The NSW government have released a set of recommendations that would place responsibility for the work of a grubby network of international paedophiles and child exploiters on a handful of innocent visual artists.

Cartoon: Eric Lobbecke

Speaking at a press conference on Tuesday the Attorney-General John Hatzistergos said the NSW government would support new legislation that makes a “clear legal distinction between pornography and art” in order to protect victims and make it easier for police to prosecute cases of child pornography and exploitation

With plans to scrap the defence of “artistic merit” while asking artists to fork out up to $500 per image for Commonwealth classification, Hatzistergos’ recommendations are taking a stab at a group, who up until 2008 had stayed fairly shy of scrutiny in Australia.

First there was the huge public response to the Bill Henson scandal of 2008 when police stormed a Paddington art gallery and closed down his exhibition after claims he’d used pornographic images of children. Closely followed by Kevin Rudd’s threat to pull the funding for Art Monthly magazine after a photograph of six-year old Olympia Nelson that was taken by her photographer mother Polixeni Papapetrou, appeared on its cover.

While the debate that ensued in response to these stories make them hard to forget, it’s equally important to remember that all charges against Henson were subsequently dropped and Olympia Nelson staged her own press conference to directly voice her offence at the PM’s accusations.

And why is the government ringing the alarm at the art world when even Tamara Winikoff the executive director of National Association for Visual Arts who “cautiously” supported Mr Hatzistergos, told the SMH online: ‘It’s really very rarely artists’ work can be considered to be in danger of being child pornography.’‘

It’s also important to consider what the NSW government recommendations are leaving out because their proposal allows some pretty generous leeway for the rest of society when it comes to pointing the finger and protecting our children’s innocence.

What about the impact of magazine advertising for instance, where not only is it common to see young girls sexualised as models for high street fashions or make-up, it’s also proven to have a dire effect on their self esteem. Or violent television programming, a much more likely source of un-supervised entertainment for children than an art gallery where gruesome and gory murders and sex scenes are an accepted part of the 8:30pm movie. Or even more importantly, what about kids and their access to the internet?

Back in 2008, the Australian Federal Police led one of the largest child pornography investigations ever conducted after a tip-off on a European website that had posted a series of pornographic images featuring children attracted 12 millions hits in 76 hours; with 2,800 unique browsers coming from Australian IP addresses.

Ninety people were summoned to court as a result of these findings – and among the 70 arrested was a police officer and several teachers. Four children were removed from homes of their dependants and thousands of DVDs and computers were confiscated.

Mick Keelty, the police commissioner leading the investigation told reporters the pornographic material stood out in terms of both the brutality of the violence and desperate anonymity of the victims.

“These are not children in passive positions. These are children who are being abused. The real tragedy of this is that we don’t know the origins of a lot of these children. We don’t know whether these children are still being the victims of child abuse,” he said.

Not only did this investigation confirm that there’s an enormous market for child pornography, with an alarmingly large following in Australia, it showed that the predators were everywhere, some holding down respectable jobs in the community, a fact that makes it impossible to confine them to a specific group or section of society. 

So before we agree to any change of legislation that could see our humble artists suffocated for creative license or short of yet another buck,  let’s not lose sight of that.

128 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • BTS says:

      06:33am | 11/03/10

      What right minded and sensible person could ever believe that the displaying images of a naked thirteen year old girl or any other child for that matter, could ever be ‘art’ and not child pornography? 

      If you can’t make that distinction, then you need to get medical help. 

      If I decide then to public display violent images of naked children being tortured and horribly killed in the most sadistic fashion, then you will support my right to do so, for afterall, I am an artist exercising my licence and trying to earn a buck?

      ‘So before we agree to any change of legislation that could see our humble artists suffocated for creative license or short of yet another buck,  let’s not lose sight of that.’

      So as long as we profit from displaying images of naked children, this then should be acceptable to our society?

    • Sherlock says:

      09:25am | 11/03/10

      BTS asked

      “What right minded and sensible person could ever believe that the displaying images of a naked thirteen year old girl or any other child for that matter, could ever be ‘art’ and not child pornography?”

      Ah let’s see. Just about anyone who doesn’t have christian based hang-ups about nudity. That would include a fair chunk of Europe as an example.

      I’m amazed that people think that nudity equals pornography. I feel sorry for people that when seeing a nude study of anyone at any age immediately think phwrrrrr instead of admiring the artistry of the photograph. It’s rather sad that society has sank to the lowest common denominator.

    • Bruce says:

      09:55am | 11/03/10

      Agree Sherlock. Nudity is not pornography. I guess we are going to have real problems with medical publications and biology text books. “Those nude bodies”,  Oh god what are we going to do?  I know,  Burn the book !  Even better, lets have a public book burning. That will fix the problem and we will all feel better.

    • DG says:

      10:12am | 11/03/10

      When you see a toddler running around naked on the beach do you see this as a sexual display? Would a photo of that be pornographic?

      What about a person laying on the beach, topless sunbathing. Is that sexual in any way? Again, would a photo of that be pornographic?

      Simply put: nudity is not necessarily sexual, pornography is.

      Secondly consider the Pulitzer prize winning photograph of Phan Th? Kim Phúc (the naked young girl fleeing a napalm bombing raid). I don’t think any one would suggest that picture is pornographic or that it is inappropriate in any way.

      I can see a distinction between Phan Th? Kim Phúc’s image and pornography. I agree that it is difficult to draw the line but, clearly there is one. Perhaps it is not the rest of the world that has a problem.

    • matt says:

      10:13am | 11/03/10

      Perhaps you should actually look at a Henson first, before running your ill-informed mouth off.

      Bet you don’t get offended at Raphael’s Madonna and child, which features - wait for it - a naked child.

      Oh, it’s a baby Jesus. So naked gods are ok.

    • Sgt Colon says:

      10:18am | 11/03/10

      If it’s got an urn in the picture, then it’s art.  That’s the secret sign.

    • BTS says:

      10:57am | 11/03/10

      Would you let me photograph your kids naked?

      It’s art, afterall.

    • Alex says:

      11:08am | 11/03/10

      Let me ask you BTS, for your opinion on images of the Putto, so familiar in much of Italian Renaissance art. These Putti, often called cherubs, are completely nude, in various poses, often with nude adults also in the frame. Is this Art or Child Pornography? What about some of the more modern photography of Anne Geddes? I think we have all been given a bookmark, calender or book of her work before, depicting naked newborns. Are we child porn peddlers for purchasing these as gifts for our mums and grandmas?

      I think that you need to refine your idea of right minded. These images are not violent, exploitative or even rude in any way, yet in your mind would be considered child porn and should be banned. Even Jesus has been imaged in the nude in many depictions of his birth.

      My point is there is a clear distinction between art and porn. May I suggest going to the art gallery this weekend and seeing for yourself.

    • DG says:

      11:35am | 11/03/10

      BTS:

      If my kids are playing on the beach naked. Go for it. If I don’t want them to be seen I’ll make them cover up. After all there is nothing sexual about their behaviour, and if some pervert is getting their jollies out of it, I think they are sick, but so long as they don’t go near my kids I don’t see that I should corrupt my child’s innocence with stories of the big, bad pervert.

      If the fact that someone is deriving sexual pleasure from something without the consent of the other person then you’d better ban school uniforms, nurses outfits, french maid outfits, Bikinis and various other forms of attire that some people people derive sexual pleasure from. Hessian bags all around I think. I imagine there is even a sector out that that derive sexual pleasure from a nun’s habit.

      Back to children: Their peals of laughter and the imaginative games they come up with are a sight to behold. Their youthful innocence and energy are a welcome reminder that life is not all about work, the mortgage and bills.

      A naked child running through a sprinkler is no more pornographic than the image of a naked 9 year old burned in a napalm raid. The context is everything in art as it is in life.

      Consider this: If I am out walking my dogs and happen to walk past a park. I see some kids laughing and squealing as they run,  jump and prance about. Their laughter catches my eye and I pause for a few second or a minute, watching these children having the time of their life and I daydream about my own childhood and the simplicity of youth. Am I some sick pervert? Should I be asked to move on? Have I done anything wrong. If I had chosen to capture the moment on my phone camera would I have crossed the line?

      What if it’s a broad image - the young kids playing, some older kids squabbling over a “foul” in their football game, an older couple walking along the edge of the lake hand in hand. Is it still some perverted act?

      The issue is, in my opinion, that people are all to willing to assume that a person is doing something that is morally offensive without considering the motives or intention of that other person.

    • BTS says:

      11:49am | 11/03/10

      Alex,

      It’s not about the nudity, it’s about the childs genitals being put on public display.

      Let me ask you, how many of Ann Geddes photos depict the child’s genitals?  Have you ever seen a photo from Ann Geddes where the child’s genitals are clearly on display?  I haven’t.

      What might be the reason for this?  In all of her work she goes to distinct efforts not to show the child’s genitals.  She goes to these lengths because she knows that is what is socially acceptable.

      If you were to familiarise yourself with the modern child pornography laws you may find that the Putto would be classified as illegal.  That’s the society we now live in.

      Why is it that we don’t see naked children on televison with their genitals displayed for public consumption?

      ‘These images are not violent, exploitative or even rude in any way…’

      Would you let other people take photographs of your children naked?

    • BTS says:

      11:53am | 11/03/10

      DG,

      Don’t blur the line between consenting adults and children.

      If you think it’s acceptable to photograph your kids naked at the beach, why do you think that there are laws introduced that prevent this happening?

      Are the kids in the park naked?  Are you photographing their genitals?  Have they been informed that you are photographing their genitals?  Are they mature enough to consider their actions and the ramifications of their actions?

      Trust me, the laws have been introduced because the majority of society finds the photography of naked children sufficiently offensive that they don’t want it to occur.  That’s why it is the law.

    • Sherlock says:

      12:04pm | 11/03/10

      BTS asked - Would you let me photograph your kids naked?

      Probably not. But if Bill Henson asked I’d have no problems with it. I’m familiar with his work and I know it’s art not pornography.

      As DG noted, there are some people who find a sexual thrill in just about anything. Frankly if a woman want’s to get me excited she would need to be wearing something sexy. At my age I’ve seen enough naked women that it certainly doesn’t excite me.

    • BTS says:

      12:32pm | 11/03/10

      Also DG,

      You mentioned that it was acceptable to photography your kids naked at the beach?

      Why not in their bedroom?  Why not drop them off at the studio for a couple of hours while they are photographed?

    • sumguy says:

      01:17pm | 11/03/10

      displaying images of a naked thirteen year old girl or any other child for that matter, could ever be ‘art’ and not child pornography?

      If you can’t make that distinction, then you need to get medical help.


      firstly if you think naked children are sexual and you seem to imply so with your above comment i urge you to go and seek medical help because it would seem that your the one seeing sex where there is none.
      so in your imo nude young people = child porn i guess we better ban most art classical art galleries including the masters michelangelo, boticheli, da Vinchi and the list goes on.

      If I decide then to public display violent images of naked children being tortured and horribly killed in the most sadistic fashion, then you will support my right to do so, for afterall, I am an artist exercising my licence and trying to earn a buck?


      this is a large flaming straw man and you know this, that or your projecting your fantaies again all the things you mentioned are against the law already. and would land you in jail for a long time. art is no defence for murder or torture but then you already knew that.

    • BTS says:

      01:56pm | 11/03/10

      sumguy,

      Try and make the distinction between an intellectual discussion and your version of what constitutes a fantasy.  You seem a little hung up on the fanatsy issue.

      Tell me why (a) are you photographing underage children who are naked or (b) do you enjoy viewing underage children who are naked?

      The legal definition of child exploitation material means material that, in a way likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, describes or
      depicts someone who is, or apparently is, a child under
      16 years—
      (a) in a sexual context, including for example, engaging in a
      sexual activity; or
      (b) in an offensive or demeaning context; or
      (c) being subjected to abuse, cruelty or torture.

      Legally, child pornography is not just about people having sex with children.  Both (b) and (c) indicate that it does not have to involve sexual activity.  So you are the one equating sex with nudity, not me.

      On the classical artists to which you refer (I am happy to be corrected) I don’t see many pictures of naked underage children.

      I didn’t say I was killing children, I didn’t say I was torturing them, I said if I was display (depcit) them, not doing the actual act.  I can stage a photograph to look like I am doing this act.

      I take particular note that you seem to find this offensive.  If it is offensive to you then who are you to judge me about what I can display or not?  Naked kids are okay, but tortured kids are not.  Aren’t you impinging on my artistic rights to display whatever I want?

       

      this is a large flaming straw man and you know this, that or your projecting your fantaies again all the things you mentioned are against the law already. and would land you in jail for a long time. art is no defence for murder or torture but then you already knew that.

    • DG says:

      05:04pm | 11/03/10

      “If you think it’s acceptable to photograph your kids naked at the beach, why do you think that there are laws introduced that prevent this happening?”

      I think such laws would be introduced to appease that sector of the community that associate nudity and sexuality. Those who live in fear of paedophiles who may or may not be looking at their child.

      I don’t think that having a law preventing such a things is likely to be very effective especially in places such as beaches where people walking around with a camera are not all that rare - add the fact that one can set the camera on video mode walk around aimlessly (i.e with the camera out as if looking for a good shot, taking the odd innocuous photo of the waves or what have you) and then extract still images that meet your requirements.

      If you believe that the image of a naked toddler on the beach is pornographic, then surely the actions of the child is participating in lewd conduct at the time the photo is taken? Is there some point at which the same action switches from being childhood fun to pornography?


      “Why not in their bedroom?  Why not drop them off at the studio for a couple of hours while they are photographed? “

      The reason is a simple one. One is a public place the other is a private place. You are not welcome to take a photo of anything inside my house. I close blinds and curtains for that reason.

      “Tell me why (a) are you photographing underage children who are naked or (b) do you enjoy viewing underage children who are naked?”

      Again on the napalm image. I quite like that photo (and I’m not even into art). I think that image captures things that would not be apparent if the naked person was an adult. Don’t get me wrong it would still be a highly emotive image. But the fact that it is a child, the fear and panic of one who should be shrouded in the innocence of youth says so much more than an image of an individual of indeterminate age.

      You seem to be basing quite a bit on this idea of an image of a child “in an offensive or demeaning context”.

      A naked toddler playing on the beach is not in m opinion “offensive or demeaning”. How could the image of such a things be offensive or demeaning simply because it is captured on another device? The fact that you happen to find it offensive is not enough. A well adjusted person could look at an image of a naked child without seeing it as offensive or demeaning. That is not to say that such images could not be offensive or demeaning, just that the absence of clothes does not make it so.

    • sumguy says:

      05:55pm | 11/03/10

      me hung up no i think not, im not the one who has spent all day posting responses to a blog out of some kind of misplaced maternal instinct
      now to answer your questions.

      firstly a) and b) when did i say or even imply that i either took pictures or looked at children who were naked, not that i have never seen a naked child before, there tends to be a the odd one going commando at the beach in summer and i see no issue with this. but by your logic simply seeing this would constitute some form of child porn.

      now onto your next point i have no problem with the child sex laws as they stand mind you i think that if the person is verifiably over 18 as i think the law states not 16 it should be allowed regardless. for the reason that no sane person could can say that it is child porn because of the fact that it is not, the person is of age, and i dont think laws should be created in the first place using such open ended wording as appear the law should be black or white no grey.

      But changing the laws to allow people to say complain about the picture virgin on the rocks by leonardo simply because it has naked kids in it and not being able to by law defend it as it is an important piece of 14th century art/history is wowser to the extreme.

      now to your last point if you where simply depicting torture and death i dont really see the issue movies do it all the time the film the exorcist springs to mind i thought you were implying actually harming real people which i think is wrong and disgusting no matter there age.

      and a final note most of what i said was in regards to the henson pictures and the other image of the ladys child mentioned in the article
      ive seen the images i dont find them offensive or in anyway sexual not that i think they are what i would call good art but that is up to the individual to decide on the quality of any piece of art,  if your moral outrage is directed at these images i think somewhere deep down you must feel something other than your feigned outrage and again i implore you to seek some help with that issue. even the censorship board agrees with me that they are a) art and b) rated pg which means they are in the same category as shrek

    • Nick says:

      07:16pm | 11/03/10

      Excuse me. Please don’t refer to anyone who disagrees with you as anything other than right minded and sensible. It’s people like you who see the wrong and shame in everything. Why don’t we charge the parents of children who let their toddlers run in the beach with child abuse? How is nudity pornography? The human body is a brilliant and beautiful thing. Go away and please stay at home. Don’t come out.

    • BTS says:

      08:41am | 12/03/10

      I didn’t bring up the beach scenario.  I didn’t raise a toddler playing naked on the beach.

      What I ‘originally’ said was displaying images (pictures) of a naked thirteen year old girl or any other child for that matter.  That is in a public forum or gallery.  There is no point discussing the matter if you are going to completely ignore the original substance and twisting it to suit your own needs.  Try sticking to the what was said, if you want to condemn and not what you imagined was said or what you completely fabricated in your own mind.  A toddler on the beach is not what these laws are about and this is not remotely close to what I said nor the issue at hand.

      Nick,

      Excellent!  You have the temerity to suggest that I don’t have the right to question those that differ in opinion to me (as being right minded and sensible), but because I differ in opinion to you I should be confined to my home and not venture out into the world.  Your entitled to have a different opinion and I should be tolerant of that, but I am not entitled to a different opinion.  Good work Champ, you shoot down your own position in very same paragraph.

    • Kit says:

      11:06am | 12/03/10

      I don’t see nudity as a problem, although I think the issue is how other people will view it, you can’t help that.
      That being said, my issue here is consent. Let’s just say, you took a woman of 20, undressed her and took the most stunning photograph, truly a gorgeous work of art… Nothing sounding wrong here yet? What if that woman was paralysed, and mentally retarded. Unable to grant her permission or refuse to participate. I’d like to think any functioning member of society would find that unacceptable.

    • Ally says:

      03:41pm | 12/03/10

      May i remind you that when you exited the womb, you too were naked.  Clothes and modesty and all of this hype surrounding the nakedness of a child are all the seeds of society that have been planted that make you perceive such images as ‘dirty’.  There is aboslutely nothing wrong with the display of a naked child’s body, anymore than the display of a naked adult body.  It is the few sickos that are unfortunately part of our world that have taken away the innocence and beauty of the nakedness of children.  Tell me you didnt LOVE running around in the nuddy as a kid in the sprinklers and your parents would have LOVED seeing you enjoying yourself, probably with a camera around - to preserve these gorgeous memories.  As an artist, this is simply an avenue through which they can express the delight of innocence.  It is the perverts in this world that have robbed us of this innocence.  As far as your comment about maiming and displaying these images…that is just ridiculous.

    • Muttley says:

      04:15pm | 12/03/10

      DG, you arent seriously trying to compare the famous image from the Vietnam war of the burned child escaping in terror to the image taken by Henson of a naked child sitting and staring at the camera? Get real

    • BTS says:

      05:10pm | 12/03/10

      ‘As far as your comment about maiming and displaying these images…that is just ridiculous.’

      You mean Ally, that your censoring my right to display what I want, where I want?  What right do you have to do this?

    • DG says:

      05:25pm | 12/03/10

      Muttley (04:15pm | 12/03/10)

      I was using it to demonstrate that nudity does not mean pornography as some seem to be suggesting - i.e nudity does not make it sexual of offensive”. Also that the age of the persons in the image may be relevant and, again, does not make it offensive.

      I have no problem with such art. I don’t want to see it, but then I don’t want to see art at all, It doesn’t interest me in the slightest.

    • Duke says:

      07:16am | 11/03/10

      Try Louis Malle in the acclaimed movie Pretty Baby starring then 12 year old Brooke Shields in several nude scenes…and shown a few weeks back in the afternoon on Fox TV.  The increase in child assaults that afternoon were noticeable in their absence but at least the bleating wowsers were silent…no doubt assessing every frame for ‘artistic quality’?

      Try thousands of art works throughout more enlightened eras than todays morally straight jacketed and closeted right wing timidity.

      If you can’t make the distinction between art and porn you have no right attempting to impose your version of morality on others.

    • Geoff says:

      08:06am | 11/03/10

      Movies and the gaming industry are regulated and are subject to classifications, as are parts of the web community, the print media through to television commercials… so the Commonweath classification for artwork should also be necessary (however the $500 fee could be reduced).

      Images depicting children in ‘non-passive’ positions in any of these media or art outlets aren’t acceptable. Let’s just hope that the instances are as rare as Tamara Winikoff claims.

      Furthermore, why isn’t there a team of ‘global police’ who constantly trawl the internet for unsuitable material who can then remove the unsuitable content? Maybe Google could pay for this?

    • Nick says:

      09:01am | 11/03/10

      I believe Stephen Conroy is in charge of the global internet police.

    • J says:

      09:38am | 11/03/10

      But who determines what is unsuitable?

      The number of photo albums that are unsecured on Facebook defies belief.  People put up pictures of their kids in the bath, or running around the backyard in a nappy, and the demand that the government does something to protect their kids.

      An internet filter or a global police is not what is needed - instead they need to be educating people on how to use the internet safely, to be vigilant and security minded with your photos, to supervise your kids when surfing the net.

      Put simply, if parents aren’t tech savvy, then get tech savvy - or get rid of either the kids or the computer.

      Re: the art thing, I’m with Lucy.  This nanny state thing is getting out of control.  Perverts are everywhere.  The governement should be investing in programs and education for people to protect themselves, rather than stripping rights from the innocent.

    • BTS says:

      08:18am | 11/03/10

      Duke,

      Thanks, you couldn’t have demonstrated my point more succinctly.

    • formersnag & swinging voter. says:

      09:27am | 11/03/10

      No BTS, Geoff does a much better job of making your point. Why are there not enough funds left to adequately fund the NSW police service in any area of crime where children or the general public need to be protected or served? Blown the budget, oh well, lets pick an easy target, score media brownie points, grandstand a bit & maybe voters will fall for it again.

    • BTS says:

      11:00am | 11/03/10

      Snag,

      Because you would have to be taxed more.  Is that something you are prepared to do?

    • formersnag & swinging voter. says:

      03:14pm | 11/03/10

      No BTS, its not about more taxes. Its about the taxes, that are being collected, being wasted as inefficiently as possible, to provide more “jobs for the girls”, which all red/green/labour coalition governments do. Is it impossible to improve bureaucratic productivity?

      However as a matter of principle, bankrupt governments must, cut spending, raise taxes, run deficits or a little of each.

    • biff says:

      08:27am | 11/03/10

      Gilbert and George, Robert Mapplethorpe and Jeff Koons are also ‘artists’. I am horrified to think how they would depict prepubescent girls and boys but because of the cliquism in the art world we may not be far away from our version of artists like Gilbert and George who would use girls and boys and excreta in their unique art. I’m sure the art world would praise it as being ‘bold’ and ‘brave’ and pushing the barriers.

    • Castro says:

      08:37am | 11/03/10

      Has anyone ever heard of a ‘humble’ artist before?  The only ones I’ve ever heard of are entirely convinced of their own genius.

      How else could anyone come up with the idea that is their right to take and display a creepy picture of a naked kid? Furthermore, these clowns are then arrogant enough to think they are doing the rest of us a favour by introducing us to their ‘thought provoking’ work.

      No government should ever fund something as subjective as art.  I don’t want my money going to these deluded weirdos, but I don’t want my tax money going to opera, ballet, modern visual artists, or modern writers either.  This is just entertainment for a conceited minority, but somehow paid for by the disinterested majority.  In short, we are being conned.

      If I deem art to be worthy I will pay for it directly myself, rather than have a bureaucrat dole out my tax dollars for things that have no relevance for me.

    • Chaka says:

      09:23am | 11/03/10

      And yet I have to watch my tax dollars being consumed in far greater numbers to fund sporting events to amuse the “disinterested majority”  which has no releveance to me. I’m using sport as an example because no doubt you don’t mind that. It takes all sorts of people to run a country.

    • Castro says:

      09:47am | 11/03/10

      Chaka, not much of a sports guy, hey?

      I’m fairly certain that the sports I watch don’t need much government funding.  I note that, as mentioned in the article above, the government even needs to fund the Arts Magazine.  I’m tipping the government doesn’t sponsor either Rugby League Week or Best Bets.

      However, you do make a good point.  I don’t think the government should prop up unpopular sports or those than can’t stand of their own volition either.

      In saying that, if governments do feel the need to spend our money in these areas, much more should be spent on sport than art because more people in this country like sport than art.  Democracy in action.

    • Jan Davis says:

      10:24am | 11/03/10

      There is a huge public investment in elite level sport - whether or Castro chooses to watch the particular genre. Think AIS, Olympic programs etc etc.

      The only legitimate public investment in sport should be directed at preventative health outcomes and v lifestyles ie in encouraging people to participate rather than watch.

      More people garden than play sport. Does that mean that we should be looking for government subsidies for gardening? Hmmm?

    • Richy says:

      01:04pm | 11/03/10

      Castro: you find pictures of naked kids to be creepy? You really need to seek help.

    • Castro says:

      01:24pm | 11/03/10

      Ha ha.  Good one Richy!  That was a joke of course ... wasn’t it?

    • Cuppa says:

      05:07pm | 11/03/10

      Well said Castro.Take a bow, you summed it up perfectly.Saying it is ‘‘art’ ‘& ‘thought provoking’ doesnt make it any less creepy.

    • Das says:

      07:56pm | 11/03/10

      You mean as opposed to funding mindless ball games and stadiums for those who idolise the players? Who in turn commonly get arrested for brawling, drunkenness, drugs and pack rapes? YEAH! GO the footy. Now THAT’s a good use of tax dollars! Mate you have some serious issues….

    • DocBud says:

      08:52am | 11/03/10

      The most famous landmark in Belgium is a statue of a toddler taking a leak, art or child pornography?

    • Das says:

      07:56pm | 11/03/10

      Neither, just bloody funny smile

    • LH says:

      09:03am | 11/03/10

      2008 just rang. They want their issue back.

    • Zeta says:

      11:40am | 11/03/10

      Oh Snap!

    • freddy in ya dreams says:

      09:47am | 11/03/10

      Couldnt agree more Castro.  These up themselves art poofs should be locked up.  We the people dont want crap like that opera Bliss thing that theyre doing up in sydney this week.  Who ever heard of anything like that?  Give me UFC anyday, thats good.

    • gg says:

      10:41am | 11/03/10

      well freddy you may think watching two blokes cuddling…i mean wrestling is good, however there are people who don’t. Just like some people like opera and others don’t like opera. That doesn’t mean that funding should cease.

    • Ben says:

      10:43am | 11/03/10

      Good Job Freddy.

      Why not only make yourself look like you lack culture, when you can also make all MMA fans and athletes look like they are ignorant and also lack culture! Good job!

    • Richy says:

      10:04am | 11/03/10

      The police can’t catch the real crooks so they go after the easy targets like artists. It’s the same with speed bumps…they can’t catch the hoons so they just slow down the rest of us law-abiding folk.

    • Henry says:

      10:03am | 11/03/10

      Well if you ‘artists’ believe that a 12 year old girl is mature enough to agree with someone photographing her genitals for an art exhibition then she would also be old enough to have sex.

      See the huge flaw in your logic? 

      Its fact that a majoriity of the old school artists that constantly drew/painted/sculpted nudes were in actual real life perves and peds…  Do some art history!

      perves ok - well most men are in that category but peds need to be exposed for what they truly are.

    • Pete says:

      11:09am | 12/03/10

      Too true Henry, most people forget that what we consider today to be pre 19th Century art was in fact regarded as pornography at the time.

      To future generations “Debbie Does Dallas” will be acclaimed as the pièce de résistance of 20th Century art.

    • Michael Kilmister says:

      10:16am | 11/03/10

      This proposal from the NSW government—like all the recent legislation proposed for ‘protecting the children’—is open to “scope creep.” In recent years all levels of government and big business have moved in lock-step on a number of contentious issues that threaten to erode the civil liberaties we take for granted, including the dubious powers police have been granted in regards to anti-terrorism laws and combating knife-crime (I could go on, but I don’t want to bog down this discussion). These recommendations from the NSW government fit-in nicely with the proposed mandatory ISP filtering from our ever-amusing Communications Minister. Both pieces of proposed legislation are difficult to argue against because they are defended by the mantra of ‘OH GOD, WON’T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?’ Moreover, these proposals from Federal and State government are unique because they are trying to police areas of the public realm (art and the Internet) that have largely gone without censorship in Australia. However each piece of legislation (if they are passed) is open to scope creep from opportunistic politicians of the future. Needless to say “scope creep” is a dangerous proposition for democracy and the freedoms we take for granted.

      You might ask ‘why is scope creep a reasonable concern?’ Any future amendments to these laws would most likely not come under the sort of heavy debate they are enduring now. Without public consultation it would be easy for governments to use the Commonwealth classification of art to quietly restrict or remove types of artwork that are politically-damaging. Some might think this is a ridiculous argument to level at our “strong” democracy. Unfortunately our political system has, in the past decade, displayed a unique disposition towards being abused by its opponents. Ten years ago it would have been unimaginable that police would have “stop and search” powers. Never trust our politicians to do the “right” thing.

      Scope creep aside, art censorship is just a really bad idea. Perhaps the most highly publicised instances of state censorship of the arts was Europe under Nazi and Soviet rule. We’re already following China down the path to Internet censorship; do we really want to follow Hitler and Stalin’s footsteps in regards to the arts? No, we don’t.

    • iansand says:

      10:32am | 11/03/10

      I actually heard one of the people we allow to govern us justify the bikie illegal association laws by saying something like “We already have these laws to protect us from terrorists…”, as though that made everything OK.

    • Das says:

      08:03pm | 11/03/10

      Completely agree with you there! When the anti-terrorism laws came to pass, I told my mates that this was eerily reminiscent of good ol’ Mother Russia (I lived there for many years before migrating to OZ). Then lo and behold, these powers are being abused by police.
      WHY do Australians trust politicians to keep them safe? What ever happened to common sense? You CANNOT censor art - it will almost inevitably creep over into an overt abuse of power.
      I agree that artworks featuring a child’s genitals are not a great idea, but that needs to be decided on an individual basis - forcing artists to seek classification approval is ridiculous. What happens if the artwork in question is a political cartoon criticizing the current rulership? Do you people realise that these “classification” rights would effectively allow the govt to censor WHATEVER THEY WANT?

    • Sky says:

      10:22am | 11/03/10

      I dont pretend to be an art buff because it just doesnt make sense to me how a splotch of paint or a naked kid can be seen as art, but i guess thats why its in the eye of the beholder.

      If any child is posing in a provocative way for this “artist” then in my opinion this is not art and shouldnt be displayed. I can understand both sides of the argument but i wouldnt be allowing anyone i dont know or trust to be taking pictures or drawing or painting (or whatever) pics of my child while they arent clothed for whatever reason.

      It all starts at home people. Start looking after your own backyard and stop worrying about what everyone else is doing.

    • AdamC says:

      10:33am | 11/03/10

      It must be so rewarding to define the margins of art and (child) pornography, especially when we have, what, thousands, tens of thousands of kids all around the country who are, indisputably, being abused and neglected as we speak.
      Congratulations, John Hatzistergos, you are really helping to protect the kiddies with this one. The fact is that the media victimised Henson’s model far more than the photographer or gallery owner did. This whole ‘issue’ is a ridiculous distraction.

    • John says:

      10:48am | 11/03/10

      It is a known fact that connecting the word “art” with anything automatically makes it pure and good and right.  Anyone who speaks up against any form of artistic expression should be silenced in any way necessary for the common good.

    • wonko the sane says:

      11:15am | 11/03/10

      Nudity is not a problem.  Honestly.  It’s a normal fact of life.

      The problem is portraying sexuality in subjects which are underage. 

      Unfortunately, while ‘underage’ is a measurable, ‘sexuality’ actually isn’t.  A pedophile may choose to ‘enjoy’ a photograph of a child in a chain store catalogue.  Are we suggesting banning those too? (might help save the planet…)

      Case by case and determined by some authoritative judgment on the sexuality layed on the subject - this is the only way.

      Any argument against simple nudity is almost exactly the same as the argument about girls ‘showing their faces’ rather than wearing veils.  i.e. a cultural argument and one which should be left up to the individual.

    • DG says:

      11:54am | 11/03/10

      Wonko, check out your latest K-Mart brochure or the likes. There will be no young children in swim wear for this exact reason.

      I may well be wrong, but I seem to recall that some years ago there was a suggestion that paedophiles could use such materials for nefarious purposes. Without much ado pamphlets were modified to avoid depicting children.

    • wonko the sane says:

      06:50pm | 11/03/10

      DG - you miss the point. Completely.

      The degree of nudity in a K-Mart brochure does not stop a pedophile from being turned on by the images.  That was my point which you have missed - totally. 

      The problemin fact lies with the pedophile mind as well as our (societys) inability to early detect and correct it.

    • DG says:

      01:41pm | 12/03/10

      I was just pointing out that we have already gotten to the point where we ban legitimate things for fear that someone will use them for inappropriate purposes.

      I agree that it’s impractical to go around banning everything that may be used for “inappropriate” purposes.

      I would also agree that there is nothing that can be done, as a preventative measure, beyond the banning of these items.

      I don’t have a definitive solution, but I do think that banning every image of children for fear that it may bring pleasure to a certain sector of the community is a bit heavy handed, and is not really addressing the issue at all.

    • Zeta says:

      11:26am | 11/03/10

      William S. Burroughs, perhaps the greatest wielder of the artistic word in the 20th Century said of fellow, traditional artist Gottfreid Helnwein - ‘It is the function of the artist to evoke the experience of surprised recognition: to show the viewer what he knows, but does not know that he knows.’

      And so it is with Bill Henson, and with these pictures of children everyone is so worried about. If you recognise in art your own discomfort and disturbance, which you were only sub consciously aware of, then the artist has done their job.

      Even better, Henson, inadvertantly, made us recognise our own inherrent pedophilia. The global lolita complex.

      Looking at Henson’s untitled photographs of young, smooth bodied teenagers, their indolent, feverish, beauty, their copulating in dumpsters and stretching against the alien metropolitan skies; we’re meant to recognise our own internalised regret at our lost childhoods, the disturbances of our burgeoning, burdensome sexuality.

      Instead we were guided by the media to see only an opportunity for predators to be titilated.

      The hysteria created by the child porn panic borders on the sexual. It’s not hard to envisage these fanatical activists whipping themselves into orgiastic ecstacy at the thought of another criminal artist flaunting their depravity for all to see. And pulling their strings, the media industrial complex, found another opportunity to keep us scared, ignorant, and consuming only approved artistic products for educational and entertainment purposes.

      The philosopher and chaostician Hakim Bey advocated a form of ‘poetic terrorism’ in the face of encroaching mundane control by the Establishment. His followers would write things like ‘Young Children Have Beautiful Feet’ on New York subways and in the bathrooms of corporate headquarters. He was also the guy who advocated kidnapping people and making them happy, a concept picked up by Chuck Pahlunik in Fight Club.

      I think Bill Henson is Australia’s first poetic terrorist.

    • Michael K says:

      11:52am | 11/03/10

      I couldn’t agree enough, Zeta. More well-thought out critiques of this proposed legislation along the lines of your argument need to be brought to the fore of the debate to combat the typical responses to anything regarding child protection.

    • Willy K says:

      12:45pm | 11/03/10

      Paint/draw/sculpt what you want - who cares.

      But PHOTOgraphing a real underage girl/boy for ‘art’ is wrong as they are minors and they cannot be said to be able to maturely want to do this.

      This is the crux of the whole thing which ‘art’ lovers seem to conveniently ignore.  Must be due to all of the Max Hardcore Art House films that you lot study and critique.

    • bella starkey says:

      01:25pm | 11/03/10

      yeah but Burroughs also murdered his wife and bummed underage mexican boys… best not to take his advice.

      (actually i agree with you but still)

    • Shama says:

      02:14pm | 11/03/10

      Zeta take your point, nicely argued, especially about the internal motives of people who hysterically attack anything that is out of the box but I have mixed feelings about Henson-whose exhibition I have seen and liked incidentally. It’s like Lewis Carroll’s pictures of the real Alice. Carroll is obviously a great artist but there is something going on there that is not quite wholesome.  So I think one has to recognise that whilst it is art there is a degree of perversity in these works - made more troublesome by underage subjects - no matter what art criticism terms a la poetic terrorist one may use. 

      And staying on Carroll, you don’t have to be naked for it to be disturbing. Ergo I think Disney is a greater porn factory which actually ends up making its stars into dysfunctional adults unlike Henson’s models.

    • Michael says:

      11:36am | 11/03/10

      If Bill Henson’s work was “child porn”, it was 0.1% as strong as some of the images police allege to have found on the Internet.  Slapping the word “child porn” on a clearly artistic representation of a person under the age of 18 diminishes the trauma of real child pornography, where a child is abused, victimised, and violated.  Anyway, I am off to the Louvre in Paris to spray paint over all the naked cherubs in Christianity inspired paintings.  Oh, and I’ll knock all the penises off the small statues.

    • Theo says:

      01:28pm | 11/03/10

      Agreed.  To lump Bill Henson into the same legal category as those who produce images of children being sexually abused and exploited is wrong.  It leads to a slippery slope where other artists and even ordinary people will find themselves the targets of these hysterical nutjobs who think anyone with a camera in the vicinity of a child is some kind of depraved sexual monster.

    • J says:

      01:59pm | 11/03/10

      A couple of years ago, a guy in WA was charged with child pornography for possessing a virul email that depicted cartoons of Bart and Lisa from The Simpsons having sex.

      A completely outrageous and erroneous charge that diverts attention from where it should be focused.

      I agree, targeting Bill Henson for child porn trivialises the real issue, and diverts attention from the real perverts out there.  I simply didn’t feel disgust when looking at BH’s images.  They were very powerful and soulful. 

      In hindsight, maybe it wasn’t the right thing to do.  Maybe the ramifications weren’t properly thought out.  If I was asked, I wouldn’t let my kids pose for something like that.  But the PM’s kneejerk reaction to calling them ‘disgusting’, and the public outcry, is a bit much.

      Like people have said above, there are real miscreants out there - they need to be focused on, not the art community.

    • vic says:

      12:23pm | 11/03/10

      If your art contains imagery of nude children then YES you are the problem. Artists seem to think unless their work is shocking or repulsive it’s no good. Get over yourselves, you answer to the same laws as the rest of society however artsy you might think you are.

    • BTS says:

      12:40pm | 11/03/10

      So if a ‘well known paedophile’ declares himself to be an ‘artist’ will it now be acceptable for him to photograph and publicly dispaly his work of underage children naked?

    • SR says:

      01:07pm | 11/03/10

      Is a parent possessing a picture of their naked toddler child porn, art or something else?

      Should parents be prosecuted producing, processing and accessing (and even “distributing” to family and friends over the internet) pictures of their child in a naked or semi naked state at any childhood age, or should it just be some children at some “unacceptable age”?

      Can someone please define what a sexual pose actually is – where does it begin, when does it end?

      The definition of child porn as it currently stands is effectively “if it looks like it is, it must be” and also includes depictions of people who are clearly adults, not children. I am not sure how you can effectively have a legal test that is fair under this definition.

      It is clearly an undefinable matter, as it is relative to the observers’ emotional reaction to such material. A parent will generally observe a picture of their naked child playing in the bath and think “my child is so special to me and I love remembering such happy moment”, however another person might have other more deviant reactions to the material. When material is open to interpretation how can a law be applied equally.

      The question is, is it porn, art or something else to any given observer of material depicting children?

    • Jason says:

      01:16pm | 11/03/10

      In this day and age, the need to protect children I think needs to be prioritised over the need for artists to express their art in cases where it can also be classified as child pornography, even if it was done innocuously. As responsible citizens, artists should be able to respect that notion and the need for child protection without getting angry or irked because their art is being censored.

    • Martin says:

      06:54pm | 11/03/10

      The question that has to be considered, however, is whether or not the response is proportional to the threat that is being addressed? Is the threat to children of such magnitude that we should willingly accept the narrowing of the scope of our civil liberties in order to address it? We must be wary of falling into the trap of accepting the “the safety of children is more important than X” argument as a justification for the infringement of important freedoms, without actually ensuring that there is a benefit to the safety of children. Before we allow the scope of our liberties to be diminished, we should make damned sure that there is a concrete need for it, and concrete benefit to be derived from such restrictions. Once you give freedoms away, you will never get them back.

    • Lachlan says:

      01:19pm | 11/03/10

      I think the real issue that’s being ignored is that, whether or not it is considered “art” or not, the child that is of less than consensual age isn’t old enough to be able to make the decision on whether they would like to be photographed nude.  It is this lack of ability to provide proper consent that is the issue, meaning that, “art” or not, the photographing and publishing of nude minors is wrong, without exception.

    • Matt says:

      01:35pm | 11/03/10

      So instead of actually trying to catch Pedophiles, they’re just banning everything?

      I guess it’s much easier to turn a country into a police state, ala Venezuela or Iran,when you’ve banned everything. After all, only pedophiles and communists enjoy freedom of speech!

      Saying “won’t someone please think of the children!” as an argument is hilariously being used as argument to further regulate our freedom through an internet filter, right here in Australia.

      Yes, not China, Australia.

      Stop protecting kids so much, you’re just going to turn them into a bunch of spineless nancy boys and girls who have no idea how the real world is. Do you think the human race will thank you when you give them poor examples of what people can be?

      I am not a pedophile, I still think these pieces of ‘art’ should not be banned, it is an artists freedom of expression.

      All for chrissakes guys, they’re just BREASTS. You’ve seen those before, haven’t you? If you don’t like looking at the pictures, then don’t! You’re not forced to look at them.

      Are we eventually going to end up banning all forms of photographing children because a small minority of people get off to them?

      Seriously guys, that’s what the police is for. Though based on these comments, it seems that the lot of you are very eager, or even wish that, for Australia to become a heavily regulated police state.

      If that is so, then I’m done with this country, I will refuse to be a member of a people who think we should give up further freedoms for a little bit of security. This isn’t just about some guy doing a painting or whatever of an underage girl, if these are banned then it becomes much easier for other things to be banned. How long until Sitcom TV shows are banned because they might offend a small majority of people? Or movies? Or video games?

      They will simply use the same mantra, ‘protecting the children’.

    • Saskia says:

      01:45pm | 11/03/10

      Henson’s ‘art’ has as much credibility but no where near the enjoyment factor of watching Brazilian Hard Core Scat Films.

      It is utter rubbish with a sly ‘she wanted me to photograph her’ edge.  Dodge.

    • Venise says: says:

      02:03pm | 11/03/10

      It takes a whistle-blower to lob in the opening shots in an art imbroglio about censorship; people could perhaps wonder why little old ladies and mature-aged ladies whose lives have gone past the use-by-date of sexual enjoyment are the main offenders?

      Doesn’t it occur to those grubby minds who positively gloat when they use the word genitals that violence is a far more dangerous thing than a Bill Henson art photo.
      Why do these same prurient minds have no qualms about thrusting a pre-pubscent girl into sleaze shots for the advertising industry; aided and abetted by parental and/or sibling encouragement, I dare say, that it is also fine for the same child’s concomitant loss of self-esteem when she has to go up against professional models, who mostly are born to be thin. Certainly chosen because of their resemblance to a coat-hanger.

      On the whole, the comments of the outraged, and the lovers of the word genitals, set out above, tell us far more about themselves than they do about the subject matter.

    • Jamers Hunter says:

      02:11pm | 11/03/10

      no immage of any person of any age naked is pornographic just by nature of nakedness.
      are mothers and fathers guilty of pornography for haveing showers or baths with their children?
      are all who go to family nudist beaches and camps pornographers?
      any one who thinks so must themselves be perverts.
      the people who have to view material and decide on its suitability must also by viewing repetively be perverts and thus unsuitable for the job!

      This is just another case of Labour behaving like the Nazis as is labour in sa.
      God hrlp us from moralising zelots whesather from the right or left they are still very nasty specimens.

    • John says:

      03:18pm | 11/03/10

      Sounds like you are a “moralising zelot” (sic) when it comes to those you disagree with.  I suppose that makes you a “very nasty specimen” also.

    • Mike Creighton says:

      02:42pm | 11/03/10

      Can I suggest that those who decry Henson’s work actually go to a gallery and see his works for themselves or if that is not possible just read the reviews of one of his books online .. “Lux et Nox” for example is available on amazon.com.  If you still believe this is pornography, then google “local psychiatrist/therapist”  and make a booking ASAP.

    • Crystal says:

      03:29pm | 11/03/10

      Art vs Porn, oh how i wait to enjoy the result of this decision.

      Surely, at the end of everything whether something is art or porn.. is in your head.

      Therefore, if you look at it and see porn.. then march yourself along to the government, hand yourself in and await your chemical castration, clearly its your problem.

    • Henry says:

      03:41pm | 11/03/10

      You twits just don’t get it do you?

      The ISSUE is that the ‘models’ are under age.  Henson is preying on the immature of body and mind in order to create dubious ‘art’ to appeal to the raincoat brigade.

    • Saskia says:

      03:56pm | 11/03/10

      Spot on.

      Art is not the issue.  Consent is.  Henson is dodgy.

    • Theo says:

      04:02pm | 11/03/10

      It’s people like yourself who just don’t get it.  Henson is a photographer who has exhibited his work for many years.  He has not preyed on anyone and does not produce images that that is intended to appeal to the raincoat brigade.  it’s the mindset of people like yourself who fan this kind of hysteria in our society.

    • Henry says:

      04:11pm | 11/03/10

      Theo’s response. The fact that the models are legally underage does not register with your ilk does it?

      I rest my case.  Another raincoat who has convinced himself that his interest is actually ‘artistic’.

    • Mike Creighton says:

      04:25pm | 11/03/10

      To refer to the patrons of the Roslyn Oxley Gallery as the “raincoat brigade” is deeply offensive.

    • Bruce says:

      04:59pm | 11/03/10

      Henry.  I am not sure if Henson has ever “preyed” on anyone. However, if there is some kind of legislation attempted to be introduced, it will have to be extremely complex. eg how do you define young models for ‘art’ versus the need for young models for ‘medical’ or ‘scientific’ publication? Its more about the “knock on” effect and interpretation of the law if any kind of legislation is introduced.

    • Martin says:

      07:11pm | 11/03/10

      I suppose the fact that Henson gets parental consent (and permits parents to observe the shoot if they wish) and allows the models and their families final say over which images are used makes no difference to you?
      (Ref: Marr, David. (2008). The Henson Case. Text Publishing: Melbourne)

    • Willy K says:

      09:35pm | 11/03/10

      Bruce.

      The point is is doesn’t matter who the third party is or what it is for - the child is under age and cannot be deemed of an age to make that decision.  Thus no photo should be taken.  Of course baby pics by parents are different.

      The child’s welfare needs to be above those people who wish to stare at a photo of a naked young kid on a wall at a gallery.

    • BTS says:

      08:48am | 12/03/10

      Mike Creighton,

      ‘To refer to the patrons of the Roslyn Oxley Gallery as the “raincoat brigade” is deeply offensive.’

      To display naked photos of underage kids is ‘deeply offensive’ to some people.

      Surely, if the gallery are demanding the right to display pictures of underage children they can’t demand the curtailing of free speech on the other hand?

    • Mike Creighton says:

      10:01am | 12/03/10

      Please remember that the Henson works were in fact returned to the Roslyn Oxley Gallery and that the police determined there was not a case to answer. These works were found by the police not to be of pornographic nature and the whole silly thing was just a ridiculous waste of everybody’s time driven by misinformed hysteria, which wild comments about the “raincoat brigade” just serves to perpetuate.  Concentrate on the real problems of child pornography and abuse for heaven’s sake and stop wasting the time of our overstretched legal forces with pranks such as this.

    • SR says:

      04:07pm | 11/03/10

      @ Henry

      Lots of ‘models’ are children. Plus you might want to be careful what you seem to be possibly accusing someone of doing something without evidence.

    • Censored says:

      04:47pm | 11/03/10

      I am fairly sure the censorship goes as far as painted images aswell.
      I have just had my art removed from several places because it showed cartoon like male genitalia, and naked breasts on a fairy.
      You can seriously see more real nudity on the 8.30 movie on any given night…
      I am peeved, my work was not likely to be seen by children.

    • blue says:

      05:02pm | 11/03/10

      You only have to look at what’s happening to young children in Afghanistan and whats being condoned there by teh US and Au militaries as ‘cultural norm’ behaviour to see the result of single minded ’ we can do what we like and it affects no one’  politics.
      Sorry..but as artists you DO have an effect..and no ...you CANT just do what you want and expect people to be ok with that. Grow up. You live ina wider world where some things are just not ok..and ownt ever be thank God.
      As art especially has a power to alter perception, it also has a very high degree of responsiblity attached to the practice of it when it relates to the public sector. That power has to be used responsibily as the effects are collective and so much more than one individuals right to do as they please. To in any way promote child sexuality as an adult attraction or titilation issue or to use photographs of naked children for adult manipulation is to invite base chaos and the repugnant into our society on a deep pscyhe level, it is to invite cultural acceptance of paedophillia as something that is “ok” or normal when it is not.
      In your artistic lamenting of the decline of society and your freedom of choice, you then turn around and complain about the effects of child abuse - that is the broken adults that are breaking into your houses and doing drugs to escape reality..its a bit rich…make conscious choices..choose better themes…and dont promote what YOU wont condone in YOUR back yard in ten years time.

    • Steve says:

      10:35pm | 11/03/10

      Well done Blue; I’ve heard of a ‘stream of conscious thought’ but you have just introduced me to a ‘stream of unconscious thought’.  What a lot of meaningless dribble.

    • Davido says:

      07:09pm | 11/03/10

      I agree that the artistic merit defence be removed as a defence. There can be no doubt that so called artists have produced child pornography under the guise of ‘art’.

      Child pornography is child pornography…  it should not matter the reason for which it is produced.

    • Timbo says:

      08:46pm | 11/03/10

      @blue

      I think most artists are aware of the effect their art may (or may not) have and I don’t think they have some “hidden agenda” to change our way of thinking. Its certainly not about trying to “invite cultural acceptance” .

      I think as a society we’ve been so scared by our leaders and the media that there are pervs around every corner, and you cant leave your kids out of sight for a second. Yes - bad, horrible things DO happen and its a very sad thing when it does - but we HAVE to keep perspective. You cannot simply now make a blanket law prohibiting all images of children in whatever form because of what some person MAY do with that image, and similar you cannot make that law simply because you don’t like how the image makes you feel. You would do better to try and understand your own reaction - you may learn something about yourself.

    • CJ says:

      09:33pm | 11/03/10

      If these artists are so brilliant (a compliment often applied to Henson, for example), they should be able to turn their talents to other subject matters. Sure, they can still be quirky, cutting-edge or however else they define themselves—one would expect that from good artists—but they need to use an ounce of commonsense as well. The fact that we are even having this discussion should indicate that community standards are wildly varied on the portrayal of semi-naked or naked children, especially photographs or images of real children. If required to make a judgement call on “art vs exploitation”, most people would err on the side of protecting children. The art community has brought the opprobrium on itself by defending this rubbish as art. It’s not art to take photographs of semi-naked children. There’s nothing new in it, nothing that illuminates the human condition, nothing that challenges the viewer. It’s just a so-called brilliant artist being lazy and (here’s the telling point) lacking the nous to realise that he is offending those who might otherwise actually enjoy some of his real art. Yeah, his career is in the stratosphere at the moment, solely because of this controversy, but the downside is that his career will be always viewed against the backdrop of a few photos of semi-naked children.

    • AlexC says:

      10:51pm | 11/03/10

      Genitals are made for sex. They’re not “just another part of the body”. They don’t have secondary functions (besides defecation). They’re not a benign lump of flesh. They’re no elbow, you know what I’m saying?

      Therefore, if a piece of “artwork” features genitalia, the only “thought provoking” it’s doing is about sex. What other thoughts are you meant to be provoking? It’s always so fuzzy, isn’t it? Are you meant to think, “Gosh, look at the way that tiny, immature penis curves round to the left? It’s so damned artistic. And that childish nipple? What a small, rosy circle of cleverly photographed nothingness it is!” I mean, are you?

      No, you’re meant to have a reaction towards nakedness that is in some way sexual - or at the very least, gets you thinking about the fact that you’re NOT supposed to be thinking that this is sexual. Maybe it’s innate, maybe it’s societal, maybe it’s a little bit of both.

      Why do we have to put that into our brains? Why? Whoever says we’re sexualising kids everywhere else in the world is absolutely right - so can we just not sexualise them every so often? Fine, don’t arrest people over it if you don’t want to get too tetchy about it but can we just not crow over it and laud it and encourage more of it and mock everyone who thinks it’s a bit shifty? Can we? Huh?

    • Evan Jones says:

      11:25pm | 11/03/10

      It is entirely reasonable (and appropriate) that governments should legislate to protect children.  It is equally silly to think that either ‘art’ or ‘porn’ in themselves are relevant to a child’s safety.

      It is fair to accept that anything that is created with an ‘artistic’ intent is ‘art’; also it is fair to accept that anything consumed for sexual titilation is ‘porn’.  There is no reason why something is one or the other (and indeed some art explicitly explores the boundaries of what some would think of as porn, and also pornographers sometimes create images that are artistic).  Given the vagueries and subjective nature of these terms they should both be rejected as a measures of legality.

      What needs to be addressed is the safety of children, and for this it is appropriate legislate against actions that do or probably would cause damage to a child.  So creating a photo of a child being raped should be illegal, as this is causing damage.  The crux of the matter then is, is it damaging for children to be photographed naked?  And though there will be a grey area between the the two extremes I don’t believe that there are any really convincing arguments that modelling naked causes damage to children.

      The question of consent here is equally irrelevant.  The legal principles that dissallow consent are for the purpose of preventing damage.  So it is impossible for minors to legally consent to sexual acts because it is considered that these acts risk the childs short and long term health.  Equally some S&M acts are illegal because a person is not legally free to consent to GBH.  If it cannot be established that modelling naked causes damage; there are no grounds to withhold lawful consent from minors.

      The other issue that is irrelevant is the consumption of an image as porn.  Say someone uses a picture of a child to facilitate sexual gratification.  Even though this is pretty sick, being a sick bastard is not in itself something that should be legislated against.  What is reasonable to prohibit is seeking out images that have been created in a way that damage children.  This being arguably complicit with the original crime.

      Lastly as a few people have already pointed out, it is quickly becoming established that marketting efforts to sexualize ‘tweens’ is damaging our young people.  And though maybe irrelevant to this debate directly, does highlight an ugly hypocrasy in our political culture.

    • Chase Stevens says:

      11:49pm | 11/03/10

      Henson’s art was rated PG, enough said I think.

    • Craig says:

      01:33am | 12/03/10

      You know I think a major problem here is that so few people have seen real child porn. People look at the Henson photos and simply react to the combination of nudity and youth claiming that its child porn wheras had they seen the real thing, they would probably look upon Hensons images as Disney works.

      And before BTS goes off his nut ... no I have not seen, nor do I really desire to view child porn… but I’d be interested in Mick Keltey’s views on what he has seen in his sting operation and what was put up on the walls at that infamous exhibition.

    • BTS says:

      08:59am | 12/03/10

      Craig,

      I have seen child pornography.  Sickening stuff that turns your stomach, but that’s not the issue.  You need to understand that underage kids having sex is not where child pornography finishes.  They don’t have to be having sex for it to fall under the definition of child pornography.  It’s not just nudity and youth that makes it pornography.  Understand that distinction.

      I am not ‘going off my nut’, I have been completely level headed, destressed and not in the slightest bit worked up - I am having an intellectual discussion.  If I disagree with you, I am going off my nut.  If you disagree with me does that mean you are going off your nut?

      The Police raided the gallery and confiscated the material because there was either a complaint or there was information an offence may have been committed.  Not was, but may.  That’s their role, investigate to determine ‘if’ an offence was committed.  When they investigate if an offence was committed, they take the evidence.  It happens everyday.  If no offence has been committed the property gets returned.

      If you look at the law I quoted earlier, it can amount to child pornography under section (b) if it’s offensive or demeaning.  The determination of whether it’s offensive or demeaning in this case is the key issue.  Whether it is or not is decided in the legal process, not on The Punch blog.  Some people question whether video games or movies are too violent.  Shouldn’t we as a society, from time to time question what is and isn’t appropriate in the community?

    • SR says:

      10:00am | 12/03/10

      @ BTS – Since you seem to be the expert on this issue and appear to be employed in an field that examines material such as Hensons’ PG rated material, can you answer some questions based on your experience –

      1. Do you see it as illegal for parents to produce descriptions or depictions (memories) of their own children in a naked or semi-naked state?

      a)  and if in some instances you believe that it is not illegal is there an age bracket that you would deem it to be illegal?
      b)  and also if in some instances you believe that it is not illegal should parents be lawfully permitted to share those descriptions or depictions (memories) with family and/or friends?
      c)  If in some instances you believe that it would be ok to share those memories with family and friends do you believe that it should be illegal for those family and friends to access, possess or distribute that material to others?

      2. Or do believe that it should be illegal to describe or depict any child in a naked (non-sexual; what ever that means, or non-sexual) manner regardless of the circumstance?

    • BTS says:

      10:55am | 12/03/10

      SR,

      I don’t proclaim to be an expert.

      1. Do you see it as illegal for parents to produce descriptions or depictions (memories) of their own children in a naked or semi-naked state?

      It’s illegal if it falls into the definition of:
      (a) in a sexual context, including for example, engaging in a
      sexual activity; or
      (b) in an offensive or demeaning context; or
      (c) being subjected to abuse, cruelty or torture.

      a)  and if in some instances you believe that it is not illegal is there an age bracket that you would deem it to be illegal?

      Its illegal if it depicts someone who is, or apparently is, a child under
      16 years—

      b)  and also if in some instances you believe that it is not illegal should parents be lawfully permitted to share those descriptions or depictions (memories) with family and/or friends?

      If it doesn’t fall into the above categories.

      c)  If in some instances you believe that it would be ok to share those memories with family and friends do you believe that it should be illegal for those family and friends to access, possess or distribute that material to others?

      Not if it doesn’t fall into the above categories.

      2. Or do believe that it should be illegal to describe or depict any child in a naked (non-sexual; what ever that means, or non-sexual) manner regardless of the circumstance?

      No.

    • Gav says:

      11:01am | 12/03/10

      I just wanted to point out what I believe is a crucial difference between a few comparisons being used here.  A naked toddler playing on a beach/under a sprinkler etc - the child is there playing and that is what the photo is of, the child in an activity having fun, so the photo is reflecting an event showing this child having a great time with a beaming smile on their face, the nudity is not essential to the photo. The “artwork” is just a naked child standing there - for what purpose?  Light and shade? Would the photo be just as artistic if the child was dressed? or it was a bowl of fruit in the same lighting?  As for the references to art from bygone eras showing cherubs etc - seriously, thats the best defence you can come up with? They are paintings of mythical creatures, that happen to look like kids, and there is a massive difference between those paintings from hundreds of years ago to photographs taken now and in the future.  I don’t see why art needs kids without clothes in frontal shots.

    • SR says:

      11:28am | 12/03/10

      BTS

      You claim the following –

      1. “I don’t proclaim to be an expert.”

      2. “I have seen child pornography”

      Now assuming that you are not including Hensons’ PG classified works, form these two statements, if both are true, I would suspect that you may have broken the law. There are only a few exceptions for having lawful access to child pornography which are overtly profession related.

      So you must be in a profession that gives you lawful excuse to view child pornography or as I have indicated you yourself may have broken the law.

      Plus the fact that you dodged answering my questions of what you believe simply by quoting the law indicates to me that you either don’t know what child pornography is, or you don’t want other people to know what you believe child pornography is. Can you please comment on this by not using spin or dodge tactics?

    • BTS says:

      12:53pm | 12/03/10

      SR,

      I haven’t broken the law, but I am not an expert in the subject.  Expertise would indicate a long standing of experience and professional study.  I have not got either.  I have seen child pornography and at that time it was lawful and legitimate through my employment.  I have studied two relevant degrees and my research touched on these issues, but it was not my major so it can’t be catergorised as ‘expertise’.

      I didn’t dodge your question.  I answered it.  My beliefs with what constitutes child pornography equate to what we as a society, through our laws, also believe is child pornography.

      Trust me it’s not fun, it sickens you.

    • SR says:

      02:43pm | 12/03/10

      BTS

      I am glad that you have not broken the law, however using words like “sickens” may apply to some material under the definition, however I highly doubt a reasonable person would describe Henson’s work as sickening – and this seems to be a trigger for this debate. Are you afraid that maybe one day some judge or jury won’t be able to convict someone that you believe should be – I highly doubt that would happen.

      Also being as though you have done some minor study relating to this issue you would probably realise that the definition of “person” has been successfully prosecuted too include Simpson cartoon characters (which is odd because no one has been prosecuted for possessing a Simpson episode featuring Homer subjecting Bart, Lisa or Maggie to “abuse” and “cruelty” on a reoccurring basis) – not that this ruling is wrong, but I don’t know how many people would refer to any of the Simpson characters as a person.

      You would also know that Commonwealth law and other States laws provide more scope than the NSW law. This includes the words “appears to be” not “apparently is”. This expands the scope of prosecution to material featuring adults and not children. Child pornography is illegal because children need protection from exploitation by adults and children. Removing the “artistic defence” could also open the law up to including such things as Homer subjecting Bart, Lisa or Maggie to “abuse” and “cruelty”, which I assume probably “sickens” you also but to most of us it is just humours entertainment.

      The exploitation of children for pornographic purposes should be illegal and is, however extremist/alarmist views should not result in knee-jerk lawmaking based on an incident where an artist produces PG material and another where a child pornographer tried to beat the law by claim to be an artist.

      The law seems to have worked just fine. What’s the problem?

    • Gav says:

      04:12pm | 12/03/10

      @ SR - I believe I am a reasonable person, I have a good job, I pay taxes, give to charities and do not subscribe to any particular religious or political calling. I also have 2 children, a boy and a girl.  Do I think that Hensons work is porn?  No, not really. Do I think that beacuse it doesn’t meet the definition of porn that it is OK for pictures of a naked child to be taken and shown in public under the guise/protection of art or artistic licence?  No, and there isn’t any argument that can convince me otherwise.  As for your claim that the law has worked OK so far, I don’t believe it has- there is no reason that anyone, especially a professional “artist” would take a child into a studio and take completely naked full frontal photos of them and call it art.  Where is the art in that?  I don’t see it, just like I don’t see it in a photo by Andre Serrano called “Piss Christ”, again under the guise of art.  Just because the law says that it is OK for it to be shown doesn’t mean that I agree with it or think that the law should be changed.

    • Rod says:

      08:58am | 12/03/10

      The immoral world we live in.

    • John in Alice says:

      09:54am | 12/03/10

      Everyone keeps side stepping the fact that while a lot of photographs and art might not be labeled as pornographic but may in fact be simply trashy, vulgar, obscene or just in poor taste.  I do not find Mr. Hensen’s work pornographic, but I would never hang it in my home even if it were free simply because it falls under one of the descriptions above.  For some, trashy and vulgar is in. 
      I find it regrettable that our citizens require teams of experts to identify what is acceptable art and what is not. 
      Mr. Hensen thrives because our society has grown permissive and lazy.  Just two generations ago he most certainly would have been banned if not jailed for his efforts.  There is an obvious correlation between work like Mr. Hensen’s being now acceptable and the huge rise in child pornography that we observe but we are too wrapped up in our sports, our economy and our social lives to worry about it.  It will always be someone else’s children who are the victims.
      Like Scarlett O’Hare, we’ll worry about it tomorrow.

    • ?? says:

      10:58am | 12/03/10

      its the depraved and perverted that wreck everything for everyone

    • Craig says:

      10:59am | 12/03/10

      The naked human form is NOT porn, naked humans involved in a sex act/show is…..simple!

    • Muttley says:

      04:09pm | 12/03/10

      so by your reasoning Playboy is art? No sex, just naked human forms??? I’m seeing a flaw in the reasoning.

    • Steve says:

      11:29am | 12/03/10

      Art does not excuse everything.  I agree that say a photo of a naked baby may be perfectly harmless.  But there are some “artists” who will cross the boundary into unacceptable territory.  They cannot be permitted to act as judges in their own cause and say categorically that “it is OK because it is art”. 

      Any normal artist should be able to recognise where the line is and not get too close to it.

    • John Smith says:

      12:17pm | 12/03/10

      It seem only to be offencive when portrade in certin medium, Photographs YES, drawings and paintings maybe, was the artist male he’s a Pedo, and on and on and on…..........people will get their Jollies where people get their jollies, regardless of if children, adults, or even animals, clothed or not. Remember the story of the guy and the park bench, we dont know what the next person maybe turned on by. Nudity is not porn, but classification of images, as was the case for the Henson photos is the way to go, then it is up to the individual to decide. The internet makes the distrubition of all materials eaiser to access, by accident or on purpose, and is an issue that needs to be addressed, how this is done is anyone answer and not easy to address.

    • Brad says:

      02:27pm | 12/03/10

      This case reminds me of my old High School year 12 exam question for my HSC: Is Nude Photography Pornography? Having had the debate at school before the exam, it is actually very simple to answer a question like this.

      Nude photography is very subjective as it can be artistic, offensive or pornographic. It just comes down to YOUR values, beliefs and social influences. A photograph of a naked 13 year old girl, say Bill Henson’s controversial images, can very easily be classed as “Artistic” to someone who enjoys art for arts sake. Although, if the photograph arouses you and gives you a feeling of sexual desire or impulse, then it would be classed as a “Pornographic” image. If you do not like the photo, as its not art and not sexually arousing or stimulating then the photograph would be “offensive”.

      Deciding which of the above is most suitable for a photograph is up to the eye of the beholder, as everyone will have their own view on the subject. Personally, I have not seen Bill Henson’s works to judge, but as a father I could find the images either offensive or artistic, as nothing about a 13 year old girl would get me aroused.

      Society has changed its views on so many topics in the last couple hundred years, its very hard for anyone to say what is right or wrong when it comes to this subject.

    • Gavin says:

      05:26pm | 12/03/10

      Much like the most stringent anti-gay activists in the US often end up being gay, I have always wondered whether the most virulent opponents of Henson’s work (‘wont someone please think of the children!”) don’t also have something to hide…

      Personally what I find sick is how they now blur out kids’ private parts on Funniest Home Videos - as if there’s something there to see…  It’s a kid for God’s sake!  Similarly, I find bikini tops for 3yos seriously twisted.  Do we really have to alter the entire society’s behavour to deal with the 0.1% of sick f**kers out there? 

      I feel society does this more and more often nowadays - altering the way the majority lives in order to account for the behaviour of a tiny minority - and it is not a positive development.

    • Alli says:

      12:26am | 13/03/10

      The many comments against this article really prove that nudity as art is more about sensationalism that anything else.  Really, if your art is that good, you don’t need nudity to sell it.

      I’m not opposed to nudity, though I wouldn’t let my children pose naked.

    • Pete says:

      06:07pm | 13/03/10

      So any sick paedophile can use the “art” as the excuse.  Fair enough it is your own child you take a photo in the bath, but teenagers being photographed not by their parents is both creepy and a little sick. If these “artists” want to photograph naked people, easy make sure they are over 18. Naked photos of young teenagers and kids purported to be art shows the sickos that use art as a guise.  Otherwise scumbags like Dennis Ferguson are just art afficianados?, NO PAEDOPHILES!!

    • Pablo says:

      10:04am | 14/03/10

      Gavin

      Your inference that anti-Hensonites are actually paedophiles is repugnant. You are a despicable individual using gutter tactics to score points in a debate. Pathetic.

    • Bill says:

      10:03am | 14/03/10

      http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28231

      Says it all really.

      Most “artists” I’ve ever known were weirdo freaks anyway. I’m convinced most of them are into “art” as a cover or justification for their weird lifestyles. Not all, but a lot.

      And yes, I used to have quite a number of dealings with major galleries and artists collectives. I wouldn’t entrust a pet rabbit to most of them.

    • Decent says:

      11:39am | 14/03/10

      You mention topless sunbakers. -  Taking a photo of them is perverted!

      You mention Kim Phúc (the naked young girl fleeing a napalm bombing raid) - This was an acclaimed photo because it caught a dramatic moment not because she was modeling for the photo.

      Paying a minor to take nude photos of them or even asking a minor to do it for free is wrong. If I asked children to come to my place and take off their clothes for one minute then put them back on that would be wrong.

    • james campbell says:

      04:11pm | 14/03/10

      A good friend of mine put it simply when he said that it is pornography if you think it is. thank you Tony.
      We are doing what the artist, for want of a better word, wants.
      We are discussing his works and therefore justifying his existence and his views.

    • Carl says:

      07:51pm | 30/04/10

      Lucy, this is a very lucid and strong argument. I support your argument and talk about the anti-artist movement in Australia growing stronger each day in interviews with US, Canadian, and European arts and literary magazines any chance I get, and I will keep doing so. The hate-mail toward artists I’ve read in some of these comments just reinforces the need to let others in the world know what is starting to happen here in Australia.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Lucy Kippist

RT @JenBrockie: A take on social media from India http://t.co/5XCerDTB @tehelkadotcom

Lucy Kippist

RT @alaindebotton: So many of our problems would be alleviated if we had 3 or 4 exceptional friends living within a 2 minute radius.

Paul Colgan

RT @latikambourke: Yes, @PeterSlipperMP is genuine.

Anthony Sharwood

It's terribly unfashionable to admit but my Cityrail train just left on time again

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Interest rate barney barely even rates as interesting

Interest rate barney barely even rates as interesting

Stop all the cheering, cut off the champagne. Prevent the pollies from barking and silence the drums.…

Life slips away while you’re filming it on your phone

Life slips away while you’re filming it on your phone

Some friends of mine had lunch on Saturday with a mate who spent so much time artfully composing photos…

Other stuff to be angry about today (with chorizo pic)

Other stuff to be angry about today (with chorizo pic)

That dopey Spaniard. Three-time Tour de France winner Alberto Contador has been banned for two years,…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: City vs country: What would you change your life for?

Dieter Moeckel says:

We made the tree change from Darwin to Wonbah more than 15 years ago. After fencing, a road, and couple of dams our money was gone. Super is enough to live comfortably. We have geese growing old and stringy the only one that made it to the pot committed Kamakazi by flying into a tree; the chooks are… [read more]

From: I’d rather have a piece of toast than listen to crap lyrics

Erick says:

Led Zeppelin are responsible for my all-time favourite mixed metaphor: "There you sit, sit and stare, like a book on a shelf rusting." (Misty Mountain Hop) I laugh every time I hear it. Hmmm, I believe I've decided what to play on the way to work today. [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more

150 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter