Inappropriate photos in art gallery seized by police.

Inappropriate photos in art gallery seized by police.

www.news.com.au

Charges are expected to be laid after police last week seized 20 Henson photographs of a naked girl and boy, believed to be aged 12 and 13, from Sydney's Roslyn Oxley9 gallery.

NSW Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione today said he had a strong personal reaction to the nature of the seized images.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I don't know what to think of this story. I'm against most forms of censorship, but is it right for a well known photographer to have photos of naked girls on display in a gallery?

I'm not an arty person and I really don't care for it but this story has made front page headlines in the Aussie papers.

What do you think? Art for art's sake or soft child-porn?

www.news.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

In my opinion that would cross the line of what art is.

But obviously it was illegal for them to be taken.

Originally posted by Migwah
But obviously it was illegal for them to be taken.

That's like saying someone is guilty just because they were arrested. It's a very broad statement with absolutely no consideration of situational specifics.

I think this is an area where we need to be very careful. That said, the care cuts both ways. We need to be careful to protect minors, but we also need to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

My opinion is that these photos were clearly artistic and not sexual in nature. The models in the pictures (several of whom have been interviewed by the Australian media) were not manipulated, abused or pressured, and to me that's what counts. If there were even the slightest evidence of abuse, then hell yes the artist needs to be investigated. But this should be judged on the artist and the models, not the art.

Without seeing the pictures myself, I can't comment. I'd need to see them first to judge for myself.

Why is it illegal for them to be taken if they were done in a civilised manner, with no exploitation, with the young-adult's (I refuse to use 'child' for a 13 year old) consent, possibly their parents consent as well, and portraying then in an artistic way?

No one can comment without first seeing the pictures. But since the police have seized them and labelled them 'porn' I guess we never will.......

Here's a link to the gallery and some of his pictures, although the ones in question have been removed. Judge for yourself what they may have been like.

www.roslynoxley9.com.au...

Originally posted by Nammu
I'd need to see them first to judge for myself.

I've tried to ignore this story on the TV news, but it won't go away.

They showed the pictues with obvious editing around the sensitive areas. The poses were all 'artistic' (whatever that is?) with some profile shots, with the girls using their arms to hide/show what was needed.

I still can't get my head around why this has been national news that has caused division between our Prime Minister and the artistic community... A big fuss over nothing, maybe???

if i remember correctly there are naked pictures of children at the melbourne museum going through different stages of puberty. if it is illegal to take pictures of children naked why hasn't something been done about these pictures that i have mentioned? if it is ok for one why isn't it ok for another?

reply to post by tezzajw


I haven't seen the pics, I'm not currently in Oz and don't live in NSW anyway, but this story was featured on Insiders and I tend to pretty much agree with what the discussion had to say, which is this:

The courts are absolutely not the place to conduct a public debate about what is art and what is exploitation, let alone child pornography. Particularly if the photos do not depict the children in "sexual" poses and especially when many medieval/renaissance paintings depict naked children.

reply to post by Migwah

Where is the judge's (or jury's) decision, rendered in court, to prove it illegal? Cart, horse or horse then cart?

Im am so incredably pissed of what is happening to Bill Hensons work at the moment. For some reason people seem to think that there is no difference between porn and art..... I dont know if anyone has actualy seen any of these works in real life but they are incredably confronting for the viewer when viewing them.
I dont know if anyone relises that non of the people photographed have come forward against Henson... infact there have been a few that have spoken out in support of him.
What I just dont get about this is that many of these phots have been around for many many years..... and the moment the Rudd takes a look he is quick to sit there and talk out against this art.

There are so many people that arnt in the art community that dont see these works for what they are.... they are ment to be confronting... they are ment to challenge the viewer..... they arnt ment to show these children in a sexual way.

Just my 2c.

-fm

[edit on 28-5-2008 by funky monk]

It has been all over the news the last few days here in Vic.

If anyone else took naked pics of children they would go to jail. Parents approval or not. Why should it be any different for 'artists'?

i have a news link with a picture - just making sure its `ok` to post it here first , don`t want to get into trouble

Tricky decision here for any judge and jury.
If they were 'sexual' in nature there wouldn't be an argument..

But if it WAS purely artistic then you're opening up a can of worms here..
I'm assuming the photography session would have been closely controlled and of course the models paid.

If it's a 'You shouldn't be photographing nude kids" thing...Then what about children and parents who holiday in nudist resorts..
You can't take photos of your family on holiday?

I'm playing devils advocate here as I don't have kids and I'm not a nudist but you can see where this could lead to..

But, on the other hand..When does art become 'soft porn' for perverts?.

Originally posted by AGENT_T


But, on the other hand..When does art become 'soft porn' for perverts?.

Well in a way art has always been like that to some people..... Like there are people that go the library where my mum works and they get out some art book on old renaissance art and they sit there and perve on all the nude paintings.
Bill Hensons works are actualy modern recreations of the renaissance works.... thats the stype he aims for.

-fm

reply to post by funky monk


Have to agree with you there after googling some of Henson's other photography..
Very dark,deliberately-underexposed,non-sexual.

After reading about the "Guy who had sex with 1000" cars you have to realise this world is sick and find sexual gratification in anything and everything.

Why should genuine artists suffer for other peoples illnesses..




[edit on 28-5-2008 by AGENT_T]

Well if you find that kind of stuff sick, you should go to Arnold Swarzi personnal collection. It's much more sick than that. I will only say painting made in blood, naked children in nazi uniforms... I won't say more.

I wonder today whether this full frontal picture of a naked young girl would have been banned because it's pornographic?





The worrying thing is that I just think it might .....


And in other contexts too there is absolutely nothing wrong with nudity. The problem is that a small percentage of people are unable to differentiate between nudity and sex. Maybe a consequence of our prudish society?

Originally posted by Vitchilo
naked children in nazi uniforms... I won't say more.

No, really, please do, because right now all I have to say is:

er, huh? What?

or is this a bit of a Sam Eagle moment?

reply to post by HowlrunnerIV


What? And what I said I just figured out that it was a little bit odd... naked children in nazi uniforms... so they are not naked...

Oh boy.. I've had some heated arguments at uni over this...

I'm on the side that thinks that it should be looked at very carefully. I don't like the images one bit, but I'm trying not to let that prejudice me about whether they should be censored or not.

A few questions though...

* What is Henson's fixation on youth? Why not use 80 or 90 year old models? That'd be just as 'out there'.

* What is and what isn't art. Henson might be able to take photo's of naked prepubescent girls and call it art, what about every day Joe? If you took similar photographs of other people's children, you'd get the wrap over the knuckles very very quickly.

* Why does Kevin Rudd have to justify his comments of being against it? A bunch of actors have written a letter saying that Rudd should withdraw his comments, or somehow face being hijacked by the arts community. Well, people need to get real - last year under Howard's work choices laws, it was going to be made illegal to fly the Eureka flag at construction sites. I think that was a bit more totalitarian than this!

Henson's previous works were more abstract and less full frontal than these newest ones. If you've seen the new ones, even the censored samples, you'd know what I mean - I don't really see the artistic value in them.

And like it or not, a 13 year old IS a child. Everyone expects their kids to grow up too fast. How on Earth can a child make a decision to be in these works? A judge has recently suggested that there'd be grounds for the children to sue at a later stage if they felt someway violated by Henson, so it'd be damaging for him as well.

Some say that classical works feature child nudity - but that was also when we were burning witches at the stake, but somehow now with photographic technology, taking photographs of children and risking having them censored is somehow 'backward'.

Bottom line - he won't be prosecuted. I've gotten the general feeling from the debate and people saying that it's 'OK' is that they're scared of not sounding liberal enough. Just around the burrows here and there, anyway.

I'm a liberal sorta guy, but I well and truly don't like these images.

Originally posted by mattguy404
Oh boy.. I've had some heated arguments at uni over this...

I'm on the side that thinks that it should be looked at very carefully. I don't like the images one bit, but I'm trying not to let that prejudice me about whether they should be censored or not.

A few questions though...

* What is Henson's fixation on youth? Why not use 80 or 90 year old models? That'd be just as 'out there'.

* What is and what isn't art. Henson might be able to take photo's of naked prepubescent girls and call it art, what about every day Joe? If you took similar photographs of other people's children, you'd get the wrap over the knuckles very very quickly.

....

OK.... have you had a look at Hensons photos? If not go have a look at them. (I assume you already have).


For the second question (which kinda answers the first).... you can work out that its art from the way its taken.
Have a look at this pic:

That is a good example of his work... the dark colours with the light colours and not much in between. The look on the face of the girl.... like many of his work the expressions on the subject(s) is very important as to his intentions. If the girl had a look of dispare and loss how much more would that be amplified if she was nude? Its all about him creating feelings in the viewer that he wants them to feel. If this was done with old people would that have the same effect (first question)?
The way he takes his pictures and the subject matter that he uses all have a big effect on the way he wants you to feel.... and I think for some people when they saw these children it struck the emotions he wanted them to feel... but the way society molded in the way it has, people keep seeing what Henson has taken and putting that in the same box as porn etc...

-fm