Comments on: Bill Henson? Porn Culture? Get real

By: bebe

bebe — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Earth to Duncan Fine! He must be out there somewhere in a parallel universe trying to find more of the moral panic-merchants that he keeps on putting in his articles. Certainly, there’s noone I know here on earth, and who is concerned about the new sexualised childhood, who holds the views that Duncan ascribes to them. Duncan , if you want to be taken seriously, try answering real concerns, and stop huffing at strawmen!

By: Daniel McGlone

Daniel McGlone — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

That's the sad fact of it all, no child is going to be saved from this prosecution. Indeed if Ms Johnston was to have her way one child would be totally destroyed. She want the model's parents prosecuted and the girls involvement in an photo shoot to be forever characterised as a life scarring involvement in child porn. Well whatever it takes Ms Johnston to further your politcal career.

All these adults feeling righteous. I agree with Fine (and I have two daughters - the horror of it, must be a bad father). There is so many horrible things happening to children and no one is doing a thing. You know there are children throughout Australia being crushed by poverty and all the hideousness that goes with it. Don't see many off to the western suburbs of Sydney or Melbourne to stop it. I do see people getting into trouble taking photos of their kids learning to swim at the local pool. I guess we call that a moral victory.

As for Henson, it just isn't porn. Google porn and you'll see the difference.

By: Phillip

Phillip — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Duncan I note that you have two sons, not daughters. Perhaps if you had a daughter or three (as in my case) you wouldn’t be so loud in your condemnation of those who seek to protect the rights of female children. Large corporations will do anything they can get away with to market to children. I know because I have worked in the advertising industry and seen campaigns pitched to 12 and 13 year-olds placed in magazines that are bought by their older (18-24 year old sisters). That’s called understanding aspiration. That’s exactly what Phillip Adams was describing. We have a responsibility to let children be children. And so does the arts community. There are infinitely many subjects that Bill Henson could choose to focus his talents on. Why has he persisted for so long in focussing on naked children. As a parent of three girls there is no way I would feel comfortable allowing any of them at 13 to pose naked in front of a photographer. Despite protestations that the girl felt comfortable etc there is no difference between that and saying that a girl of 13 feels comfortable posing in a sexualised, heavily-made up pose for a fashion photographer. The simple truth is that at that age they are too young to be even asked to decide. Artists are not above the rules that we live by. Bill Henson has pushed the boundaries and understandably, others are pushing back.

By: Rachael

Rachael — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

If you are in Sydney you are invited to attend a public forum on this topic which has been organised by Watch On Censorship and the National Association for the Visual Arts (NAVA) at the Museum of Contemporary Art, 140 George Street, The Rocks, next Thursday 12 June from 6 - 8pm. ‘Art Censorship: The Bigger Picture’ will feature a panel of speakers including Hetty Johnston, Clive Hamilton, Ian Howard and Julian Burnside (plus one other speaker TBA from the gallery sector.) The evening will be MC’d by Margaret Pomeranz and the discussion will be chared by David Marr. All welcome at this free event. More information on the NAVA website at http://www.visualarts.net.au.

By: Ray

Ray — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Why should we be harangued by amoral journos about the artistic merits of Henson? It is evident that his photographs of nudes exhibit sexual themes (see the front page of The Australian of 26 May 2008). These themes are evident in his photographs of nude under-age girls, and there is little doubt that they attract and encourage paedophiles. Artists can do whatever they like if they live on a deserted island, but not if they live in a respectable community.

By: Nev

Nev — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I dont disagree with most of what Duncan F wrote, but want to add one insight into the sad workings of a ped’s mind. I was a police officer a few years back. To cut a long and sickening story short, we arrested a man suspected of kiddie fiddling. A strip search at the watchouse revealed about a dozen small, stamp sized, pictures of boys in underwear and togs cut from a retail catalogue. Where were they? Stuck, (with cum), to the inside of his underpants. I accept that the concept of someone being aroused by pictures of kids modelling in catalogues, does seem far fetched to most of us. It’s just that since that day, I have realised that they DO get off on perverse material such as this. Sad, so sad, but true.

By: Connor Moran

Connor Moran — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Anyone who’s (apparently) proud contribution to this word is working with “Hi-5” and a book “Why TV Is Good For Kids” isn’t living in the real world. Or perhaps he works for the agency that created the “nag” research….

By: Grantly Jones

Grantly Jones — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I know the Henson issue is pretty much over now , and considered as a bit of a beat up with no bad after-effects for freedom of art .

A significant aspect of it that didn't get any mention anywhere that I'm aware of is : The choice of the controversial photograph of the naked young girl, as being the vehicle for promotion of his entire show.

Whether Mr Henson was aware of this choice of photograph for promoting the show , or whether his publicist or someone else was responsible for the choice, it is an important consideration for future debate.

This of course gives a negative and dubious speculative context to the affair, .ie whether or not promoting the photograph of the naked young girl, as a means to promote the show, has fallen within the bounds of sexual exploitation of a minor.
Mr Henson freely stated that included in the reasons he chose to photographn and exibit the young girl was; that he finds the period between childhood and adulthood of interest to himself, and thinks others would find it interesting aswell.
His motives of course are not accused in this comment , but the promotion of his show by using the photograph of naked girl , does allow certain members of the community to see the photograph in question as bait when promoted as the attract to a photographic art exibition.

Mr Hensons Photographic and artistic skill is so highly regarded that his "up until view time" subject matter is largely irrelevant to those who seek to admire his coming shows .
It is astounding to many people that he apparently; let the 'kitten "out of the bag, so to speak on this occassion.
I for one love the surprise of his un-announced usually brilliant photographic genius.

Photographic reality, within the gross Universe of all Art; perhaps needs to be considered more carefully than than just equivalent contentl in the abstract umbrella of all Art, The perjorative reality of cost here for what ever party it lands on is hinted at by the fact that the photograph in question could just as easily have made it into an illegal pornograhic publication or website; and probably has.