sure about financial gain.

But yes, I am going to guess, when those photos are taken down it makes Bill Henson's maybe 50% more famous then he already is, fame and financial gain, cos if not mistaken someone bought one of his photograph just to show protest.

On the other hand the action of seizing those photographs also sends out an important message, That the public do care and do have a say and can protest and are watching what "you" are doing.

*you here can be anyone. I don't know a better word there and also don't want to pin point Bill Henson or anyone, after all he was used already to make a statement, although not a successful one. I think that will do for now.

pamelf · Jun 04, 2008, 08:29 AM // 08:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleeper Service

someone mentioned rape? Kubrick would have something to say on the subject.

people hated that movie when it came out, banned in several countries for many many years. they said it was "filth", "obscene" in particular regarding to the rape scene.

how times have changed for we are now living in that very same world of ultraviolence that he warned us against...if only the censorship had been stronger the world would be a different better place ? Or maybe...just MAYBE if people had paid attention to his vision they could have avoided it from happening.

ah shucks shoot the messenger and send back his head, so much more effective.

Ahh, a film that is on the list of most famous pieces of visual art.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

if you read my other posts, you would know, which I reluctantly admit that I do think Bill Henson's work is good and hauntingly beautiful. But I draw the line at using underage nude as the subject. Its not so much a protest on the artistic side of the matter at hand, its the principle side that matters more and the principle is STOP TRADING NUDE FEMALE BODY especially if a minor is concern.

I feel like a broken record. Find out what the exhibition's about. Do I have to spoon feed you information you seem to reluctant to try and discover? The exhibition is about NOT trading the nude female body. Like I said...context.

And just as an aside...why is it only that people feel so up in arms about female media exploitation. These days men get it just as bad. No one seems to care about that; or the patriarchal ideal is so ingrained that a naked female must have been taken advantage of, but a naked male is just totally macho. The contradictions of society make me sick.

Sleeper Service · Jun 04, 2008, 08:31 AM // 08:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

I don't know and cannot say for sure about financial gain.

But yes, I am going to guess, when those photos are taken down it makes Bill Henson's maybe 50% more famous then he already is, fame and financial gain, cos if not mistaken someone bought one of his photograph just to show protest.

On the other hand the action of seizing those photographs also sends out an important message, That the public do care and do have a say and can protest and are watching what "you" are doing.

*you here can be anyone. I don't know a better word there and also don't want to pin point Bill Henson or anyone, after all he was used already to make a statement, although not a successful one. I think that will do for now.

wrong message. The message they send out is that the "public" knows nothing and are watching THE WRONG PEOPLE.

no really next time a real hardened pedophile ring decides to present a public exhibition of abused children i guess we will all know who to call.

youve fallen straight in and are promoting it...the world is not a better place now pumpkin its just a little more ignorant.

DreamRunner · Jun 04, 2008, 10:06 AM // 10:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleeper Service

Well shucks i disagree with Palmelf on that, you're right anybody can and should be able to comment on it.

Thats just the thing, when one group stops commenting and starts DEMANDING that their views and perceptions on the subject matter take precedence over the views and perceptions of another group resulting in the removal (censorship) of said art simply because the people in power (even if they do not agree) fold over under PC pressure.

When people say it's not art simply because of the content and have arguments based on that its "wrong" and "I don't like it" and don't have any other reason other than its against people's morals. I can say that they do not know what they are talking about. I think Pumpkin Pie still doesn't. But since a lot of arguments on the subject matter are based on emotional outrage, much like Terrokian posts. I would agree with Pamelf; even when she tried to get people to see what the exhibitions were trying to express.

quickmonty · Jun 04, 2008, 01:34 PM // 13:34

Looking again at the links, 'Untitled #31' reminded me of another picture I have seen. Is it art? Does anyone know who the photographer/artist is?

pumpkin pie · Jun 04, 2008, 02:02 PM // 14:02

Stop asking people to have the same views as yourself, its getting irritating.

I already know what his work is about, I've read all the interviews of Bill Henson I can find online, and the wiki pages

And I ALREADY TOLD YOU HIS PHOTOGRAPHY IS BEAUTIFUL, okay, satisfy? BUT I DREW A LINE as much as it is beautiful I cannot bring myself to praise it. I don't ask you to stop loving Bill Henson's work why should you insist that I like his? He crossed one line that I have, (and for your info I don't have many lines, in fact i have only one I can think of, do not exploit those that can't speak for themselves) I do not insist that you stop loving Bill Henson's works, so please stop with your go educate yourself statements. its not very nice.

FYI, I have no problems with adult, wanting to show their bits and pieces to the public willingly for what ever reasons, or porn stars or even the Paris HiltonS of the world using their sexuality to gain fame, power and money, I even kinda think Dita Von Teese is extremely beautiful and one of my all time favourite singer is Madonna because they are in control. but USING SOMEONE'S ELSE sexuality to gain fame, power and money, especially a minor, that is another thing, I don't need to elaborate, you know where I stand on that matter.

PS: SleeperService, I have some thoughts and I kinda agrees with your last post. Maybe the wrong target has been use to achieve the goal. But I don't see any lost on his part only what you say, sending wrong message to the wrong people. But all is not lost, maybe next time, people wants to protest, they do it better and wiser.

Nazar Razak · Jun 04, 2008, 05:42 PM // 17:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrokian

Now let's get a couple of "born that way" lesbian 12 year olds

...
And 13 year olds THINK they know all the ramifications of having sex,but they DO NOT.
...
Herpes,HIV,Hepatitis,Chlymadia,Pregnancy,Syphillis ,Rape,Prostitution,Genital Warts,LVH,Role Playing,Bondage and Discipline,Sadism and Masochism,Gonerhea,UTI,Abortion,Adoption,Abandonme nt ,Joy,Love,Trust,Revenge,Hate

To me atleast. You have lost all credibility on this topic.

Terrokian · Jun 04, 2008, 09:44 PM // 21:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by credit

I'm sorry, but your punctuation and grammar is horrendous.

Ahh enter the spelling/grammar nazi's.Good thing I'm not an english teacher.