Is it child porn if the subject is famous?

Geefy says:

02:10pm | 01/10/09

For me it does seem to represent the overt sexualisation and “adultification” of youth culture and children, and did it quite well. I’m not sure what the “artist” was meant to do with the actual shot, though.

As for the porn question - well, porn is in the eye of the beholder isnt it? Plenty of dirty peddos get off over girls clothing catalogues - does that mean its porn?

Geoff says:

02:16pm | 01/10/09

I can’t beleive we are going over this again. It wasn’t child porn when it first came out and still isn’t. Pornography as described in the dictionary is and I quote “Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.” If you think it is child porn then you need to look at yourself and wonder why you think that.

Mo says:

02:23pm | 01/10/09

While it is a very provocative picture, I don’t think images such as these should be banned. The amount of discussion they generate is healthy and provides an opportunity to discuss the important issues that stem from the sexualisation of children and young adults. The sexualisation of youth and youth culture can’t be banned or shunned and making it yet another taboo topic will simply lead to moreproblems in the future.

Sarah says:

02:28pm | 01/10/09

It might not be considered a sexual photo, but since when has dollying up a child so that she looks like an adult and taking naked photos of her been “art”? Had the man’s ‘work’ not been publicised as art, any sane person would call him a perverted rock spider. The difference between this photo and artist, and the photo a paedophile takes is very, very, very, fine. What would have happened to Brook Shields if she’d been photographed by Roman Polanski? Would it be child porn yet then?

ABC says:

02:39pm | 01/10/09

The issue isn’t whether or not it is child porn. It isn’t.  It’s whether, irrespective of whether it is cloaked as “art’, the photo is explotative of the child.  On this front it clearly is.  The corrollary of this is whether the explotation is to the detriment of the child.

Zeta says:

02:44pm | 01/10/09

Child Pornography is not nude children. Nude children are nude children. Child pornography is evidence of a child sexual assault, usually filmed or photographed for distrubution.

It’s a waste of Police resources to have them investigating every single nude kid that pops up in an art gallery.

Law Enforcement agencies aren’t interested in going after art galleries, when there are networks of criminals abusing children and sending the evidence of that abuse around the internet. If any of us were presented with a nude photo of Brooke Shields, and one of the photos from the notorious Masha Allen case we’d know the difference. One, is artful and innocent, the other, is evidence of a grotesque child sexual assault. I want my tax dollars spent on investigating and prosecuting the later.

Father of Three says:

03:11pm | 01/10/09

Geoff i think you need to take a look at yourself, how would you feel if it was your 10yr old daughter? I would be hunting this “artist” down. how is it art if you load the kid up with make up have her nude in a sexually provocative pose, standing in a scene that sounds like it has come straight out of a playboy mag? that is not art, if not child porn it is in the least unexcusable and unexplainable sexualisation of a child. If some one was found with a picture like that on their hard drive they would be locked up and charged with possesion of child pornography. I fail to see how any one can see this photo, those of bill henson, and any others like it as “art” if it was a full grown woman posing in such a position it would pretty readily be considered soft core pornography, and classed with the “art” work of Hugh Heffner.

Margaret Gray says:

03:11pm | 01/10/09

“...The work is a picture of a picture, that was originally commissioned by Shield’s mother…”

And there’s the problem right there.

The same abandonment of parental responsibility was evident throughout the whole Henson saga as well.

In Shield’s case Calvin Klein also exploited her for their own gain.

“...Is it child porn if the subject is famous?...”

Forget one trick pony Brooke Shields…someone should ask Traci Lords.

TimT says:

03:14pm | 01/10/09

An interesting example. I’m not sure if western societies are more conservative than they were 20 years ago, but perhaps on the whole we’ve become more likely to act on causes that we see as ‘moral’ using whatever means - legislative, protests, lobbying politicians - are at hand. The Bill Henson case was also evidence of that.

It would be instructive to see what a sociologist or anthropologist would make of this - which would seem to be, on the face of it, a small but significant cultural shift in the space of a few decades.

timbo says:

03:33pm | 01/10/09

*shakes head*...ahh the do-gooders at it again. Oh no!....there is a 25 year old photo of a   *gasp*  nude child!!  *outraged muttering* to be displayed to the public!!! *faint* Quick!!!...to the Censorship Mobile!!

Hasn’t this gone on long enough??? What about all the centuries old paintings & sculptures, now regarded as masterworks, that have depictions of adults & children in all states of dress/undress??? What about all the pictures that parents commonly take of their kids in the bath, or running around through the sprinkler in the backyard sans togs, or even, the old chestnut of letting the kids play at the beach without clothes because their swimmers are ruined. Well…according to the do-gooders, we should now bin it all because now it’s all “child porn” *cue dramatic sting*

When are we all going to grow up and act maturely about this? There have been pedophilles and perverts all through history (many of them in high positions of power & influance) - they are not going away. Its the “terrorism mentality” - we’ve been “scared” into seeing terrorists hiding under every bush, and now there are pedos under there as well. If we keep this up, we’ll have nothing in our lives because we’re too scared of what MIGHT be “out there”...

As for this photo, why would a so-called “kiddie fiddler” pay an entrance fee to a gallery to look this photo when there are enough copies on the ‘net for them to do whatever it is that they do with these images. The subject in question is now 44 years old and I dont know her personally, but I’d say she look pretty well adjusted to life to me - no exploitation here, move along people….

timbo says:

03:48pm | 01/10/09

The photo is not designed to sexually arouse - if you think that it does, then obviously you are not ready to deal with YOUR reaction to the photo. You’d rather take the easy way out and call it “child porn”, cover up your own uncomfortable feelings with lots of yelling and stamping of feet.

This is what art is trying to do - provoke a reaction from the viewer, who would hopefully then try to get a bit more understanding about their own feelings and thinking.

There are some truely, truely, truely disgusting things done in this world to children by (so-called) adults in the name of sexual gratification - this photo is light years away from that.

Get some perspective

Adam says:

03:53pm | 01/10/09

You can find these images pretty quickly and easily on google images.  They’re not in any way sexual unless your mind makes them so.  They’re simply pictures of a young girl taking a bath.  This is just another example of the politics of fear.  I’m all for protecting children, but as an artist I worry about the future of a society where any artist that creates work that is confronting or thought provoking is marginalized by the state.

Peter T says:

03:59pm | 01/10/09

The picture is not one of a 10 year old girl, in a natural state. No , she’s oiled, with make up and asked to look in a certain way. Is it child porn ? - I would say yes.
But when you put into perspective, recently another well known star stated she was aware of her ‘powers’ over men when she was 12, and when girls that age are sold as business transactions to satisfy urges of presumably foreign men, in, for example ,parts of Asia - where being pedophile is a lifestyle choice provided you have the funds, and over here in Australia itself where 12 years olds are increasing experimenting in sex , of their own free will apparently, and where there is no social stigma associated, all clouded by ‘NIMBY’, ‘treat children like adults’ , ‘thou shall not judge’ and basically a society that is morally bankrupt, what do you get ?
My vote is that sooner rather later pedophile behaviour would edge towards being termed as a lifestyle choice much like teenage/preteen abortions, co-habitating, same gender relationships are being considered now.

It believe it’s called civilization, modernisation and progress.

Matt says:

04:06pm | 01/10/09

If this is porn, so are the cards made by Anne Geddes.  Why is it okay at 18 plus, okay under 3, but not okay in between?

Drew says:

04:07pm | 01/10/09

TimT, I think you are correct that western societies are more conservative than they were 20 years ago. But it’s interesting to wonder what makes them so.

I think two major driving forces behind modern day social conservatism are political correctness and female empowerment. Not saying this is a bad thing, I agree with these ideologies. But what I mean is that these ideologies have made us more aware or careful of what we say and therefore more socially conservative.

Just saying that it is more than little ironic that socially liberal ideologies have made us more socially conservative. You could call it left-wing conservatism.

Sarah says:

04:12pm | 01/10/09

Geoff, just because you repeat it doesnt make it true. It might not be sexually explicit, but that wont stop someone from using it as such. There is a massive difference between taking a photo of your naked 5 year old kids playing in the bath and smiling at the camera, and then piling on the makeup and having a pre-pubescant girl POSE naked. It doesnt have to be sexual to be graphic, to be exploitative, or just plain wrong. In a perfect world we could all trust in the supposed ‘innocence’ of the photographer… but we all know that this is not a perfect world and children cannot even trust their own flesh and blood to protect them from exploitation.

Just because its presented to you in a neat and tidy package doesnt make it right. It makes it sanitised and easier to accept.

Matt says:

04:14pm | 01/10/09

Out of curiosity, what does the law say with respect to age and topless women?  At what age is it no longer legal for a young girl to go topless at the beach or on the lawn at a friend’s house?  It is fine at 3, but eventually it stops being fine.  The laws for nude adult males and females are different, basically because of boobs.  But there is essentially no physical difference for pre-pubescent boys and girls from the waist up, but are they treated differently by the law?  Just curious.

Anonymous says:

04:22pm | 01/10/09

In Camera Lucida Roland Barthes covers pornograhy vs erotica vs photography in general.

In The History of Sexuality by Michel Foucault he covers how we came to be at a point in history where innocence is taboo.

Please, if you are not interested in looking deeper into the reasons we are here arguing about this whole mess, crack a beer, watch television and don’t trouble yourself with “art” (I love the quotation marks, simply love them) as you are part of the problem, not the solution.

Markus says:

04:27pm | 01/10/09

Father of three - hunting who down? The photographer who didn’t take glamour shots of your children because you didnt think it appropriate?
You don’t approve of photos such as these, and I respect your opinion. But I think the laws are there to protect the child from abuse. If the parents approved, the child approved, and the photos were taken in a professional manner where the child was not put at any risk or forced to do anything they did not want to, where is the abuse?
As for whether it is pornography or not, no two people will have the same opinion. Some people find feet erotic for example, does that mean the Athletes Foot brochures are publishing sexually explicit material?

Bek says:

04:42pm | 01/10/09

My mum used to take photos of me having my nappy changed. Was that child porn - no - but embarrasing when they were brought out at my 21st. I wonder if we still used photo printing places rather than digital photos, would these photos be send to the police as evidence of child porn…they shouldn’t….as shouldn’t this photo of Brooke (although I still question what her mother was doing allowing her to pose for them - no wonder they no longer get on.)

Matt says:

04:45pm | 01/10/09

Great point Markus.  I sometimes wonder if part of the reason some people react so strongly to issues like this is because they are scared they actually will find the pictures erotic, and they don’t want to have to wonder if they themselves are just a little bit like Dennis Ferguson.  They don’t find feet at all erotic, and they can’t imagine what that fetish would feel like, so athletes foot brochures don’t worry them.

Confused says:

04:51pm | 01/10/09

So Bek does not consent, is embarrased by the pics as an adult, the pictues are used to entertain people at a party, but this is not porn?  Man, this issue confuses the hell out of me.

RT says:

06:24pm | 01/10/09

The problem is that child pornographers and others of that ilk have for a very long time used the “artist” persona as a means to gain access to young children… that’s not to say that there are not legitimate artists out there. But there are also a number of child pornographers disguised as well.

Ask anyone who has worked in the criminal justice system for a while and they will have come across one of these sick cases. Personally, I can think of 3 off the top of my head in the last 5 - 10 years that I have seen in court.

So what’s the solution? Ban the art? That’s a bit extreme. However one must question the artist who feels perfectly comfortable taking photos of a young child naked for others to see…

At the end of the day, as a society, we cannot be too careful when it comes to the safety of our children. And if you are an artist who elects to use young children in your art, then you must be ready to accept the extra scrutiny that comes along with it.

Otherwise, go paint a bowl of fruit… everyone loves fruit!

DD says:

06:45pm | 01/10/09

A photo of a nude child running around the sprinkler, splashing in the bath or doing a streak through the house (as small kids are prone to do) is not child porn.  My issue with this picture is the age + the pose + make up.  She has been posed like that for this photo.  There is a large difference between this photo, and a photo of a kid splashing around at bathtime.

Adam says:

06:53pm | 01/10/09

RT >> “And if you are an artist who elects to use young children in your art, then you must be ready to accept the extra scrutiny that comes along with it.” —You obviously know not one single artist.  Up until recently (within last 10 years) doing a period of nude studies of children was consider ESSENTIAL to completing your classical art training.  And I mean children of all ages, from new borns to teens.  The reason being is that you can’t accurately represent the clothed form until you’ve mastered the nude form underneath, just like you can’t accurately represent the nude form until you’ve mastered the skeletal and muscular form underneath the skin (why we use skeletons and cadavers before we study nudes).  Now most artists are just too scared to do ANYTHING involving children.  And so society is poorer and robbed of great art, both nude and clothed…simply because of the (mostly unjustified) fears of a few—see, you CAN be too careful.

John in Alice says:

10:15pm | 01/10/09

The very fact that Brooke tried to buy back the pictures is a statement to the fact that she was nol comfortable with them and she ought to have the final say in when or where they are used or not to be used. 
Pornography is an often tossed about term, but what about images that are simply in bad taste.  A lot more positive and instructive decision making would be served by labeling questionable work, like Hensen’s efforts at art, as simply poor taste or unacceptable.  We have hundreds of negative attributes that can be assigned to a picture, movie, song, or any art form, none of which relies on pornographic description to make our point. 
I never considered Mr. Hensen’s work porn, but I would not wish to have it in my home on public view.  In reply to Adam, I’ve taken art classes and while a study of anatomy is certainly essential in understanding and drawing human form I am unaware of any art class offered that required or featured the study and use of naked children and my art education goes back some 40 years. 
Frequently people find one person’s art offensive, insulting and lacking in human dignity, and while you may not agree, I have as much right to express MY feelings and thoughts as do you, and I would venture the citizens that you are so critical of are not so few as you imagine.

Mark says:

10:35pm | 01/10/09

As the father of four daughters, I know that by age ten they are self-conscious of their own nudity, even in the home. My daughters started to cover themselves when I was around from this age, without any direction.
To get girls from this age to show themselves naked, especially with makeup, is to exploit them. Smarmy, sweet-talking paedophiles are full of self-justification, and talk of “art” as a justification for their reprehensible urges. Just check the net for these sleazeball sites.

Adam says:

06:29am | 02/10/09

John in Alice >> “In reply to Adam, I’ve taken art classes and while a study of anatomy is certainly essential in understanding and drawing human form I am unaware of any art class offered that required or featured the study and use of naked children”—My point exactly, most ateliers are too scared to offer it these days.  Now I can’t speak to how classically focused the ateliers you trained at are, but I can tell you there are a lot of the worlds most notable ateliers used to offer this, and no longer do.  But you don’t have to take my word for it…go ask any of the great art lecturers of last century, Loomis, Guptil, Hale etc, upon which most good ateliers base their training.  They all feature sections in their training dedicated to children, and they all feature nude sketches…and all of them recommending study from life.  And if that’s not enough for you, go to the louvre and see how many nude child studies were done by great masters.  As for Mark, ranting about artists being pedophiles, one of the points of art is to hold a mirror up to society…if you can’t look at a naked teenager without thinking thoughts of sexual exploitation, perhaps you should question your own mind more than the artists.

Finally, to everyone getting upset over these and the Henson photos…I say, without apology, that you are all a bunch of hypocrites.  That you can sit here, in the comfort of your lounge chair, ranting about the safety of children in an piece of art work, while you do nothing to stop the third world conditions that many of the indigenous children in this country grow up in shows you up as being more interested in indulging in your own self righteous anger than actually caring about the welfare of children!

Germaine says:

09:56am | 02/10/09

Since when has a discreetly posed human body become an object of scorn or loathing?

It seems the wowsernazis are imposing their constipated beliefs on the rest of us, and the politicians are falling over themselves to join the conga line (as in the disgraceful current RU486 cowardice of the Queensland government).

Adam is quite right - if you see pedophilia in a non-erotic presentation of a work of art, then you really should consider why your mind works that way.

Shama says:

02:11pm | 02/10/09

You can keep debating what is child pornography and come to no consensus.  But these are pictures that are placed in a public space.  A child may not suffer the consequences of such public exposure - on the other hand it can given any society’s morals, taboos etc.  + consent lies with the parent, the financial transaction is between adults.  So I don’t think it’s an easy issue or that it being art - even if it is - is enough justification.  But I wish the conservatives would also point a finger at the Disney factory.  Its not just starring in Pretty Baby or disrobing that is the problem.  Children may star in “family films” but children turning a trick in the entertainment industry or being their parents’ meal ticket can be damaging, witness Britney, Lindsay et al.  If you really do care about the welfare of children you have to look at what exists behind the facade of the family film. Why are we riled up about sweat shop workers but not children whose childhood is compromised by acting - simply because it gives our children a few hours of pleasure? After all in no other profession are young children put to work.

Shama says:

02:11pm | 02/10/09

You can keep debating what is child pornography and come to no consensus.  But these are pictures that are placed in a public space.  A child may not suffer the consequences of such public exposure - on the other hand it can given any society’s morals, taboos etc.  + consent lies with the parent, the financial transaction is between adults.  So I don’t think it’s an easy issue or that it being art - even if it is - is enough justification.  But I wish the conservatives would also point a finger at the Disney factory.  Its not just starring in Pretty Baby or disrobing that is the problem.  Children may star in “family films” but children turning a trick in the entertainment industry or being their parents’ meal ticket can be damaging, witness Britney, Lindsay et al.  If you really do care about the welfare of children you have to look at what exists behind the facade of the family film. Why are we riled up about sweat shop workers but not children whose childhood is compromised by acting - simply because it gives our children a few hours of pleasure? After all in no other profession are young children put to work.

Jay says:

04:07pm | 02/10/09

The disturbing aspect to this particular case is that Brooke’s mother organised it all.

Just like poor JonBenét Patricia Ramsey, the parent(s) so hungry for fame - and prepared to sacrifice their own children (sometime literally) to get it.

Yes - we need to protect children. However, more and more evidence over the years suggests we need to protect them from their own family.

A frightening thought for any rational human being…

janice says:

12:01am | 20/08/12

she looks beautiful ~ people need to focus on REAL issues! , millions of childern are murdered every year in wars ... hundread million Starve! ,, if u care about childern one bit .... stop this un-ending idiotic focus on magical boogie men Pedophiles ~ its psyco babble BS ,, yes some men like kids ,, some like animals ... but not many! ... but imagine the suffering of a small child hungry and cant get food ... not one of u will help , so they die ... 5000 starve Per minuet in 2012 ,,,,  now im SOOOOO sorry poor brook has a pic of her nude as a child ... but honestly! getting 10’s of millions every year as a result and seeming to be pretty well rounded person ,, my pity only goes so far ....  its you people that wont stop rageing every second word pedophile that really make me sick .. you could give one tiny care about kids or animals in this world.