http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/fullfrontal-attack/2008/05/30/1211654306570.html

This is massively controversial in Australia. Basically, naked teenagers (13 years old) in an art exhibition. Quick! Panic morally!

I have not seen the images in question but I would say that it is possible to turn something like that into art. Whether this is or not I can't say.

Err...
I wouldn't say it's "Pornography" as such, but I dont like the idear. Potential for massive Political blowout.

He's being charged with child pornography that thing says..
That's stupid. Art is art and if in his opinion, this is his art, then so be it.

There's been art a lot worse than that, to be frank.

Some Renancence artwork springs to mind.

He's being charged with child pornography that thing says..
That's stupid. Art is art and if in his opinion, this is his art, then so be it.

Just as the web site offering pictures of young nudist is freedom of speech and only used as an advertisement of the nudist life style.

If only I was not so cynical I might believe both arguments. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in the world who will pay quite well for pictures of nude children -- better if it is disguised as art or an advertisement (no prison sentence for either). Claiming something is art does not give a person a free pass to violate the law.

By the statutes of the law both cases are child pornography (just as the movie "Pretty Baby" was). Granted, this is soft core, but it still is taking advantage children.

As is the case more often than not, I agree with T2.

Intent aside, the unfortunate reality of today’s society is that child pornography has become a huge problem, thanks in large part to the internet.

The argument that “art is art” is all fine and good, but the difficulty lies in where to draw the line. Given the risks involved, I’m happy to draw the line at square one.

Plus I have to wonder whther the children were willing participants, and whether they understood the ramifications of what they were doing. I suspect not.

It speaks of images of children "in a sexual context". But is nudity enough? Yes, say Johnston, many sincerely outraged citizens and just about every politician except Malcolm Turnbull. No, say the lawyers.

Shear and utter Victorian prudishness. The human body in the nude is very natural, regardless of the age of person in question, be it a 13 year old girl or a 94 year old man. The body is not inherently sexual. The sexuality lies in the viewers eyes. It's the old Barkeleyian argument against qualities. If the human body was inherently sexual, how come heterosexual men don't find other men's bodies sexual? How come some men only find some women's bodies sexual? The sexuality is in our own minds.

Certainly, with our Victorian hold overs (at least for my fellow Americans, I'm not going to speak for the French or Netherlanders), it's easy to equate nudity with sexuality. However, it's not like clothing has saved the United States from sexual promiscuity and it certainly isn't the case that South American Indian tribes have issues with rampant promiscuity (I'm also sure that the South American Indians have a better body image then us Westerners, as those South American Indians see what REAL bodies look like every day in the nude). We've come to a strange sort of conclusion in which the nature has become unnatural and the unnatural has become nature (see sub 18.5 BMI type bodies seen has beautiful in the media).

Now there's the old "if children are naked, they're vulnerable to predators" approach, which is what the people in the article, at least partially advocate. That's a valid point, but even tight jeans aren't going to save an adult woman from a rapist if he has the upper hand. We protect children (and on a larger level, those that matter to us) through relations, that's the whole point of the family group. If we want to get into safety of children, we have to realize that children are left alone far too often. 10,000 years ago, we wouldn't be wondering around, by ourselves, amongst strangers, it just doesn't make sense.

Ultimately I think, like with many issues in society, this is an improper solution to a real problem (that is the predation of children). Solutions that coincide with biology, not "pure" intellect, will always work better, because we've evolved to operate in that way.

So short answer, I think it's ridiculous to claim that naked children are offensive/pornographic. I'd certainly hope no one would claim pictures of naked cows are pornographic simply because a certain cultural group has developed some sort of sexualization of cows. Children having sex is sexual, much as cows having sex is "sexual", but simple nudity? It's apparently fine in a National Geographic magazine (probably because the naked people aren't of European decent, I remember the scandal they had when they showed a picture of naked French people at a nude beach) regardless of age. I don't understand the distinction here... Are we claiming that naked teenage Africans don't know that their bodies are "inherently" sexual, but white children do? And does that even make a difference?

Bah! Let the man show his work and if you think it's sexual, just let me know so that if I or people I love have children, I can keep you away from them.

I agree with Ilmater's Suffering. Nude pictures of adults can be considered art- why should it stop being art simply because they are younger? Arguing that some people could find the pictures erotic is ridiculous- some people find feet incredibly erotic, should we therefore ban pictures of shoe-less people?

Shear and utter Victorian prudishness. The human body in the nude is very natural, regardless of the age of person in question, be it a 13 year old girl or a 94 year old man.
The arguements that natural = good and unnatural = evil always strike me as not just odd, but downright stupid. The natural world, as we all know, is filled with horrible things that torture and kill other things (not always horrible ones). Arguing that the nude body is natural and therefore good (or at least acceptable) at any age is like arguing that, since many apes resort to canibalism to drive off competition, we should do the same. I'm not saying the moral implications are equivalent, but the reasoning is.

The body is not inherently sexual. The sexuality lies in the viewers eyes. It's the old Barkeleyian argument against qualities. If the human body was inherently sexual, how come heterosexual men don't find other men's bodies sexual? How come some men only find some women's bodies sexual? The sexuality is in our own minds.

Certainly, with our Victorian hold overs (at least for my fellow Americans, I'm not going to speak for the French or Netherlanders), it's easy to equate nudity with sexuality. However, it's not like clothing has saved the United States from sexual promiscuity and it certainly isn't the case that South American Indian tribes have issues with rampant promiscuity (I'm also sure that the South American Indians have a better body image then us Westerners, as those South American Indians see what REAL bodies look like every day in the nude). We've come to a strange sort of conclusion in which the nature has become unnatural and the unnatural has become nature (see sub 18.5 BMI type bodies seen has beautiful in the media).
The issue here is less where the problem resides and more what may aggrivate it. Yes, the problem with pedophiles is in their minds, but so is the problem with alcoholics (ok, maybe in their bodies) and drug addicts (depends on the drug). That doesn't mean its fine to just toss these things around society. The problem may be in the sufferers, but the external environment can do a lot to aggrivate or diminish that problem.

We protect children (and on a larger level, those that matter to us) through relations, that's the whole point of the family group. If we want to get into safety of children, we have to realize that children are left alone far too often. 10,000 years ago, we wouldn't be wondering around, by ourselves, amongst strangers, it just doesn't make sense.
This I'll agree with, though in this context the problem is still exposure for the pedophiles. Unfortunately, though, we can see today that we can't even assume those we would ask to protect our children (aunts, uncles, brothers, older children, nannies, even social workers) are not pedophiles themselves. To truely protect your child means to live in constant fear and paranoia of everyone around you or your child.

Ultimately I think, like with many issues in society, this is an improper solution to a real problem (that is the predation of children). Solutions that coincide with biology, not "pure" intellect, will always work better, because we've evolved to operate in that way.
I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing here. Asside from castrating the pedophiles (physically or chemically) what biological solution would you propose?

So short answer, I think it's ridiculous to claim that naked children are offensive/pornographic. I'd certainly hope no one would claim pictures of naked cows are pornographic simply because a certain cultural group has developed some sort of sexualization of cows. Children having sex is sexual, much as cows having sex is "sexual", but simple nudity? It's apparently fine in a National Geographic magazine (probably because the naked people aren't of European decent, I remember the scandal they had when they showed a picture of naked French people at a nude beach) regardless of age. I don't understand the distinction here... Are we claiming that naked teenage Africans don't know that their bodies are "inherently" sexual, but white children do? And does that even make a difference?

Bah! Let the man show his work and if you think it's sexual, just let me know so that if I or people I love have children, I can keep you away from them.
Not having carefully reviewed National Geographics history on this, I can't address the statements on that note. One could easily argue that children in western sociery today are discovering their bodies to be sexual objects (in someone's eyes if not their own) earlier and earlier. All in all, though, what's acceptable in a culture is entirely dependant on that culture's sense of normalcy, something you can't just wave away with 'Victorian prudishness'. If you really want children to be allowed to run around naked in the summer, work to change society's view of children, sexuality, and their crossover. For the time being, this person's work deserves to be secluded and the person may well deserve jail time.

I don't want to see pictures of under-16 people in the nude. I'm not interested, maybe it's just me. Take that **** away from me. If any girl over the age of 16 wants to get her top bollocks out though... no problem for me!

For the time being, this person's work deserves to be secluded and the person may well deserve jail time.

Now I think thats a bit harsh. True the art is not on a tasteful, or a even safe topic but humans are himans. We all look like that. I think, as perviously mentioned, that anyone who finds it sexual are the ones who need to be locked up and not the reverse.

Talk about dangerous!

The difference between art and porn is what the viewers are thinking when they are viewing it. And in some cases, I really don't want to know what they are thinking.

There are some taboos in society, and they are there for a reason--adults shouldn't be oggling naked teenagers.

I can see this guy getting jail time for his "art", and not too many people feeling sorry for him...

The reason I say the artist may need to be jailed is because I don't know the circumstances behind things. If it was truely and honestly a simple attempt at legitimate atristic expression that went a little awry (artists tend to get into this mindset where they fixate on their latest ideas and fail to see how truely weird it is), then there's no need for jail. If there was even a hint of impropriety (evidence that parents were intentionally missinformed/kept out of decisions, any hint of sexual posing or the like in the 'art', etc.) then it may be an indication that the artist wasn't just trying to make art. That's where the jail comes in.

And yes, I would love to lock up all the pedophiles out there, but they generally don't raise their hands when you ask.

The arguements that natural = good and unnatural = evil always strike me as not just odd, but downright stupid. The natural world, as we all know, is filled with horrible things that torture and kill other things (not always horrible ones). Arguing that the nude body is natural and therefore good (or at least acceptable) at any age is like arguing that, since many apes resort to canibalism to drive off competition, we should do the same. I'm not saying the moral implications are equivalent, but the reasoning is.

Not saying unnatural is evil. It merely isn't the way things are intended to be. As for other creatures performing certain activities, they've evolved in different directions from us. What they do is almost certainly not the path we've evolved to follow.

The issue here is less where the problem resides and more what may aggrivate it. Yes, the problem with pedophiles is in their minds, but so is the problem with alcoholics (ok, maybe in their bodies) and drug addicts (depends on the drug). That doesn't mean its fine to just toss these things around society. The problem may be in the sufferers, but the external environment can do a lot to aggrivate or diminish that problem.

If pedophiles are desperate, they can find their way to websites advocating naturism. There's a lot of things we'd have to worry about to accommodate the ways of a very dangerous, but very small part of the population. In order to operate under this method of preventive protection, we'd damn well be getting guns off the streets, because it isn't the gun that's dangerous, but the monster who wants to use it for violence.

I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing here. A side from castrating the pedophiles (physically or chemically) what biological solution would you propose?

What every suburban kid knows to be the problem. Certainly we can't force parents to become more involved in their children's lives, but watching who your children talks to via phone or internet, setting curfews and creating an actual family dynamic in which the parent knows what their child is doing would go a long way for starters. Unfortunately, in a lot of families, children are less important than jobs, boyfriends/girlfriends, etc...

I certainly agree with you that those who claim to help can be child molesters themselves. Partially, with family members however, a more traditional dynamic is apt to produce certain biological effects which increase the child's safety. If you've got a family history of sexual abuse, I think you're pretty much screwed however. Life just doesn't work out for all of us.

Anyway, cultural relativism creates very murky moral waters. It's a very interesting, but excessively long debate. It always brings up Apartheid and Nazi Germany. Victorian prudishness may be the assumption, but it doesn't mean we should or should not rule it out on the grounds of the belief's own merits.

(evidence that parents were intentionally missinformed/kept out of decisions, any hint of sexual posing or the like in the 'art', etc.)

If it helps, the parents knew what was going on and have spoken in support of the artist.

I google-imaged around to see if I could find the pictures, but it seems like everyone's removed them. The thumbnails - hard to make out - looked rather arty and not sexualised, but at that resolution it was kinda hard to tell.

But what about paintings from the old masters whit children or cherubs in them. Shut the musea down?

This is an interesting case.

The issue here is less where the problem resides and more what may aggrivate it. Yes, the problem with pedophiles is in their minds, but so is the problem with alcoholics (ok, maybe in their bodies) and drug addicts (depends on the drug). That doesn't mean its fine to just toss these things around society. The problem may be in the sufferers, but the external environment can do a lot to aggrivate or diminish that problem.


Removing all nudity to prevent paedophiles getting hold of it would be like banning all alcohol to prevent alcoholics from indulging. Sure, we shouldn't put alcohol everywhere, but if it is available only in certain locations, we tend to believe access to it is justified. Same thing with nude art- put it everywhere and (some) people will take offence and some may get aroused. That doesn't mean we should try to ban all instances of it- especially those occurrences that happen away from where much of the public has to see them (in a museum, for example).

Naked Teenagers - Art?Depends entirely on the teenager.

As is the case more often than not, I agree with T2.

Intent aside, the unfortunate reality of today’s society is that child pornography has become a huge problem, thanks in large part to the internet.

The argument that “art is art” is all fine and good, but the difficulty lies in where to draw the line. Given the risks involved, I’m happy to draw the line at square one.

Plus I have to wonder whther the children were willing participants, and whether they understood the ramifications of what they were doing. I suspect not.

And I agree with both of you.

I would tend to agree with Merlanni, The Magister, and Decados -- but then artists also need to eat. Art for art's sake is a great concept (which is true for greats works in museums), but an art exhibit in a small gallery has only one goal -- to make money. Galleries are in the business to sell pictures and paintings. Museums are in the business to share culture. A gallery can also share culture and art -- but it's main thrust is selling.

Keep the great works in the museums. But ban the exploitation of children by modern "artists."

Ilmater:
Quote:
I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing here. A side from castrating the pedophiles (physically or chemically) what biological solution would you propose?

What every suburban kid knows to be the problem. Certainly we can't force parents to become more involved in their children's lives, but watching who your children talks to via phone or internet, setting curfews and creating an actual family dynamic in which the parent knows what their child is doing would go a long way for starters. Unfortunately, in a lot of families, children are less important than jobs, boyfriends/girlfriends, etc...
Ah, well, I wouldn't classify that as a biological solution so much as a social one, but yes, that would work nicely. Good luck, though.

Decados:
Removing all nudity to prevent paedophiles getting hold of it would be like banning all alcohol to prevent alcoholics from indulging. Sure, we shouldn't put alcohol everywhere, but if it is available only in certain locations, we tend to believe access to it is justified. Same thing with nude art- put it everywhere and (some) people will take offence and some may get aroused. That doesn't mean we should try to ban all instances of it- especially those occurrences that happen away from where much of the public has to see them (in a museum, for example).
The difference here is who would be deprived of proper use. Many,many people use alcohol on a semi-regular basis, and most of them do it properly. Very few of them go out driving drunk or end up beating their wives and very few of them end up being alcoholics. Complete prohibition of alcohol would deprive these people of the legitimate use of alcohol to protect a few.

On the other hand, very few people legitimately use pictures of nude children. I would guess there are a few artists out there who legitimately wish do express something using them, but that's probably it. I'd guess there are several hundred to several thousand times the number of pedophiles out there. To deprive a very few of legitimate use to prevent a great many more abusing such things is reasonable.

As a whole, I have no problem with saying the natural human body is a beautiful thing, even in a non-sexual context, but I think there are safer (for society as a whole) ways to express that than using pictures of nude children.

On the other hand, very few people legitimately use pictures of nude children ... To deprive a very few of legitimate use to prevent a great many more abusing such things is reasonable.

As a whole, I have no problem with saying the natural human body is a beautiful thing, even in a non-sexual context, but I think there are safer (for society as a whole) ways to express that than using pictures of nude children.

I... um... Not really sure how to say this... Oh, the heck with it! I agree with NOG. :eek: Wait until they are 18 and are consenting adults and then do it. I can see very little artistic value in photographing nude minors. Wasn't there another flap recently about some child star (Hannah Montana maybe?) being photographed nude and having the pictures show up in a magazine with just a sheet covering certain parts of her?

I have to say I agree with the above -- and I'll add that IMHO pictures of nude children belong only in medical textbooks for the rarified purpose of illustrating obscure skin conditions. I can think of no other reason I would consider valid for the use of nude teenage pictures. Wait until they are 18 and capable of forming consent on their own before you take nude photos of them for any purpose other than medical.

I really, really hate pretentious artists doing stuff like this and then calling it "art" and implying that the rest of us great unwashed fools are too unrefined to understand their genius. I don't know if the artists should necessarily face charges but his work should be destroyed and a firm warning extended that this kind of "art" is not acceptable in our society.

As for Miley Cyrus, she wasn't nude as she was covered -- I wouldn't want my daughters in those poses, mind, but the incident was blown way out of proportion. Her previous image being subverted was what was at the heart of the matter, and as I think has been said before by others the poses with her father were more disturbing.

Very interesting topic this one. There was a case in Finland a month back where an artist made an artpiece where she put naked pictures of teenagers together as criticism towards child pornography. She claimed to have found those through a simple internet search. Of course the artpiece was confiscated along with her computer harddrive and she was found guilty of a couple of charges but given no further punishment. Can't say I disagree with the sentence. If you want to make some sort of artistic statement use adult actors that are supposed to represent teenagers it might not have the same "punch" but art really is no more of a valid reason for using underaged naked models than other commercial purposes.

Without seeing the pictures, I'm not sure it is fair to pass judgement. The closest I have found to a picture is the background shot in this article (http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/henson-exhibition-shut-down/2008/05/22/1211182997068.html)

It isn't a clear enough picture for me to judge if it is porn or if it is art. That will always be the question and I don't believe any two people will have the same standard.

EDIT: Actually, that picture may not be from this exhibit.

EDIT: Actually, that picture may not be from this exhibit.

So it's from your private collection? :p

Anyway, I agree with NOG's analysis of the alcohol vs nude pictures scenario. Which just goes further to convince me that my earlier position is appropriate.

So it's from your private collection? :p

The missus tends to be pretty liberal, but I think she will draw the line at naked teenage girls in the house. At least until Little Snook is a few years older, and then she will be handing out condoms and forcing me to have "the talk".

My :2c:
Sculpture of a naked Roman emperor = Art.
Live naked artist expressing the isolation and fake politeness of todays people by dancing and making stupid faces while being silently observed by a bunch of people holding wine glasses and wearing stupid clothing = The kind of art I don't want to understand, but whatever, let them have their fun.
Pictures of naked teenagers = Not art. It's about what it leads to.

Personally, I think we are asking the wrong question. The question isn't whether the work was or wasn't art. Since at least some people (ie the artist, the parents, the teenage kids who posed) feel it was art, the short answer to that question is yes, absolutely, these are works of art. Whether or not these works are truly works of art is, however, completely irrelevant. If we all agreed that the work was art, would that vindicate it? While art is meant to be subversive and to challenge our sensibilities (and this work does an admirable job of both), artists do go too far once in a while. We shouldn't be asking whether or not the work qualifies as "art". We should be asking if the work goes too far. I think it does.

So you're classifying it offensive art. That works.

So you're classifying it offensive art.Yes and no. Lots of art is offensive...and there is nothing wrong with producing offensive art. The problem in this case is that the artist may well have exploited minors in a misguided attempt at making some sort of statement. That is where I think the artist went too far.

Porn is made by pornographers, I don't feel this is the case in this situation - Bill Henson is a well established and well regarded artist trying to create what is in his, and many other peoples eyes, art. In terms of overstepping normal social boundries, well yes, but I think that was part of the point. The over-politicisation of the issue is imho rediculous - surely the fate of work is better decided by the art world, the child/parents and the law rather than every populist politician and his dog.

I can't say I'm too interested in seeing the work, nor that I condone it, but I'm not a particularly huge fan of censoring, especially in light of all the greats works that have been banned at different times thoughout the ages. I think there are also more serious issues in the sexualisation of the young in popular media rather than in art circles.

At the end of the day no ones getting abused, someone gets to express themselves and make the statement they want, and chances are only a handful of people in art circles will view it, and they'll likely view it as intended. Rich, artistically inclined people are buying his work, not seedy backstreet child-abusers. I don't want to have a government that censors art and stifles creative freedom just because of social norms.

I would argue that most societal norms take precedence over pretentious "art". Also, perversion is not a trait only possessed by the lower class -- plenty of "rich, artistically inclined people" are perverts too. I concede that the artist's intent may be pure, but he made a mistake here, IMHO, and I don't think perversion should hide behind a shield of "artistic expression."

The fact that these works challenge societal standards of decency is not the problem. If the work is perverted (it could be tasteful), that isn't the problem, either. Challenging societal standards or being perverted is not illegal, and shouldn't be. The problem is one of exploitation. While whether or not the works in question were exploitive in this particular case may be a somewhat nebulous issue, these kids are minors. Where minors are concerned, we should always err on the side of caution.

Fortunately, the law is far more supportative of free speech and art than most people: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/06/2267360.htm?section=australia

One of the pictures is included, with nipples censored because y'know, nipples are horribly, horribly offensive.

I'm actually quite surprised by this outcome - was pretty sure the artist was headed for a good long time in jail. I'm also kinda underwhelmed by the picture, but I guess not all art has to be especially interesting or good...

Considering that the prime minister has spoken out about the case so strongly that law might be about to change soon enough though.

"I also said, when it comes to the independent processes of the law, they are completely separate from what any individual or politician may think, feel or respond to by way of their own individual judgments." - Kevin Rudd

Hopefully he sticks to his statement, it was a good outcome for free speech imho

The sad fact is that there are perverts out there who will get turned on by a photo of a dirty toilet. There are folks who will masturbate to pictures of a tree. Does that make such pictures porn?

If you look at, say, the Miley Cyrus picture and get turned on sexually, who's to blame? The photographer or you? Can artists control how their art is interpreted? Charles Manson claimed to have been inspired by the Beatles' White Album. Should be ban the album?

There's a classic old joke that illustrates my point perfectly:

A man goes to a psychotherapist for analysis. The doctor shows him a series of Rorschach ink blots and asks the patient to describe what they look like. He sees nude women in all of them. The doctor replies "I am ready to make my diagnosis: you sir have a dirty mind!" "Me?" asks the patient, "you're the one drawing all the dirty pictures!"

As distasteful as I find them, the pictures do certainly appear to have been produced as works of art rather than as pornagraphy. I would, however, question how the law can be applied going forward. Are the police expected to have to rebut the defence of a child pornagrapher that their works are produced as art and not as porn? It would be very easy to cater for a market at the blurring of the two lines, although graphic images would obviously be in violation. A blanket ban on such imagery of minors would be much easier to enforce. I can't see this as being too great an infringement of free speech, after all there are hardly any great benefits to society by allowing such images.

Sir Fink, the artist can be expected to anticipate a small variety of reactions. If someone gets turned on by a dirty diaper (no baby in it, just the smelly), it's not only not the artists fault, it isn't even rational for the artist to consider this. If someone gets turned on by a naked girl (even a 13 year old one), the artist should have anticipated that.

I can understand some people see it as an art. I myself am (luckily for me) not one of those people, but they probably can't help it. It seems to be a 'gut feeling' they have. You can hide it, but you can hardly fight it.

Hmm, actually, this is a very interesting decision. Where does that leave drawn or computer generated child porn? I distinctly remember a case where it fell under the government banhammer. These sorts of images are certain just as 'art' (hell, there's a much better argument for them being art than for photographs of actual children) as the photographs.

Sir Fink, the artist can be expected to anticipate a small variety of reactions. If someone gets turned on by a dirty diaper (no baby in it, just the smelly), it's not only not the artists fault, it isn't even rational for the artist to consider this. If someone gets turned on by a naked girl (even a 13 year old one), the artist should have anticipated that.

I admit I used some extreme and silly examples, but there is a blurry line. Michelangelo's David statue, for example, while considered a masterpiece has been censored a few times over the years. An Australian was charged with obsenity for displaying a photograph of the statue (it is a nude, in case you didn't know) and copies of it have been reproduced with an added fig leaf over the genitals.

I've spoken with rather prudish people who refuse to take their children to art museums due to all the nude statues and paintings.

Again I ask: where are the dirty thoughts? In the artist's mind or the viewer's? Physician heal thyself.

I feel the need to point out that, naked teenagers or no, our society doesn't lack for sexualized underage girls.

Milley Cyrus? Hannah Montana? The girls at your local junior high/high school?

I just looked up some of the pictures online, and I have to say, even though there is an artistic element to the pictures, I'm not altogether comfortable with them. The one that Aik linked to had the girl's hands strategically placed so that the only things exposed were her breasts. Other photos in the gallery show full frontal nudity, which I think is going a bit too far.

Is it legal? Yes. Should the guy be facing legal action for taking these pictures? Probably not. But just because we can, should we be taking pictures of fully nude pubescent girls? Probably not.

Aldeth, you pervert. :D

Of couse, it may just be that I'm a coward -- looking for the pictures at work could get me fired and looking for them at home will get me castrated or killed. Mrs Bruno is 8½ months along and very sensitive about me even looking at another woman on the street who is not bigger than she is.

Aldeth, you pervert. :D

Hell, I FEEL like one. Looking at a 13-year old nude girl is... icky :nono:

Obviously, I am not going to link to the pictures, as I too am at work, and I would think that linking would probably violate forum rules - even if it is considered "art". :toofar:

If they've pronounced them legal, then go ahead and post the links. Making something legal has ramifications and while self-censorship in this case would be admirable, it's not something that should be needed. Only after seeing the full series of photos can anyone really form a complete opinion. Personally, I think that paedophilia is a big enough problem without this kind of crap encouraging it. And yes, no matter how anyone tries to spin it, a full nude of a child will result in sexual arousal of a significant and dangerous part of the viewing public. Pretending that it's not an issue in this case is simply turning a blind eye.

Personally, I think that paedophilia is a big enough problem without this kind of crap encouraging it. And yes, no matter how anyone tries to spin it, a full nude of a child will result in sexual arousal of a significant and dangerous part of the viewing public.

That's exactly why some people don't agree that it is art. I could tolerate (even though I would still dislike it) if the "sensitive" areas like Genitals and breasts were obscured, but full nudity of under age girls is NOT something I can defend.

And what is wrong with the notion that the human body is sacred? Seeing the way most religious things are treated in society, why anyone would subject something as personal as their bodies to such scrutiny? Prohibitions about Nudity are not merely puritanical (but they do make another good point), but rather in preserving the joy of that which is sacred.

I'm at work again, so I'm not going to the link now. However, I first saw the pictures a day or two ago when I performed a Google search. "Bill Henson Photo Gallery" should give you the same links I got to, and one of them shows the pictures in question.

Here's another point I'd like to bring up about the legality of the pictures: The only thing we know for sure is they are legal in Australia. While most nations have laws reagarding pornography, and moreso concerning child, or in this case adolescent pornography, the laws are by no means identical or universal. What can be legal in one country could be a crime in another. While there are obvious cases where we can say this is definitely pornography, and this isn't, what about something like this - a gray area between legal and not legal?

The Australian courts ruled it legal. Would the same be true in the US with our over the top Puritanical standards? I don't know. It is sometimes difficult to say exactly what is and what is not porn. If something is specifically designed to cause sexual arousal, then it would probably be porn. While that definition does not apply to these pictures (in that they are not intended to arouse), I agree with Tal that it is a likely result with a pedophile even if that was not intended by the photographer.

I still say it should be legal, and I still say I'm not altogether comfortable with it.

Aldeth, I believe possession of a nude picture of a child (i.e., a person under the legal age) is all that is required for charges of child pornography in any state in the US. If the computer saves a copy in your temp file folder, that is considered possession.

I agree with you on this point -- anyone who views these pictures should first ensure they are not criminally liable for doing so.

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography#Legal_status) seems to agree with T2, Aldeth.

Uh, yeah - wear your proxycondom while surfing :P

Anyway, here's what google turned up for me, helpfully captioned for those who are living in backwards countries where naked children aren't art :P Use your own judgement while clicking (though really, tor wouldn't hurt either).

[NOTE: IF YOU ARE UNDER AGE OR NOT ALLOWED TO VIEW SUCH ADULT MATERIAL IN YOUR COUNTRY, DO NOT CLICK ON THE LINKS BELOW. And yes, the extent of the irony that you need to be an adult in order to be allowed to see nude pictures of children is readily apparent... -Tal]

http://www.vam.ac.uk/images/image/29115-large.jpg (not naked)
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/01/10/billhensonuntitled_wideweb__430x283.jpg (naked, but you can't see anything)
http://www.joannemackellar.com/designjournal/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/henson1.jpg (naked)
http://images.theage.com.au/ftage/ffximage/2008/05/24/svHENSON_narrowweb__300x443,0.jpg (naked, same as the one I linked before but uncensored)
http://www.coolhunting.com/mt/archives/013.jpg (nothing naked about it)
http://www.tolarnogalleries.com/media/client/web_cutscreen2.jpg (erm, this one seems to be depicting full-frontal nudity and anal sex - wtf?)

http://strungcans.com/?p=13 (male nudity, doubt it counts for child porn)
^ This site has some more, and with some context.

Hmmm... Those include some I haven't seen before, and excludes others that I have seen.

And damn Tal for his wit. That was the exact thing I was thinking as I read the bolded part of his note.

gee, I don't think I'm all that comfortable with them - especially numbers 4 and 6. Having said that, I'd still consider it all artistic more than anything else and I don't think Henson should be charged for it. #4 is kinda stretching it though - just full frontal and doesn't really seem to be all that artistic imho.

Nice Tal :lol:

Funny thing about #4, from the shoulders up is a good study and I see that section as art. However...the rest seems to me to be excess and should be cropped. Left in says Porn to me. Is it just me?

Talk about dangerous!

The difference between art and porn is what the viewers are thinking when they are viewing it. And in some cases, I really don't want to know what they are thinking.

There are some taboos in society, and they are there for a reason--adults shouldn't be oggling naked teenagers.

I can see this guy getting jail time for his "art", and not too many people feeling sorry for him...

Yep,I am from OZ,and know the topic in my city. The guy did not get jail. But as for the underage children,teenagers,there should be a safety net where the parents give permission for a photo shoot first. Whether for art or nude modelling,there has to be some guidelines. One forgets the Art gallery which allowed the pictures in the first place... Artist have crazy ideas at times for art...we have lots of people strip in the city for naked group pics at one stage for art.

Bumping thread for more drama!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/07/2296347.htm?section=australia

ffs, the pictures is pretty innocuous really, are they going to start condemning parent's baby snaps next? They really need to stop politicising the whole thing.
I guess we're the only country to ban Fallout III, bloody censorship.