Inappropriate photos in art gallery seized by police.

Originally posted by TrailGator
if someone takes a gun and shoots you in the head,

That's murder. Murder is illegal. A nude body is not.

Originally posted by intrepid
That being said, my wife disagrees with me, she thinks it's pornographic.

Pornography is specifically defined.

Child pornography refers to pornographic material depicting children being sexually abused.[1] Children are sexually abused in the production of child pornography when sexual acts are photographed, and the effects of the abuse are compounded by the wide distribution of the photographs of the abuse.[2] Legal definitions of child pornography generally refer to any pornography involving a minor, varying by jurisdiction and with regards to the age of consent and other laws. For research purposes, child pornography often refers to any recording (photograph, video, or audio) of sexual activity involving a prepubescent child.

Wiki

I don't want to cause an argument with you and your wife but I would say whether she *thinks* it's pornographic is not the issue. She may find it offensive, which is what I think many here are saying. They find it offensive, and therefore are calling it pornography. But it's not.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by TrailGator
if someone takes a gun and shoots you in the head,

That's murder. Murder is illegal. A nude body is not.

well, no, it could be that he (the one being shot in the head) could have arranged it, for the sake of "art" and treated it like an assisted suicide.
But dont worry, a hypothetical is hard to argue against. Unless of course, its an 'art' hypothetical about nude children.

And actually, a nude body is illegal in certain situations and in numerous communities and municipalities, though it appears the majority of people "here" want it to be legal. However, if everyone were to go naked...we would surely then see the real necessity of clothes.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by intrepid
That being said, my wife disagrees with me, she thinks it's pornographic.

Pornography is specifically defined.

Child pornography refers to pornographic material depicting children being sexually abused.[1] Children are sexually abused in the production of child pornography when sexual acts are photographed, and the effects of the abuse are compounded by the wide distribution of the photographs of the abuse.[2] Legal definitions of child pornography generally refer to any pornography involving a minor, varying by jurisdiction and with regards to the age of consent and other laws. For research purposes, child pornography often refers to any recording (photograph, video, or audio) of sexual activity involving a prepubescent child.

Wiki

I don't want to cause an argument with you and your wife

but I would say whether she *thinks* it's pornographic is not the issue. She may find it offensive, which is what I think many here are saying. They find it offensive, and therefore are calling it pornography. But it's not.

I do tend to think that some here are transposing, or at least compounding, the words pornographic and 'offensive'. It does seem a number of people here, and I would be included, find it offensive. But of course, artists could care less about that and still say we are all prudes or whatever, so we will never get this offensive stuff like photography of nude children stopped if we dont start deeming some things 'pornographic' when it comes to children, even if the pictures might not meet the strict definition of 'porn'. Historical evidence is abundant that the "line" between art and porn regarding children is rapidly dimishing, and then when that happens....will all of you start defending pics of children in sexual acts?

Originally posted by TrailGator
so we will never get this offensive stuff like photography of nude children stopped

Pornography of children, nude or otherwise is already illegal. It is "stopped" whenever it is found.

if we dont start deeming some things 'pornographic' when it comes to children, even if the pictures might not meet the strict definition of 'porn'.

We DO deem some things 'pornographic' when it comes to children. You want something to be called porn, even though it's not? You want pictures like the following to be deemed "porn" and if it should be found on your computer, you would be charged with possession of child pornography?

Historical evidence is abundant that the "line" between art and porn regarding children is rapidly dimishing,

Really? Do you happen to have any of this historical evidence?

and then when that happens....will all of you start defending pics of children in sexual acts?

Excuse me? That's pornography... I do not and will not ever defend that and I'm quite sure everyone here agrees with me. The line is clear. It seems a bit blurred in some people's mind and that's what has me concerned.

[edit on 3-6-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

And we as a society wonder why grown adults kidnap, rape and do horrible things to CHILDREN who are defensless!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We as a society exploit KIDS and then some scumbag says.."oh it's ART" BS! Its a grown adult playing and getting off to KIDS! Art has become BS! Art has been expanded so far that there is no true definition anymore...and the more idiots we allow to do sick twisted crap, and then PROTECT them in the name of ART...those who strive to actually create art are overshadowed by the controversy of these jacka****. Sorry but naked KIDS..NOT ART...more like reason for a beat down of some pervert or a sick parent who allows this to happen to their kid. And for those who look at it..or shall I say look at kids and see ART...yeah...go get checked..cause your not right!!!

Just another thing added to the decay of this society....it blows my mind how people defend this, then the same day question why we have rapists, killers, molesters, etc....

Originally posted by TrailGator

Originally posted by Matt_Mulder
reply to post by Nammu

 

Art is Art, no matter what our good westerners vices are...

hmmm...so Matt, if someone takes a gun and shoots you in the head, and an artistic photographer captures it on film and it displays your brains being blown out, and they display it as art under the genre of 'gruesome death' pictures or something similar...then we should applaud that as art, huh?

now pay attention here, I am not talking about the person that shot you, I am talking about the artist photographer here....so thats alright to show anywhere as art? Is that the way you 'euro's' do it???

No. That would be news. As these two widely-celebrated shots were.

Robert Capa's world-famous, and debated, photo

The most famous photo from Vietnam by Eddie Adams, (well, that title could go to Kim Phuc by Nick Ut, AP)



[edit on 3-6-2008 by HowlrunnerIV]

[edit on 3-6-2008 by HowlrunnerIV]

reply to post by tezzajw


If this is how that laws are going than everyone who has a pic of their son/daughter grandson/granddaughter naked in the bathtub as a baby should be locked up. Also all those ads I see for baby products what shows a babys naked butt, the producers of those ads should be locked up. I don't agree with pedos but we have to draw the line somewhere.

Well I'm a 16 year old girl, and I think this artist must be sick.
I do see some points, maybe he did intend it to be purely artistic, but does this really mean OTHER people in society will?
We shouldnt fail to realize that soceity nowadays is a lot differant to how it once was, people are a lot more sick and twisted now. There are a lot of people who out there who actually LIKE seeing naked children, so do go publicly displaying it claiming it is 'art' is wrong.
The law is there to protect people, and who knows by plastering these naked pictures of that girl up, is that not putting her in danger?
Not everyone is innocent and pure, thinking of these paintings as art and nothing more, because to state a fact, some people do get off on this.
13 years old is a child, I know I was 13 three years ago and whilst I was 13 I tried to act older then I was although I still ran around the yard with my dog and played games with my sister.
At 13, you cant really decide if or if not getting yourself photographed naked is alright.

Most importantly, some people have been bringing up pictures of historic value with children naked, also sculptures, well to this, I must say this is NOT actual photos of children, these are paintings or sculptures.
I believe it is one thing to draw a naked young girl and a totally differant story to take a PHOTO of a naked young girl.

People keep saying it's art and tell us that we do not have the right to judge that it's porn. BS. If I can't tell, why can you tell? I'm certain that many of us who support the pictures do not know more or less than me about art, then don't you tell me what's art, what's not. You say there's no line between art and porn, then it can be porn, it can be art. But I say it's porn, and it should not be allowed.
Say, if we allow this "art" to be published. As many have said before, tomorrow, we'll have another series of photo like this, even more gruesome and sexual. And someday, porn will go everywhere, under the name of art.
What's art? I'm not a critic, nor I am a grown adult to know many things. But I at least can see that this is absolutely wrong. I don't say it's definitely porn, but it's very close. One more step, it'd be porn. So, do you think out there there are someone will take that step?
I look at those parents who say that they'd allow their children to do those pictures. I don't like them. Because of parents like you more and more paedofillia have a living, more and more pictures of young girls naked on porn site. Look at Britney, and many other young celebrities. What's happened to them, when their parents lured them into the path of fame and money too soon. You allow them to take those kinds of pictures, one picture will allow two, two will allow four, four will allow ten, ten will allow one hundred. They've shown their bodies, they've lost their innocence. Why should they care about sex and drug? Teenagers like me and them don't think like you. We don't have limit if once set free.
Bill Henson, the "artist", I don't know what's in your mind, and I may not have ingenious mind like you. You and the other artists keep saying, it's not porn, but you forgot the fact that they're 12-13 years old. 12 YEARS OLD IS NOT LIKE A 18 YEARS OLD. And I think, under 18 should not ever show their bodies to other persons publicly, i doubt that they consented it, as a girl, I wouldn't, but my mother might. If they truly liked it, still they might regret it. And even if they didn't, that's not the decision they can make or their parents can make. Say, if a girl like to have sex with a boy more than her 10 years old, and their parents consent it, therefore the boy is legitimate to have sex with her? The magnitude may be higher, but same idea. This girl does it, some other girls will think it's cool (some of my friends do). And they might not be as lucky as this girl to see Bill Henson, who still has the conscience to censor her.
I think it's a very good point that if a normal person has a picture like that of a 13 girl who only hides her private, that person will get into trouble, but why not an artist. I failed to see what's so good about these girls of who Mr Henson took pictures. And his reason does sound perverse, "the loss of innocence". With all due respect, i think it might be him who takes away that innocence. All the things have beauty inside it, even sex. Someday, a guy will say blah blah beauty about sex between amateur adolescents, and it will become art. How'll you think of that. It's true that there's beauty, but shouldn't it be better we savour those beauties by ourselves, but not from some grisly pictures. Well, sooner or later we'll see it, won't we? But privately is better than publicly, don't you think?
I'll thank all of you who may fix some of my reasons. Enlighten me, but i failed to see why should we accept those pictures, knowing that it will not give us anything other than a brief moment of fantasy, but it took away innocence, produced controversy, defamed the artist, encouraged other girls. I mean, there's a lot at stake, why bother taking those pictures only to affect people like this?

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


to the anonymous poster right above this thread...well done. But be prepared. Your logic will be turned into a perversion, a corruption of artistic expression, and/or you will soon be called some sort of nazi censor or something.

reply to post by deadline527

I don't get what you said. "Your logic will be turned into a perversion, a corruption of artistic expression, and/or you will soon be called some sort of nazi censor or something." Whaddya mean? Explain to me, please.

I remember last year, Australian government as well as public get in hot water over a 12 years old girl who wants to be a model. They don't wanna allow a girl to walk the cat-walk in that age (did they finally allow her, i'm not sure. I was learnning English in that period so I did not read news much). If they don't wanna allow a 12 years old girl to be a model, there's no reason to allow a 12 years old to strip naked.

It is interesting how people break down the argument against the picture by putting them into Nazi censor. I have some opinions here, i am not really smart, so don't make me become some kind of savage please.
You (for) think that we (against) make you become pseudo-peadophilia (although i never mentioned you are, or i think i did not). But is it any different of you making us become Nazi ? I don't think any of us ever mentioned about making Nazi saint. The point is, the Nazi was wrong alright, they suppressed modernism senselessly, without reasons other than political nonsense. But here we are putting many things at stake, as I have said before. You put those pictures on, more pictures llike that came, even more sexual. You say, it's us who "miscast the facts of issues to achieve an emotional end." Give me evidence! You think that "the picture will influence and encourage other girls" nonsense? You think that "the picture contains nudity of underage girl" fictional? Or are you saying that all our protests against the picture are just for ourselves, for fun, for showing that we're smart? You say we're not right, how can you be sure you're right? The thing is, we did exaggerate some facts, but again who doesn't? You say we "miscast the facts of issues to achieve an emotional end", you yourself exaggerated it; everyone can decide which way he/she will go as long as he/she has seen the picture. In this situation, there's nothing such as right or wrong, it's all about perception, you see it right, we see it wrong. That's all about perception, so we should see what's on the stake. Is a moment of fantasy worth a huge controversy and a potential surge of art's misuse? Or are you saying that the pictures are so important that it will revolutionize the whole art world. Or are you saying that by suppressing these artworks, the artists would be so disappointed to stop drawing, to "make the world becomes duller, poorer, greyer place to live"? Art is very flexible. I have seen pictures of sad girls with clothes on, and with proper lighting it isn't less tragic than any of these pictures of Bill Henson.

Originally posted by alciefrederic
I don't get what you said. "Your logic will be turned into a perversion, a corruption of artistic expression, and/or you will soon be called some sort of nazi censor or something." Whaddya mean? Explain to me, please.

most people on this thread seem incapable of understanding why someone like me, or the anonymous poster above have morals and beliefs that this is wrong - photographing underage girls and boys like this to 'show' in a gallery. I know that in America the standards of decency that I have always believed in have continued to decline - and I think this is a sure sign that more degredation of what America is will happen...though of course, this story takes place in Australia, its similar to whats going on in the USA.

I believe this is bad. And its okay to me if others dont, but when I espouse this, I get accused of being a 'bible thumper' or of advocating 'censorship' like the Nazi's did, or as wanting to limit someone's freedom of expression....
...but it would not be "me" as much as it is "us", that is the majority of society (and we are still a majority) who believe like this. And since we cannot make laws, we must do what everyone else does - make our requests to our legislators and hope they can inact laws that respect the majority, and protect our constitutional rights to voice our opinion.

That is why I warned anonymous. That the attacks and name-calling will begin when her post is read.

Thanks for the opportunity to explain.

[edit on 5-6-2008 by TrailGator]

Here's why any attempt to justify the picture of the naked 12-year old girl is completely indefensible:

1. You have NO validated evidence to judge whether or not the 12-year old child was paid, threatened, coerced, or otherwise manipulated into taking her clothes off and allowing herself to be photographed naked.

2. 12-year old girls are not in the position to defend against aforementioned manipulations.

3. Society has a moral obligation to protect underage children from being exploited and abused by adults.

4. Based on the above, any discussions here supporting the naked photographs of the 12-year old girl are based purely on the abstract and theoretical, not on the specific circumstance. Not knowing the specific circumstance, it is necessary to err on the side of protecting a child from possible abuse, and not to err on the side of the adults who may want to exploit the child for financial gain.

In other words, the obligation to protect a minor child from possible exploitation and sexual and psychological abuse outweighs anything else in consideration.

Further, the argument that the photographer somehow has a "right" to photograph a naked child is ludicrous. Nobody has a "right" to photograph a naked child.

Jamie, here's where your argument runs into the limits of its own logic:

Originally posted by jamie83
Here's why any attempt to justify the picture of the naked 12-year old girl is completely indefensible:

1. You have NO validated evidence to judge whether or not the 12-year old child was paid, threatened, coerced, or otherwise manipulated into taking her clothes off and allowing herself to be photographed naked.

You have NO validated evidence to judge whether the 12-year old was paid, threatened, coerced or otherwise manipulated into taking her clothes off and allowing herself to be photographed naked. As you have no evidence, so you cannot argue against an action you do not know did take place. Any arguments you advance are purely in the realm of the hypothetical.

2. 12-year old girls are not in the position to defend against aforementioned manipulations.

Really? So 12-year olds are not in a position to prevent themselves becoming drug addicts?

3. Society has a moral obligation to protect underage children from being exploited and abused by adults.

Yes, it does. And it has laws to protect underage children. No-one has yet proven this girl was exploited or abused.

4. Based on the above, any discussions here supporting the naked photographs of the 12-year old girl are based purely on the abstract and theoretical, not on the specific circumstance. Not knowing the specific circumstance, it is necessary to err on the side of protecting a child from possible abuse, and not to err on the side of the adults who may want to exploit the child for financial gain.

Based on the above, any discussion here supporting the prosecution of Bill Henson are based purely on the abstract and theoretical, not on the specific circumstance. Not knowing the specific circumstance, it is necessary to err on the side of protecting artistic expression and freedom of expression and not to err on the side of the "moral" and highly vocal minority.

In other words, the obligation to protect a minor child from possible exploitation and sexual and psychological abuse outweighs anything else in consideration.

In other words, the obligation to protect a free, open, pluralistic and democratic society outweighs the strident demands of a closed-minded few.

Further, the argument that the photographer somehow has a "right" to photograph a naked child is ludicrous. Nobody has a "right" to photograph a naked child.

Further, the argument that a few Nazis somehow have the right to dictate to the majority what it may or may not do or think is ludicrous. Nobobody has a right to decide society's opinions for it. Society's opinions are changed through public debate.

And now the kerfuffle is over

Sydney nude art inquiry dropped

Hollywood actress Cate Blanchett had intervened to defend Henson
Australian police have dropped an obscenity investigation into photos of nude children at an art gallery that sparked a major debate on censorship.

No charges will be brought

But that isn't going to stop the debate. Which is a good thing. As I said in my first post here, the courts are no place to be holding this debate.

edit: inadvertent zealotry in URL!

[edit on 6-6-2008 by HowlrunnerIV]