Curse

pumpkin pie · Jun 01, 2008, 05:34 AM // 05:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tatile

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

This is what remains of the exhibition:
These are a few of the taken down works

NSW child pornorgraphy crimes act

I am happy something is being done concerning "sexualisation of children in the media",

I think also this to be a good read.

big papi · Jun 01, 2008, 05:41 AM // 05:41

I have a sister who is 13.....i can safely say i would never let some sick RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO take pictures of her naked

Is there anyone here who would honestly allow a young family member to be photographed naked?

edit: those pictures are horrible now that ive actually seen them

pumpkin pie · Jun 01, 2008, 05:52 AM // 05:52

I don't even let anyone take photo of me without my conscent, and I am not teenage, try coming near my teenage family members with a camera

, just try.

Tatile · Jun 01, 2008, 08:51 PM // 20:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

This is what remains of the exhibition:
These are a few of the taken down works

NSW child pornorgraphy crimes act

I am happy something is being done concerning "sexualisation of children in the media",

I think also this to be a good read.

Hmm, I thought it was people over-reacting because children were involved, but I do think those pictures are quite innappropriate. Thanks.

pamelf · Jun 01, 2008, 10:31 PM // 22:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by big papi

I have a sister who is 13.....i can safely say i would never let some sick RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO take pictures of her naked

Is there anyone here who would honestly allow a young family member to be photographed naked?

edit: those pictures are horrible now that ive actually seen them

Well actually, if you must know, me (as allowed by my parents). I haven't been photographed by Bill Henson but I have been photographed naked. Not at 13, but I started at 15 as a model for life drawing classes. Let me tell you I know from experience there is nothing exploitative about it. It's just this new age conservative fear about bodies. Human bodies are beautiful, the more celebration of them the better.

Malice Black · Jun 01, 2008, 10:44 PM // 22:44

It causes a raise from people, therefore his art has served it purpose. I believe art should raise emotions, otherwise it's just a pretty picture hanging on a wall.

dunky_g · Jun 01, 2008, 10:58 PM // 22:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tatile

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

Just Google Bill Henson.

Should be on the 1st page of the images.

I change my mind about it every time I see this thread lol.

It's contriversial, but I guess thats its point, and if art isn't these days, it doesn't get much coverage.

Leonhart · Jun 02, 2008, 02:46 AM // 02:46

Personally I don't enjoy looking at pictures of young naked children in any form, as it shows a representation of vulnerability (due to nakedness) and it just weirds me out.

Wondering does any want to admit that they enjoy the images?

EDIT: and just for random more off topic relating about art; is about that time when pete doherty the singer of baby shambles was seen in a picture with a needle in a persons arm (he is a junkie) but claimed that it was part of his art collection to paint with blood. Art can easily be used as alibis ...

big papi · Jun 02, 2008, 05:45 AM // 05:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by pamelf

Well actually, if you must know, me (as allowed by my parents). I haven't been photographed by Bill Henson but I have been photographed naked. Not at 13, but I started at 15 as a model for life drawing classes. Let me tell you I know from experience there is nothing exploitative about it. It's just this new age conservative fear about bodies. Human bodies are beautiful, the more celebration of them the better.

i also have know people who have checked out such classes just to stare at a naked chick

DreamRunner · Jun 02, 2008, 06:10 AM // 06:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by big papi

i also have know people who have checked out such classes just to stare at a naked chick

People also have gone to stare at people at nudist beaches. But all the nudist don't find the exposure of their bodies sexual at all unless you are touching. Its strange that all the people that do have their naked body exposed don't find anything sexual about it but some people who are covered up do.
I do wonder who is the actual perv here. People who are trying to cover all sexual references because of their own sexual insecurity or the people who can freely express themselves in a nonsexual manner.

But since its your experience of 'known' people who have and someone who actually has the experience themselves, I am going to with the latter since its her experience over yours.

pamelf · Jun 02, 2008, 10:14 AM // 10:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by big papi

i also have know people who have checked out such classes just to stare at a naked chick

Well if someone enjoys my body that's their business; or their problem alternatively in the case of the people you seem to know. I've never been ashamed to display my form, I am in fact quite proud of it. The human body is a beautiful thing and should be shown in a sympathetic, and beautiful light. That's exactly what Bill Henson does. He shows bodies as beautiful, but at the same time tragic with what is inflicted on them by society... Seriously, did you guys even do any research into what this exhibition actually stands for? Or are you just going by the fact that one small part of society told you it was bad? Do you KNOW the context? Truthfully...

What the real issue here is, it's not the fact that children were shown naked, it's the fact that people are socially conditioned to be ashamed of nakedness. Naked is a socially unacceptable state of being in our mileu...that doesn't make the social norm good. It just makes it the norm. If people weren't so bloody ashamed of their bodies there would be no such thing as indecent sexualization. The media exploits, and as a consequence the human body has become something to be hidden, denied, and un-tolerated. I don't stand for that kind of social conditioning.

What I would really like to know is how many people commenting on the inappropriateness of these images are actually aware of Bill Henson's work. The stories behind them, the series' they come from, his own story. Or are they simply spouting uneducated opinions because this is something that's suddenly sprung up in the media...?

DreamRunner · Jun 02, 2008, 10:42 AM // 10:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by pamelf

Well if someone enjoys my body that's their business; or their problem alternatively in the case of the people you seem to know. I've never been ashamed to display my form, I am in fact quite proud of it. The human body is a beautiful thing and should be shown in a sympathetic, and beautiful light. That's exactly what Bill Henson does. He shows bodies as beautiful, but at the same time tragic with what is inflicted on them by society... Seriously, did you guys even do any research into what this exhibition actually stands for? Or are you just going by the fact that one small part of society told you it was bad? Do you KNOW the context? ... What I would really like to know is how many people commenting on the inappropriateness of these images are actually aware of Bill Henson's work. The stories behind them, the series' they come from, his own story. Or are they simply spouting uneducated opinions because this is something that's suddenly sprung up in the media...?

I agree with a lot of what you said. Well everything actually. But I also think the media has exploited the children more than the photo's! The problem is that a lot of people who are saying negative responses on Bill Henson's' work are people who have never taken an initiative to an art gallery. I am not saying that people can't have an opinion on the matter, but its truly disappointingly to hear that all of the opinions on the matter are just moral and social responses that you would get from people who are really don't have any research on Bill Henson's' work. People just hear and don't try to see how it could be in another perspective at all and maybe they don't want too. But Bill Henson's' work has been going on for years! And I find it amusing that this has suddenly been "exposed".

pamelf · Jun 02, 2008, 01:31 PM // 13:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamRunner

I agree with a lot of what you said. Well everything actually. But I also think the media has exploited the children more than the photo's! The problem is that a lot of people who are saying negative responses on Bill Henson's' work are people who have never taken an initiative to an art gallery. I am not saying that people can't have an opinion on the matter, but its truly disappointingly to hear that all of the opinions on the matter are just moral and social responses that you would get from people who are really don't have any research on Bill Henson's' work. People just hear and don't try to see how it could be in another perspective at all and maybe they don't want too. But Bill Henson's' work has been going on for years! And I find it amusing that this has suddenly been "exposed".

Indeed. I'm glad there's finally someone who understands.

I've been a Bill Henson follower since my early teens. Seen in the greater body of his work these images mean something totally different to when they are taken out of context by a media out for blood... (and let's face it, of course they'd lash out at an artist instead of the advertising companies exploiting children far more. Bill Henson's not paying the newspaper/magazines/television/tabloid's bills...the advertising and marketing companies are...)

MMSDome · Jun 02, 2008, 05:14 PM // 17:14

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.

Who the hell do you know that buys playboy, hustler, or penthouse for the art? They do it to pop a nut.

Regarding the main subject, its wrong. If it's the law and they say you cannot take pictures of persons under the age of 18 then you shouldn't. There are still people out there that would interpret your so called "art" differently and use it as pornography. I don't see how you can take pride out of looking at a child naked unless you enjoy looking at little kids or something...

It is not right and his child pornography he wants to call "art" should be banned.

big papi · Jun 02, 2008, 06:30 PM // 18:30

ill never understand people.........the world is a pretty messed up place when people will stop at nothing to defend child porn

Friday · Jun 02, 2008, 06:44 PM // 18:44

Pumpkin - Thanks for the clickies to the articles. I was reserving judgement until I had seen them for myself. I am no prude, but I must admit I have been conditioned enough by society today to have felt uncomfortable when I looked at the samples of the photos that were removed.

I think that one portion of the article on the Crikey site sums this whole debate up perfectly:

QUOTE:
The sexualisation of children by the media and the wider culture has occurred only over the last decade or two; yet as a result images of naked children can no longer be seen as harmless.

It is tragic that those who are responsible for sexualising children have robbed us of the ability to see Bill Henson’s photographs the way he intended. In destroying the sexual innocence of children they have destroyed the innocence of innocence.

Closing down the exhibition should not be characterised as the victory of prudery over artistic licence. Oddly perhaps, if the exhibition had been mounted in more conservative times it would have passed unremarked and been appreciated by the art-loving minority.

Bryant Again · Jun 02, 2008, 08:03 PM // 20:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMSDome

Who the hell do you know that buys playboy, hustler, or penthouse for the art? They do it to pop a nut.

I'm saying there *are* a *few* tasteful images in there. But it, in its entirety, is classified as porn for the existence of photography of women showing off their crotch farms.

Whether you "get off to it" or not becomes a more complicated matter. I know of a few who find the National Geographic "arousing", and I don't think we can go and censor that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by big papi

ill never understand people.........the world is a pretty messed up place when people will stop at nothing to defend child porn

It's the fact that there are those who don't consider it "child porn".

Dante the Warlord · Jun 02, 2008, 08:42 PM // 20:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMSDome

Who the hell do you know that buys playboy, hustler, or penthouse for the art? They do it to pop a nut.

Regarding the main subject, its wrong. If it's the law and they say you cannot take pictures of persons under the age of 18 then you shouldn't. There are still people out there that would interpret your so called "art" differently and use it as pornography. I don't see how you can take pride out of looking at a child naked unless you enjoy looking at little kids or something...

It is not right and his child pornography he wants to call "art" should be banned.

Its not so black and white.... but the way i see it pornography is always taken in a bright and uses many of the senses to arouse and stimulate people. The models always smile and try to seduce you. Now i did go and see Bill Henson's work in the specific controversial issue, using the above link provided by pumpkin pie. The ones where you do see the child naked, she isn't necessarily posing in a sexual way, giving off something men would consider arousing. She is being herself without any clothes. Now look at the background, its not lighted and its very dark.

Now there was ONE picture i found that was definately sexual, which was the one where she was "hugging" the other male model. Im not sure if thats the same girl, but it definately gives off some sexual opinion. Now if you see all of those together, you might piece together that all of the arts are supposed to be sexual (maybe Henson wanted it that way). But I found that there was a distinct sadness on her face, almost gloomy. I didn't pay attention to her body, i paid attention to how sad she looked.

Overall, being naked gives you the attention. Obviously Henson wants people to look at his work from far away and say HEY!!!! THATS A NAKED GIRL(or guy)!!!! WHAT IS IT DOING HERE!!! then curious go and look. From a distance you might see a naked girl, but from a closer distance you might see a sad girl facing problems of the every day life. Thats what i saw from the girl. If she was dressed up, everyone would see her and say oh wow, shes sad and walk away, but Henson made her naked and made more people pay attention.

Doing something that strays from the norm shouldn't be looked down upon and it shouldn't be mocked. If you differ in opinion, keep it to yourself unless somehow it effects you. As someone stated, some people find certain things arousing, that aren't normal, such as the National Geographic one. There are also things that do not show nudity, yet is still considered sexual and equivalent to porn, some people with that fetish still find that arousing, does it really mean anything where someone shows them at their entirety should be banned? If so then legally allowing children to watching leather fetish people doing whatever they do sound moral?

As i said, this debate is not black and white. You can't say that it is porn, but you might be able to say it is morally wrong, but then again that is just your opinion.

Terrokian · Jun 02, 2008, 10:11 PM // 22:11

Just so I would have a frame of reference I too looked at the links of the removed pics.I braced myself to try and be fair and objective,as from the onset I was against anything sight unseen that had nudes of children.

Now we need the definition of pornography.Why?because we seem to be misunderstanding what it means.

Main Entry

or·nog·ra·phy
Function:noun
Etymology:Greek pornographos, adjective, writing about prostitutes, from pornē prostitute + graphein to write; akin to Greek pernanai to sell, poros journey — more at fare,carve
Date:1858

1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction

The very first one I will say is borderline.She "self covered" anything and you may barely get that by me.

The next to 2 pics while not of a sexual nature have no artistic value.You are simply showing a naked child.What is the statement here?This is what an underage girls look like?This is what a sad girl looks like naked?Why do you have to be naked to be sad?Why do have to be sad while naked?Apparently I'm not getting the message.

The next pic has this girl some what fully exposed in some sort of pose that I can't help but think is completely sexually.This is Child Pornography.Why?I have seen this pose a dozen times when I stop and think about it.Typical advertisement/commercial woman pose to promote a product.Shampoo,diet drinks,etc etc.I have seen this hair tossing hips out maneuver in movies and music videos too.Jewel's Intuition video,The Date Movie,and Flashdance to name a few.These were grown women doing this maneuver,and their were conotating their sexuality and their attractiveness.Having a child do this speaks volumes.

The last one is this same child in the arms of a boy.Both naked as far as I can tell.Now what were they doing?Standing CPR?Oh no he was performing a forward Heimlich maneuver.That is flat hands down KIDDIE PORN.No joke.No mercy.There is no way in hell you will convince me that is art of any form.Naked people kissing is pornographic.Naked kids kissing is Child Pornography.

Sorry about his luck and he will be busted.Good riddance to another Kiddie Pornographer getting caught.

Now the article goes on to say how Avant Gard this is.How we as a people(human species)sexualize things in so many different ways everyday.Furthermore it states CHILDREN ARE SEXUAL CREATURES TOO.Now you can flame away all you want,but I completely,whole heartedly,and vehemently deny that.Children are not sexual creatures.Period.At 13 years old you are trying to tell me that having sex and being sexy was on your mind and you understood the complete ramifications of engaging in sex?Don't mind me if I say you are a liar.

And no argument anyone can even imagine to bring up will change my stance on that.The fact anyone would even use that type of argument to defend at least two blatant kiddie porn pics to me suggests,they should join Bill in prison.

Dante the Warlord · Jun 03, 2008, 12:48 AM // 00:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrokian

Just so I would have a frame of reference I too looked at the links of the removed pics.I braced myself to try and be fair and objective,as from the onset I was against anything sight unseen that had nudes of children.

Now we need the definition of pornography.Why?because we seem to be misunderstanding what it means.

Main Entry

or·nog·ra·phy
Function:noun
Etymology:Greek pornographos, adjective, writing about prostitutes, from pornē prostitute + graphein to write; akin to Greek pernanai to sell, poros journey — more at fare,carve
Date:1858

1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction

The very first one I will say is borderline.She "self covered" anything and you may barely get that by me.

The next to 2 pics while not of a sexual nature have no artistic value.You are simply showing a naked child.What is the statement here?This is what an underage girls look like?This is what a sad girl looks like naked?Why do you have to be naked to be sad?Why do have to be sad while naked?Apparently I'm not getting the message.

The next pic has this girl some what fully exposed in some sort of pose that I can't help but think is completely sexually.This is Child Pornography.Why?I have seen this pose a dozen times when I stop and think about it.Typical advertisement/commercial woman pose to promote a product.Shampoo,diet drinks,etc etc.I have seen this hair tossing hips out maneuver in movies and music videos too.Jewel's Intuition video,The Date Movie,and Flashdance to name a few.These were grown women doing this maneuver,and their were conotating their sexuality and their attractiveness.Having a child do this speaks volumes.

The last one is this same child in the arms of a boy.Both naked as far as I can tell.Now what were they doing?Standing CPR?Oh no he was performing a forward Heimlich maneuver.That is flat hands down KIDDIE PORN.No joke.No mercy.There is no way in hell you will convince me that is art of any form.Naked people kissing is pornographic.Naked kids kissing is Child Pornography.

Sorry about his luck and he will be busted.Good riddance to another Kiddie Pornographer getting caught.

Now the article goes on to say how Avant Gard this is.How we as a people(human species)sexualize things in so many different ways everyday.Furthermore it states CHILDREN ARE SEXUAL CREATURES TOO.Now you can flame away all you want,but I completely,whole heartedly,and vehemently deny that.Children are not sexual creatures.Period.At 13 years old you are trying to tell me that having sex and being sexy was on your mind and you understood the complete ramifications of engaging in sex?Don't mind me if I say you are a liar.

And no argument anyone can even imagine to bring up will change my stance on that.The fact anyone would even use that type of argument to defend at least two blatant kiddie porn pics to me suggests,they should join Bill in prison.

Hey now, that last paragraph is a pretty radical stance... I respect you opinion, but to say something like that is well pretty out there. First off i agree that the picture of the guy and girl is sexual, but they are wearing clothes, barely though, and ive seen kids in high school doing that, if not worse. So do you mind explaining to me why that is wrong? Its no worse then what you see at the beach, plenty of young girls and their boyfriends making out holding each other like that. I mean i don't think they are right for doing that, but its what they do.. Now i have the right to say this because i AM a teenager, not 13, but i am. I know the stuff we do and i don't condone it. Girls were trying to be "sexy" at that age even in middle school, they used to wear short skirts and prance around. Now i completely hate that our society is developing like that, but its what its become. Maybe i am on a different page, i live in a completely different place most likely (eastern US).

Now I don't know about you, but ive seen worse things. Theres lots of sex and drama everyday when you click on the television. Some kids in my high school watched a rape scene, in a spanish video...put in by the teacher... Movies everyday have sexual innuendos. As i stated its not so black and white and anyone with a radical comment should think again. It could be argued either way, but lets not say that its porn or its completely legal and beautiful.