Art or child porn?

[motivez]

THE art world has denounced a "dark day in Australian culture" after police seized up to 21 photographs of naked child models and said they would lay charges over an exhibition by the renowned artist Bill Henson.

While the Prime Minister described the works as "revolting" and devoid of artistic merit, the art community and former models for the artist defended Henson, rejecting the accusation that his works are pornographic.

At 3pm yesterday police announced charges would be laid under both the NSW and Commonwealth Crimes acts for publishing an indecent article. The NSW action could involve the hung work and promotional material while the Commonwealth action involves internet catalogues. It was unclear whether Henson or people from the Roslyn Oxley9 gallery in Paddington, which published several of the controversial images on its website and on promotional material, would be charged.

Both Henson and the gallery owner Roslyn Oxley went to ground yesterday. Henson is understood to be distressed by the planned charges.

In dramatic scenes, police took his pictures in packing cases to a truck outside the gallery. The Rose Bay police commander, Superintendent Allan Sicard, told media there: "This morning police have attended the gallery and executed a search warrant and seized several items depicting a child under the age of 16 years of age in a sexual context."

The Herald understands that previous Henson works are also being examined by the police. Henson has been producing similar works for years without police intervention, and they have been lauded worldwide, as long ago as the 1995 Venice Biennale. But police raided the gallery on Thursday night following a complaint. It has emerged that complaint came from Hetty Johnston, of the child sexual assault advocacy group Bravehearts.

"I did make a complaint yesterday, absolutely," Ms Johnston said. "I asked them to prosecute, both the gallery and the photographer, but I'd like to see the parents as well looked in to. What parent in their right mind would allow their 12- or 13-year-old to strip off naked and display themselves all over the internet? That's not in the interests of the child. What's happening here is that the arts community have felt that they've been able to get away with this under the guise of art for a number of years, and I think this is the community drawing a line in the sand and saying, 'Enough's enough'."

Earlier yesterday the gallery released a statement: "After much consideration we have decided to withdraw a number of works from the current Bill Henson exhibition that have attracted controversy. The current show, without the said works, will be reopened for viewing in coming days."

The Herald revealed details of the exhibition on Thursday, following an early viewing. The photographs of naked children comprised about a third of the exhibition. Most of the shots were taken from the waist up, though the genitals of the female model are visible in one image.

Politicians, including Kevin Rudd, condemned the exhibition, and talkback radio lines ran hot.

"I find them absolutely revolting," Mr Rudd told the Nine Network. "Whatever the artistic view of the merits of that sort of stuff - frankly, I don't think there are any - just allow kids to be kids."

But the prominent gallery owner Anna Schwartz said: "It's a dark day for Australian culture in my view. It is an indictment of a culture when an artist of the integrity and stature of Bill Henson isn't free to show his work."

Although Henson could not be reached for comment yesterday, he told the Herald this week he had chosen to work with children at the beginning of puberty because they were "half in childhood, half in the adult world" and this "creates a floating world of expectation and uncertainty". He told the Herald in 2006: "It's an impossibly oversimplified notion, this 'loss of innocence'. It's not like you cross a painted line on the floor; it's a progression."

Henson's work is held in the National Gallery of Australia, the High Court, and the Guggenheim in New York.

Art obscenity charges - Arts - Entertainment - smh.com.au

This happened a week or two ago. I meant to post a thread about it but forgot until I saw people talking about it on another forum.

Here's a reply from that forum:

It is not difficult to resolve at all: Henson is completely in the right and the models were not harmed in any way (recall that the justification for banning child pornography is to protect the subjects). Anyone who opposes the images is a backwards, reactionary, puritan censor who has no place in the modern world.

The publications which are printing censored versions of the images ought to be ashamed of themselves for buying into anti-art, anti-body, anti-modern bullshit. It's worse even than making an editorial decision to print a censored version of those anti-Islamic cartoons, for example, because those were stupid to begin with and would have been more at home on a skinhead website than in a serious publication. Henson, on the other hand, is an artist who is well known and widely respected. Underage breasts are not censored in anatomy textbooks and they serve no less a purpose in their artistic context here.

You can see some of the (censored) pictures here: News Galleries | Nude children exhibit shut | News.com.au

As far as whether or not these are 'child porn' -- I think it goes to the definition of whether these are erotic images.

WordNet Search - 3.0

S: (adj) erotic, titillating (giving sexual pleasure; sexually arousing)

Personally, I don't see how anyone can describe those pictures as 'erotic' unless they're attracted to underage children in the first place.

There's nothing explicitly sexual taking place in the pictures, the presentation isn't one that is focused on any sort of sex act, or sexual pose, and while I understand in our society there is a link between sex and nudity, I don't think they are always linked.. I certainly don't see one in the pictures from this exhibit that I've seen.

One question I have for the more legal minded is that since these kids, being underage, aren't legally able to enter into a contract.. should parents be able to sign off on stuff that's potentially damaging to the child?

Note that I don't think the children were harmed by the taking of these photos, but I'm curious about the response.

If they shouldn't, how do we rationalize other things that don't have a sexual aspect to it, ie: allowing a child to be an actor..

[JaJae]

I don't think children of that age should be photographed like that for art. This is one of those times where I think "art" gets confused with proper conduct. I find the images distasteful and I don't believe it should be legal to allow your child to be photographed nude for any reason.. whether it be for "art" or pornography. There is no just guideline to determine something "art" or pornography since "art" is of personal taste. In that sense, I don't believe 12-13 year olds should be photographed and displayed nude.

[motivez]

So those pictures of me in the bathtub when I was a little kid should be illegal?

I'm sure most families have similar pictures. Is there a distinction of whether they're for "personal" or "public" display?

If so, what if those pictures were posted on some internet photo album for my family?

And, there are guidelines. Sexual poses, a focus on genitalia, any sexual act being the focus of the picture and so forth is obviously blatantly sexual.. The human body standing there isn't the same as that.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

So those pictures of me in the bathtub when I was a little kid should be illegal?

That's a good point. But I think there's a difference between a two year old in a bathtub and full frontal nudity of a thirteen year old girl on public display. I don't know how to quantify that into law though. If your parents publicly posted pictures of you at age 13 in the tub I'd say that should be illegal as well.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

That's a good point. But I think there's a difference between a two year old in a bathtub and full frontal nudity of a thirteen year old girl on public display. I don't know how to quantify that into law though.

Right, but if neither are innately sexual, or pornographic, what's the real difference aside from your (general usage) comfort level with the content of the picture?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Right, but if neither are innately sexual, or pornographic, what's the real difference aside from your (general usage) comfort level with the content of the picture?

I'm sure I'm gonna get a walloping here for saying this, but I think we need to protect children from predators. Whose to judge content of a picture? If Uncle Al comes over (or even a father) and takes pictures of thirteen year old Susie naked in the basement and he says "Well she wasn't doing anything innately sexual and my photos are artistic..." I'd want his ass in jail.

[Smull]

I don't have too much sympathy for the guy, how could you not know that pictures of naked kids are going to get you in trouble? Seems like he was trying to get in the news/spotlight. It seems like art just for the sake of pissing people off, rather than for enjoyment.

What do you guys think of this?
High court upholds child pornography law | Reuters

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a provision of a 2003 federal law making it a crime to promote or present material as child pornography. (Author's Note - Particularly, the provision bars the advertising, promoting, presenting, distributing or soliciting of material in a way intended to cause others to believe it contains illegal child pornography. Violators face a sentence of at least five years in prison.

...Opponents of the law argued it sweeps too broadly and could be applied to popular award-winning movies like "Lolita," "Traffic," "American Beauty" and "Titanic" that depict adolescent sex.

[motivez]

He's already world renowned for his craft, he has similar collections that have been out there for years, so I don't think this was some ploy to get him the spotlight.

I think it's more likely the lady who reported it was trying to make a name for herself.

[kombayn]

Originally Posted by motivez

So those pictures of me in the bathtub when I was a little kid should be illegal?

I'm sure most families have similar pictures. Is there a distinction of whether they're for "personal" or "public" display?

If so, what if those pictures were posted on some internet photo album for my family?

And, there are guidelines. Sexual poses, a focus on genitalia, any sexual act being the focus of the picture and so forth is obviously blatantly sexual.. The human body standing there isn't the same as that.

Personal photos of your own children in a bath-tub is different from the photos I'm looking at now. I personally think this...



That could be considered a sexual pose and the fact that he's taking nude pictures of children is a bit absurd and weird. Like JaJae said a child can't personally enter into a contract of this deposition and someone taking pictures like this is disturbing I believe. There's a limit to art, we don't have to go to this extreme. This is a way different situation than Billy Ray Sirus' daughters' photo scandal.

[Kytro]

Art is, and always will be in the eye of the beholder, and there is nothing sexual about these pictures. Nudity <> sexual.

In any case, the police overreacted, and the DPP will be dropping the case (No reasonable chance of conviction).

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I'm sure I'm gonna get a walloping here for saying this, but I think we need to protect children from predators. Whose to judge content of a picture? If Uncle Al comes over (or even a father) and takes pictures of thirteen year old Susie naked in the basement and he says "Well she wasn't doing anything innately sexual and my photos are artistic..." I'd want his ass in jail.

Protecting children from predators is important but that does not mean you have to stop thinking, after all the entire process surrounding the photos was clear, consent was given, and there was no question of child porn, other than in the eyes of the paranoid.

If there are sexual pictures, they are probably illegal, and should be investigated, otherwise why should it matter?

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by kombayn

That could be considered a sexual pose and the fact that he's taking nude pictures of children is a bit absurd and weird.

It isn't clearly sexual however, there are legal photos (of minors) on my space more sexual than this.

The art is supposed to challenge preconceptions so why wouldn't it be a bit strange?

So many people jump the gun when kids are involved.

[Phantom]

The problem here is it's hard to draw a line between the harmless images of son or daughter in a bath tub and photos taken for sexual purposes.

In a perfect world we would be able to read the mind of the people taking and looking at the photos to determine their intent, but that's just not possible.

[lew]

I wouldn't care if it was for sexual purposes, it should be legal.

I'd consider the pictures on the verge of child porn more than art, but I still don't think the govt. should have any say what it is, either way.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by lew

I wouldn't care if it was for sexual purposes, it should be legal.

I'd consider the pictures on the verge of child porn more than art, but I still don't think the govt. should have any say what it is, either way.

Do you think 12 or 13 year olds are old enough to make decisions for themselves?

I would say no, this is a case where the government needs to step in and protect those who are generally not able to protect themselves.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Phantom

Do you think 12 or 13 year olds are old enough to make decisions for themselves?

I would say no, this is a case where the government needs to step in and protect those who are generally not able to protect themselves.

I think they are old enough to make a lot of decisions. For those decisions they are not "old enough" to judge, their parents / family / local community can make the decisions for them. Much better than bureaucrats a few thousand miles away making their decisions for them.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by lew

I think they are old enough to make a lot of decisions. For those decisions they are not "old enough" to judge, their parents / family / local community can make the decisions for them. Much better than bureaucrats a few thousand miles away making their decisions for them.

what if family/local community etc. aren't there at the moment?

Don't you think there are at least some decisions that should simply be not exercisable by children?

[lew]

Originally Posted by Phantom

what if family/local community etc. aren't there at the moment?

Don't you think there are at least some decisions that should simply be not exercisable by children?

I don't believe in a perfect society.


But I do believe that in the grand scheme of things, less people will be hurt if these decisions were left up to individuals / families / localities rather than big national / international issues.

[kinggovernor]

Here is our country's federal definition:
For the purposes of this chapter, the term (child pornography)—
(1) “minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years;
(2)
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(ii) bestiality;
(iii) masturbation;
(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B) [1] of this section, “sexually explicit conduct” means—
(i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
(I) bestiality;
(II) masturbation; or
(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

I would believe this would fit the definition in our country.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by lew

I don't believe in a perfect society.


But I do believe that in the grand scheme of things, less people will be hurt if these decisions were left up to individuals / families / localities rather than big national / international issues.

one of the major jobs of government is to protect its citizens, and this is just another form of protection for those children that can't defend themselves.