Design Federation

I personally think the photographer has made an error with these images. I have seen them on the news sites, which is yes very ironic, and even though hes well respected he shouldnt have taken the shots.

I agree with this article.I also agree the photos should be taken down as they did look creepy.

I agree with Dr Rogers - it was not a sensible decision to put these images for public consumption! Paedophiles will get their thrills.

This is the second thing shutdown in the last two weeks by the police http://www.designfederation.net/general/police-panic-over-palestinian-photo-exhibition/

Yet another knee jerk reaction by pollies and police. Soon we will be like the USA. Remember nipplegate anyone? Now US media is so prudish as to be a joke

I agree with this article.
If you do a crime but take a photograph of it, is that art?.
A woman gets gang raped but you take a photograph, does it legitimize it?, should that be in a gallery for all to see?.

Why is everyone being so insipid and conciliatory here? Depiction of nakedness is about sex and sexuality - without question. These are children who, by any test in social and legal contexts, do not have the capacity, by virtue of their age, to give informed consent. Their bodies are being exploited for somebody else’s benefit, pleasure, entertainment or, and I use the term advisedly here, creativity, without their having the benefit of a wisdom that can only come with maturity to help them decide for themselves whether it’s appropriate for them to have their bodies displayed in this way. I have no difficulty with nakedness and eroticism in a variety of situations, but the unfettered exploitation of naked children under the rubric of art should never be allowed. Hysterical cries of censorship should not intimidate those whose view of art is no less relevant than anyone else’s.

These responses are full of thoughtless statements.

‘The pictures have a creepy, voyeuristic feel… The children in question appear awkward and embarrassed….’ The photos ‘did look creepy.

No, that is completely backwards. The images are colours on paper and have no feelings at all. What you or I know about the children in question is actually nothing. YOU feel like a creep and a voyeur when you view these images. YOU feel awkward and embarrassed at your enjoyment of the images. That is part of the artist’s intention in making the work! You the viewer are being asked to interrogate YOUR responses to the image. Henson has said this in media interviews MANY times.

‘Could it attract paedophiles?’
Who cares? You forgot to demonstrate how Henson’s images have anything whatever to do with paedophiles.

‘A woman gets gang raped but you take a photograph, does it legitimize it’
Who was talking about gang rape? You forgot to demonstrate how Henson’s images have anything whatever to do with gang rape.

‘These are children who, by any test in social and legal contexts, do not have the capacity, by virtue of their age, to give informed consent’
Wrong. The requirement of consent is strictly and only a legal test. It is not a social test (whatever it is you mean by that). Since it is a legal test it ignores the real feelings, natural rights and actual wishes of people when they are defined only ‘by virtue of their age’.

‘Their bodies are being exploited for somebody else’s benefit’
How on earth could you know what is happening to the bodies of Henson’s models except that they were photographed?

‘the unfettered exploitation of naked children under the rubric of art should never be allowed.’
You forgot to demonstrate how Henson’s images have anything whatever to do with unfettered exploitation of naked children.

‘Hysterical cries of censorship should not intimidate those whose view of art is no less relevant than anyone else’s.’
Agreed, but you forgot that this discussion involves more than observers who may be pro- or anti-censorhip. I would like to express my view on Henson’s art, but it has actually been removed from public view by police, and Henson, his models and their parents are being intimidated by foolish, insulting media statements and the real threat of legal action.

[...] Since the dawn of the civilised world, humankind has been asking the question What is art? This week has prompted many Australians to ask the same question, with the controversy surrounding Bill Henson’s latest photographic exhibition. Read the article right here. [...]

Oh dear, William L. What a remarkable response. Rationalising away, as you’ve done, every argument presented just so your belief that art and its practice should be beyond reproach just because it’s art, is seriously unhealthy.

Maintaining for instance, that informed consent is just a legal concept and therefore not relevant to the discussion, demonstrates the point. It’s not a concept formed in a vacuum. It’s a principle that arose out of a civil society’s expectation that the vulnerable in our society will be protected. If you’re trying to mount an argument that 12 year old children are not vulnerable and know their own minds in the same way a mature adult does, then you have a lot of soul searching to do. That argument is not a long way from the argument of the man who engages in a sexual relationship with a young teenager but maintains that she instigated it or was a willing partner. Society rejects that notion unequivocally. It’s time you did too.

I’ve no doubt Henson did not intend to exploit these children but he has nevertheless. His consciousness needs raising about this, as do all those who believe that art is a defence to everything.

Daniel, your remarks on Henson, and now me, are still characterised by thoughtlessness. You lead with your emotions and dress them up in the language of laws and morals.

‘Rationalising away, as you’ve done, every argument presented’
No. I have pointed out that most people here have made thoughtless statements lacking any supporting evidence about Henson’s images. No arguments have been presented.

‘[Your] maintaining for instance, that informed consent is just a legal concept and therefore not relevant to the discussion’:

False. I said that the law of consent makes young people’s feelings, wishes and rights irrelevant, ‘by virtue of their age’. The law of consent is most relevant to the discussion of young people’s feelings, wishes and rights.

‘That argument is not a long way from the argument of the man who engages in a sexual relationship with a young teenager’

Who was talking about sexual relations with teenagers? You forgot to demonstrate the connection between a man taking a photograph of a teenager and a man who has physical penetrative genital contact with a teenager.

‘Society rejects that notion unequivocally’

What notion are you referring to? And how do you know what notions society rejects? From your reading of publicly made, emotive, unsubstantiated statments?

‘I’ve no doubt Henson did not intend to exploit these children but he has nevertheless.’

Daniel, regardless of your certainty as to what you believe, you have given no evidence whatsoever, and I see none that exists in this case, that any exploitation did occur. I do not ask you to search your soul, as you so arrogantly demand of me. I ask you to provide evidence for your denigrating judgements of Henson’s images. So far you have not provided any.

‘[Henson's] consciousness needs raising’
Your mind needs training in the rules of logic and reasoned argument.

[...] blog reading…The Bill Henson controversy, Behind the News, Art or Exploitation?, OUTRAGE: Bill Henson’s Exhibition. Child porn?, Art and censorship – not a good mix, About bloody time, I can’t hardly believe it, Bill [...]

William L - I give up.

It’s about timing. Henson and his supporters-and I don’t really care either way have got it wrong. Surely they should have seen what has been happening over the past ten years or so. Dozens of men have been charged and convicted for possesing images like this but the media rarley takes the time to eeamine in depth what type of images they are-they simply accept what the police say and believe the headlines that scream “child porn charges” and believe another “pedophile” has been jailed. In fact this should be a real wake up call to a complacent society that has allowed “terrorists” and “pedophiles” to become the big bogeymen of today’s society. Wake-up guys. It’s Germany again in the 1935’s and you should have expected this all along. Guys have had their lives destroyed or gone to jail, some have committed suicide and you have all allowed it to happen because you have been caught up in the art aspect and let the media continually get away with condemning one section of men and lunping them all in together. Therefore one high profile case of a police prosecutor charged with the worst of child porn is sold in the media the same as a guy with a collection of Henson style pics wiith police claiming what his motive is for having them. This is going to be a court case with huge ramifications. I feel sorry for those involved but in a way I don’t-dozens of men around the country have been stigmatized and basically classed as “sex offendors” for life for similar and not one person defending Henson or the gallery has given them a single thouhgt-merely nbelived every cheap headline in the tabloids.

Did the 12 and 13 year old girls give their consent to Henson? Or rather did the parents of the girls who are undoubtedly starstruck by Henson give their consent on behalf of the children. In my view, and I believe ANY right thinking person must understand that what Henson is doing is without doubt WRONG.
He should be up before the courts explaining himself.
This matter would be somewhat diminished (though not by much) if they were Hensons daughters.
I wonder if Henson would like it if I took nude photos of HIS daughters (if he has any) and decided it was my “artwork”

‘Did the12 and 13 year old girls give their consent to Henson… or [parents] on [their] behalf?’

Alexander M, it has been stated in the press that the girls and their parents gave consent. I accept this might be false, though that appears unlikely when I look at the censored content of some of the seized photographs.

‘the girls who are undoubtedly starstruck’
How do you know what the girls’ state of mind was when they gave consent? Even if you could know, what are you implying in the word ’starstruck’? That the girls, having given consent, must have been weak-minded or deluded to do so? What evidence do you have for that assumption?

‘I believe ANY right thinking person must understand that what Henson is doing is without doubt WRONG.’
What you believe, or what any person thinks is wrong, isn’t of any relevance to the legal problems now facing the photographed girls, Henson and their families. I hope the issue is decided on its facts, not on the beliefs of Hetty Johnston or those who agree with her. I can see two main issues of real consequence here: (i) whether someone can take and display a photograph of a nude child for artistic purposes (the indecency question); (ii) whether someone has the legal right to accuse an artist of doing something illegal if the law says the artist is not doing so (the vexatious litigation or libel/slander question). The freedoms and rights of an accused person are automatically placed under threat when accusations of criminality are made, and this to me is the most serious issue of all in the Henson case. We cannot dismiss Hetty Johnston and her like as mere harmless crackpots if a phone call from them now brings the police to an art gallery door.

‘I wonder if Henson would like it if I took nude photos of HIS daughters (if he has any) and decided it was my “artwork”’

The question isn’t relevant because the girls and their parents gave consent to be photographed. I suspect you ask this loaded question because you believe the emotions of individual parents are relevant to this issue, or are somehow persuasive in themselves. I don’t see how they can be. Feeling upset by a picture is not legal grounds for removing it from an art gallery wall and threatening its creator with legal action.

I think it is interesting to see how most self professed art connoisseurs can manage to rationalise anything. Personly I think these photos are particularly disturbing but it is not just a simple case of a girl being exploited. If we consider these images purely in isolation there may have been no exploitation of the girl in question and they may actaully be very beautiful and artisic shots. The human body can be a beautiful thing at any age. Just becasue a girl is 13 doesn’t mean we cannot admire the beauty of her without a sexual conotation. However we must step back and look at the bigger picture to see the real issue and understand the mathematic statsics term - ‘ normalistion of deviation’. We have something which is considered as normal in society today.. and that is we do not take or show photos of children naken for any reason except possibly for medical reasons.ie This is the norm set by out society. This exhibition is a deviation to that norm. If this is now accepted as being OK for what ever reason, then we are absically expanding what is considered normal in our society. ANd what happens gradually over time is that someone else uses this as the accepted standard and goes just a little bit further the next time. Any one of these in isolation may not seem like a big deal, but gradually over time we find we have dramatically shifted our accepted norm in society and not necessarily for the better. In the case of protection of children I think we must have an absolute intolerance to any sort of exploitation of children regardless of any artistic intent. So it’s not so much about protecting this child or this incident, it’s the new benchmark we are setting that may effect other children in the futrure. Most of the issues we have in society today came about due to this phenomenon… normalistion of deviation.

i feel sorry for the young woman portrayed in these pictures. articles i have read have ceaselessly questioned her integrity and intelligence, and described her body as ‘revolting’, ‘disgusting’ and ‘obsecene’.

she has been seriously abused by Miranda Devine, Kevin Rudd, the police, the state, and by the stratospheric stupidity and sanctimonious judgementalism of a public who seem to be suffering a collective spasm of congenital moral blindness.

art such as Henson’s exists above all to challenge the objectification of its subjects, especially in this case, that of a young woman. that his subject, whose personhood is honoured and elevated in his work, has been dragged into the gutter by a lot of face-palming, tutting aunties really is a gross irony!

… the irony is, she has been objectified by her ‘innocence’.

‘it is not just a simple case of a girl being exploited’
No. If you characterise the case as one of a girl being exploited, you must demonstrate why and how this is so. There is no evidence whatsoever for exploitation. In fact I would like to hear what a generally accepted definition for the word ‘exploitation’ is in these cases of uproar about images of nude children. My understanding is that to ‘exploit’ a human being is to use him or her as nothing but a means for personal gain, eg for money or social advantage. No-one has demonstrated why or how Henson can have exploited the subjects of his artwork by photographing them and making artwork from the photographs.

‘We must… see the real issue’
What is the real issue? You are not specific.

‘what happens gradually over time is that someone else uses this as the accepted standard and goes just a little bit further the next time.’
You forgot to define what ‘this’ is. You haven’t demonstrated with even one analogy how the slippery-slope argument leads a policy, or belief, or way of behaving, or whatever it is you mean, from an accepted outcome to one that cannot possibly be accepted.

‘over time we find we have dramatically shifted our accepted norm in society and not necessarily for the better’
You don’t define what an ‘accepted norm’ is but I can guess that you mean something like ‘legislative regime’ or perhaps ’statistically very common belief or habit of mind leading to habits of action affecting people’s welfare’. In fact, we very often find the accepted norm has definitely, unarguably shifted for the better. Examples are democratic forms of government, abolition of slavery, public practices and knowledge about health and hygiene, separation of church, judiciary and state in systems of government, and abolition of child slavery in manufacturing and mining activities. What are your counter-examples?

‘I think we must have an absolute intolerance to any sort of exploitation of children regardless of any artistic intent.’
A meaningless thing to say, unless you define ‘exploitation’, ‘intolerance’ and ‘artistic intent’ in terms of their effects on people’s welfare, wishes and natural rights. Your beliefs are not relevant to the legal problems now facing Henson, the girls and their families. Indeed, at issue is the question of whether you or someone with your ‘absolute intolerance’ has any legal right publicly to accuse an artist of wrongdoing if the law says he or she has done nothing wrong.

‘Most of the issues we have in society today came about due to this phenomenon… normalistion of deviation.’
A trivial statement. Since most normalisation of deviation in human history has entailed a deviation from tyranny, exploitation and ignorance towards obviously beneficial practices and knowledge, your concluding statement is irrelevant to, or actually contradicts, any claim that ‘absolute intolerance’ is a beneficial norm.

yes, William, my argument was full of generalisations and contained no specifics. What do I mean by exploiutation… Exploitation as a noun can be used in the context of either a ‘use’ or a ‘misuse’. I was obvioulsy referring to it in the context of ‘misuse’ i.e To abuse, mistreatmen, taking advantage. You have certainly made a lot of false assumptions about what I am saying… My statement was only intended to be a high level comment. Could Henson have used a slightly older model who only looked 13 but who was was legally an adult? Probably. And if he had..would that have generated the same amount of kudos and back slapping from his peers and the so called learned art community. I argue the point that it would not.. it would be just another exhibition of nudes; and hence why in my humble opinion that the ‘artist’ has used this child for his own person gain, however you choose justify it. I think Hanson qualifies for a gold medal in stupidity at the very least… my bleeding heart goes out to him and the legal issues he now faces. He may after all be found innocent under the law which is the opinion of many in the legal profession, and if that is the case it will be intersting to see if the legislation is then changed as a result of this to ensure child protection. The real issue I refer to is the longer term threat to children that acceptance if this then opens up..it becomes a pandoras box of issues. If it Ok for Hensen to have his art exhibition, then we set a precedent, a new bench mark of what is acceptable…yes a new norm for society. So then assuning it is OK for Hensen, then it must be OK for any other artist to have nude content of minors. Is it OK for me as an art lover to have artistic nude images of under age girls on my computer… While this may not be Henson’s intent, it is the road his is unintentionally leading us down. Normalisation of deviation can occur in may ways, and as you point out can be for both good and bad. Often it can be dramatic, other times in can be in very subtle increments, and the latter can be the one that catches socieaty unaware.. as the very gradual change with time can go unnoticed until we have created somthing we don’t want. This can deliver both good things but also unwanted bad things. SO no idea why you are have started ranting about slavery…. At no point did I suggest that normalisation of deviation did not also deliver positives. I simply made the point that many social issues we have today have crept up on us in this manner. I think Daniel hit the nailon the head with his “I give up comment”.

David, if you concede that ‘deviation’ could be ‘normalised’ for better or for worse, then you are saying nothing at all, really. This puts your statements firmly in the ‘thoughtless’ category I have been criticising. Or possibly in a new ‘fatuous’ category.

For some reason most people commenting on the Henson case have felt perfectly entitled to thoughtlessly mouth condemnatory platitudes about Henson and his models and their supposed failings as if they had a perfect right to do so regardless of the harm this could cause, when all they are actually doing is sharing their private, intensely uninteresting moral preferences.

I hope that none of the moral judgments expressed on this thread will make a damn bit of difference to the fortunes of Henson, his models and their families. But if you are gong to comment at all, it would at least be realistic to look at the facts involved, and consider relevant analogies to the present case. No-one here has considered the two main legal questions that arise from this case. These are mainly what will determine the extent to which Henson and his models suffer from the thoughtless actions of Hetty Johnston, the police and a great number of public commentators. However, thoughtless commentary can have its own detrimental effect, on reputation for instance, which is also a legally recognised concept.

I have no idea why Daniel ‘gave up’, but I trust it wasn’t because my comments were too ‘insipid and conciliatory’ for him.

I’m a social worker. Let’s get some reality here.

The reality is that a paedophiles are attracted to and turned on by a k-mart catalog with kids undies in it. They get off by just going to public schools and sitting out the front in their cars watching the kids. They like children, they see them in a way that normal people do not. They see their child likeness as sexual.

This exhibition wouldn’t have even been noticed by paedophiles had it not been in the news as much as it has. Paedophiles are attracted to normal kids who look like kids, not kids who look like adults.

The problem here is what we as a society think adults look like. We’ve lost our way with that. We think an adult can be someone has no signs of age at all! What’s that about?? Why not have a discussion about that? If these girls had ended up being 19 instead of 12 would that make the shots ok? To my mind we have that happening all the time in popular magazines across the world.

The problem is our obsession with age, the problem is with us, not the paedophiles. They twist the norm for their benefit. So do we. We say it’s ok for women to look like girls, just not the other way around.

If we loved and valued age this wouldn’t be an issue.

This is just a classic beat up the artist the cry for the well being of the children. I wonder what the people who are complaining about this think about advertising aimed at getting kids to buy fake food and get fat?

Priorities people!!

This whole thing is incredibly idiotic. It’s utterly stupid that as soon as someone see’s the naked human form in the modern world they immediately think ’sex’. It is obvious the photo’s had NO (none what-so-ever) sexual connotations. These were works of art that, like most of Hensen’s work, showed the beauty and rawness of the human - the human straight-up. It is how all these fools take it that turns the art into some kind of monstosity.

There is a theory called “death of the author”. It states that a creator has no control over how his/her work will be recieved, because every single person is going to see the work in a different way. This is an example of that theory to a high extent. Anyone who has witnessed and followed Hensen and his work in the past, I am almost positive, would see these works for how the author intended - a depiction of natural human beauty.

What all those who see these works and think ‘child-sex’, or anything like the kind, should be devasted about is all the other missues of the child body. If none of you have noticed, children are used in much worse ways in the MASS MEDIA. You think exploitation comes down to this? We have 4-y/o children on ads they know nothing about saying “oh I love this brand of washing powder”, “these lollies are excellent daddy”, etc.. You don’t think this is exploitation? The kid doesn’t know what’s happening, the money goes to the parents and the advertises get rich after mothers and fathers with children of the same age say “oh how cute! Our little Billy could love washing powder as much as that kid does!”

Not to mention what is put in magazines aimed at young girls. Dolly. You think one child depicted in those magazines hasn’t been unnaturaly enhanced? Sorry folks, but those kids have been exploited. They have been used to make a whole heap of capitalists richer. They have been thrown into an unnatural, materialistic world where they help force feed the rest of their peers garbage about how to give the best BJ to all the totally hot boys.

What Bill Hensen did, that was not exploitation. It showed true natural beauty, the kind you don’t find in the magazines and in the marketting media. The naked human form does not automatically mean ‘SEX’. Paedophiles are not going to swarm to these photos like ants to honey. A fool would think that these images are the epitome of child pornography and no matter what kind of PhD or certificate you have in art, photography, pyschology or sociology, your opinion is not going to be the be all and end all of a debate about the relationship between nudity and sex.

And also, I got this from another forum. It was posted by ‘Lotta’:
” Im a long time fan of Bil Hensen, studied his art for over 10 years as a school girl in Sydney. I’m also a child rights adviocate working for the UN in Geneva and have a PhD in child rights.

Yes, the children are underaged and naked.

Sexual? I don’t think so. I understand Australia is a conservative society but this moral panic is too much. While at times there may be a grey area between art and porn, this is not the case here, it is clearly art and not titilating in any way, not in the way you see kids behaving in mainstream media.

Bill’s intention is often to highlight the wasteland of modern society, the povery of values, the alientaion of young people, and I think he does it well.

Leave the artist alone. The day Australia allows police to shut down art shows is the end of free society. This is not about child protection. It’s about moral panic.

Why aren’t the same resources avaiable to save kids from parents and teachers who are at times clearly abusing them?? “

Does it not occur irrational to many people that within all the naturally occurring creations of the known universe, we have chosen just one to be so damaging that is should be illegal to view its image. And yet this is not some phenomenon that might destroy us, it is actually part of who we are as a species, the body of a child.
The relationship of a Henson photograph to a child sex attacker is no different to the relationship of an adult nude portrait to the rapist of a woman. Nor is it any different to the images of death on your nightly murder mystery to the next real life killer.
Censorship is not the sign of a sophisticated society. This episode shows the backward nature of Australian culture. Unfortunately for some though, you could ban a book or a song and conceivably make it disappear, but in a thousand years, there will still be people of all ages (even including children), and they will still be made of flesh from head to toe.
Kevin Rudd said as part of his response ‘ just let kids be kids’ . This is saying one thing and doing the opposite. The message to children is that you are not allowed to be what you see in the mirror. Conceal yourself and be ashamed so that we may feel comfortable. To agree to be photographed would suggest the girl has not learnt the messages of self-denial that most parents are expected to drill in to their children. Just imagine the chaos that would occur if we really did follow Rudd’s advice and let kids be kids.

[...] Vargas because of his latest photographic exhibition. Now the previous article on this site by Sy Rogers has created some excellent articulate discussion for both sides of the argument, but I wanted to [...]

http://www.tolarnogalleries.com/media/client/web_cutscreen2.jpg

“Just let kids be kids” Did this young girl consent to be used in this way?

wow, what a heavy read, btw this is 5.5 thousand words!!! lol

I am a young person, and have recently watched a doco on bill hensons work on abc, i think this would give you a much clearer context of these photos, for example Many kids and young people see his art.

To have a clear perspective of the artwork you need to see the work under normal circumstances not from small poor quality newspaper pictures.

For me these pictures are not at all stimulating in a sexual way, they emulate the feelings of vulnerability we sometimes feel while growing up and also at the same time stimulates a feeling of wonder and expectation of our futures. I feel the nakedness of this girl simply highlights the feeling of vulnerability.

I think it is sad and a real shame that as our society has such a way of thinking…

WE MUST THINK NADEDNESS = SEX = RUDENESS = FLESH MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE SEEN.

WHAT IS SO DARN WRONG WITH THE HUMAN BODY, btw I don’t see any uproar of the nude male guy also depicted in his work.

I feel really sorry for the poor girl in these photo’s, not because of the situation she is in but because of some of the remarks people such as kevin rudd has said “revolting’, ‘disgusting’ and ‘obscene’
How hurtful can you get!!! I hope this girl is receiving some counseling even better take some action against kevin rudd.

I think the effect of all this is to create even more self-doubt in our bodies being the beauty they are. However will young people find acceptance in ones body with such uproars as this. :(

If he did it in London he’d be a resistered sex offender, it is illegal to use anything under 18 for topless photography as a factor of the SOA 2003, The reason the legislation was introduced was the ‘Henson phenomena’. In London, waving that pic, would get a person put on the SOR, Henson for example, will not be able to teach in schools in England, because, well, he just can’t now. I would have thought Cambodia was a safer bet given his fetish art disposition. He might just get away with it there.

When Bill Henson’s current work was sensationally put up for community debate I was suddenly torn regarding my own understanding of the line between what art should be and the grey areas of moral decency. Instead of dismissing it as another of life’s scruples best left untouched I decided to confront this issue within myself; read and listen to the media and art community angles and come to a personal moral position.

I don’t want to bore you too much with my process of weighing up both sides of the argument but my conclusion was this.

The art community has put forward its’ case, once again (definitely not the first time), of being left alone to pursue whatever it likes in its’ pursuit to push the edges of society in the name of free speech and human discovery. For the most part a large enough proportion of society has been tolerant enough to accept this argument and allow the proponents of the art world to maintain their free reign. Throughout the 20th and 21st Centuries society has endured and sometimes even applauded the art world’s pieces of provocative moral ambiguity such as Nabokov’s Lolita; Donald Friend’s hedonistic inspired sketches of naked adolescent Balinese boys and commercial pieces of work such as the film American Beauty. What the art community has forgotten though as it wrapped itself in its’ own utopian ideals is that this kind of work is no longer the edge it proclaims to be pushing.

For many years child sexual exploitation was kept behind closed doors. But through a period of social awakening particularly during the latter part of the 20th and early part of the 21st centuries society decided that enough was enough. Senior figures such as priest’s, teachers, judges and politicians were suddenly and sensationally brought to justice for their current and past actions. Society welcomed this intervention even though it had to endure the facts quite openly in the press of what was happening and is still happening to its’ children. Child protection policies were introduced into our schools, churches, sporting clubs, scouts and other venues where children frequented. Clear laws were also introduced to stop deviants from obtaining, storing and distributing photographs of naked children whether in hard copy, on a computer or somewhere on the net. A line had been drawn clearly in the sand of what is and isn’t appropriate, there is no edge or boundary to push anymore.

Fortunately over the past few days, with the Henson scandal, the art community has finally been forced kicking and screaming out of its’ utopian slumber but regretfully instead of displaying its’ supposed intelligence in confronting this issue as the rest of society already has, it wants to remain doggedly immersed in ignorance, remaining in denial that society has passed the “edge” on this issue. There is no moral ambiguity. And for those who complain in defence that we are heading towards a police state, it is the police that have to deal with child sex exploitation in all its’ graphic detail, they are the ones who have to see the photos and take the confessions; they are the ones who see lives ripped apart. I don’t blame them for being overly sensitive to this issue and I am sure if any in the art community walked in their shoes for a day they would end up having the same opinion.

I therefore put forward these arguments to friends of mine to gain a sense of outer perspective but I still received some of the same frugal arguments put forward by those in support of Henson. Until I put forward this little scenario.

What if Bill Henson was an Art Teacher at a local high school. and as part of a liberal interpretation of the curriculum he encouraged his Year 7 and 8 students to to get naked, in his classroom, so that they could take photos of each other in an effort to discover their own adolescent vulnerability through artistic interpretation. The pictures at the end of this learning unit would then be displayed for all to see, maybe even sold to raise money for the school.

Both the process and the photos would be interpreted by anyone with a right mind as a criminal act.

Bloody hell, even if a father of his own 12-13 year old daughter took similar style pictures to that of Henson and hanged them up in the family lounge room or sold them off to friends would be a seen as sick and criminal. I therefore can’t even imagine why anyone would put their 12-13 year old daughter in this position with a complete stranger and feel completely comfortable about it.

So how was Henson allowed to get away with this for so long? Henson was able to do it through the sycophant nature of his followers in the art community, who through their clouded vision have allowed him to prey upon their children’s innocence so that they, his adult followers, can get closer or be a part of the Henson phenomenon. I am sure that these sycophants can’t even grasp or are completely oblivious to what could even happen to these pictures once they had been purchased by the “public”.

So in closing; as with the rest society, our education, religious and social institutions, the art world has finally been brought to task on this issue. I just hope enough of them awake from their bourgeois ignorance and become enlightened to what the rest of society has known for the past couple of decades.

Brett, you join those who have accused Henson of wrongdoing without the slightest bit of evidence to support that conclusion.
“I don’t want to bore you too much with my process of weighing up both sides of the argument”
I expect reading an account of that process would bore me because it didn’t consider any matters of fact.
“The art community has put forward its case, once again”
No. Hetty Johnston has complained about an artwork, and police officers have entered an art gallery and removed artworks from the gallery and threatened Henson with legal action. Individual artists have complained publicly that the police had no legal basis on which to do this. On my reading of NSW indecency law, those artists are correct.
“Clear laws were also introduced to stop deviants from obtaining, storing and distributing photographs of naked children”
False. In New South Wales there is no law prohibiting ‘deviants’ or anyone else from obtaining, storing or distributing photographs of naked children. The law does not agree with your personal feeling that nakedness equals indecency. Child protection laws in NSW apply to people who have been convicted of certain classes of offences against young people under 16 years and to agencies and organisations which have dealings with young people under the age of 16 years.
“There is no moral ambiguity.”
False. Morals are private, and as such are irrelevant to cases like these, which turn on points of law. All morality is by definition ambiguous, because it is fundamentally based on emotional states, not facts. Perhaps you are thinking of ethics, which is the analysis of people’s natural rights and interests using reasoned argument. Generally there is no ambiguity in a conclusion arrived at by equal consideration of all people’s interests, as this is a rational process, not an emotional one.
“it is the police that have to deal with child sex exploitation”
No police officer has the right to harass Henson because, he, the police officer, has dealt with child exploitation. If you think there is a connection between Henson and child exploitation, demonstrate it.
“What if Bill Henson was an Art Teacher at a local high school….”
Irrelevant. Bill Henson isn’t an art teacher at a local high school. The Henson case by its nature has only two legal problems, the indecency question and the libel/vexatious litigation question.
“Both the process and the photos would be interpreted by anyone with a right mind as a criminal act.”
A trivial statement. But let’s assume such a contrived fantasy might be made reality somewhere by someone. By NSW law, such a situation as you contrive would contravene child protection law as it applies to the conduct of teachers in high schools. What are you saying that isn’t obviously true? In terms of the ethics of a lesson simply involving nude photography of students, you forgot to demonstrate how such an activity could actually harm the students involved, assuming they gave their consent to be photographed and were not simply directed to do so by a teacher.
“So how was Henson allowed to get away with this for so long? Henson was able to do it through the sycophant nature of his followers in the art community”
A meaningless question, because you forgot to define what ‘this’ is. As to the sycophantic nature of Henson’s ‘followers,’ and assuming, without any evidence, that he does have followers, how on earth would you know a single thing about any one of them?
“the art world has finally been brought to task on this issue”
No. You forgot to define what ‘this issue’ is. If ‘this issue’ is the forcible sexual assault of children, it is irrelevant to Henson’s case. If you allege by such comparisons as you have made, that Henson in photographing a naked child acts just like a priest who fondles a boy’s bottom, then you must demonstrate how that is so. On its face, the comparison makes no sense at all.
You seem to have a strong belief that Henson is a criminal, yet you do not once demonstrate how this can be so. Perhaps this is because the law gives no grounds at all for your belief, and neither do the facts of the case that are public? Windy talk of ‘lines in the sand,’ ‘society’ and ‘moral ambiguity’ does not make your private feelings about child nudity any more interesting than mine.

i really think that the charges should be let down.
i have been a admirer of bill henson’s work for nearly 4 years. i believe that his only intention with these images were for an artistic purpose. i am an student artist and i see no sign of pornography in these images . Henson’s work is all about the viewer creating their own meaning of the image. Like the photo of the road. That could mean anything. It all depends on personal opinions and experiences. that is what art is about.
i also understand where the police are coming from with the underage thing and perdifilers, but i these issues can be resolved.
So far as we know bill henson got permission off both the model and the parents to take these images. plus im sure they would of complain if they were not comfortable with the composition of the image. She did this to help her modeling career as i have heard.
A former model of bill hensons work has commented that she too disagrees with child pornography but she doesnt see this as something under that category.
if the police are worried of pedifilers getting hold of these images then they should make the exhibition a closed exhibition. so no one can take photos of them.
also its not like these are the first images of naked people to be called art.
if you believe that these images are child pornography then you are sick of even thinking that in the first place.

Remember people. Nudity is not pornography, so in this cases, sickness, just like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

You have no clue my friend of any of these policies or laws.

Why is there this nationwide investigation; unless there were legal grounds for it. How about tomorrow I put an advertisement in the Sydney Morning Herald for 12-13 year old girls to model for me naked. I am a photographer so based on your arguements it should be perfectly all right. If Henson get’s away with this it provides precendent for anyone to do this. Right? Are you saying that Bill Henson has greater rights than anyone else when it comes to working with children? You tell me any work place in Australia where it is perfectly all right to work with naked children, let alone take photos of them?

The fact that you are so blinded to defend teacher’s taking photos of naked students really disturbs me. maybe you should be the one being investigated.

All your argument tells me is that maybe you like to look at naked children. That there is nothing wrong with looking at someone else’s naked child. Does this thrill you in some warped artistic or maybe personal sense? Please write it, I would like someone in the art community to be honest. Do you enjoy looking at naked children? As far as I can tell no-one has yet come out and said this yet.

All these people have come out defending his work but no-body has come out saying.

“Bill’s work should be protected because I like looking at naked children.”

“Bill’s work should be protected because I want to take photos of naked children too.”

Instead all I have read is a bunch of frugal outdated arguments that just condone this kind of work allowing the flood gates for anyone to do this.

All I can say is that with every industry that deals with children there is policy in place to try sand protect them. I think it is abot time that the art industry does the same thing.

I don’t know much about the child sexual exploitation side but Bill has broken the law when it comes to the employment of children under the age of 15 for commercial gain (don’t forget that these photos were for sale). Bill was going to make a fair amount of money of this.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (CARE AND PROTECTION) ACT 1998 - SECT 223
Certain employers of children to be authorised
223 Certain employers of children to be authorised

(1) A person (other than the holder of an employer’s authority) must not employ a child:
(a) to take part in an entertainment or exhibition, or
(b) to take part in a performance which is recorded for use in a subsequent entertainment or exhibition, or

Interesting side to it. I wonder if Bill bothered to apply for an “Employer’s Authority” and whether a government department actually granted it? I had a look at this act and the penalty weighting is exactly the same as for sexually abusing a child

Brett,

Please do not consider yourself a friend of mine.

I find it personally offensive that you seek to impute to anyone who disagrees with your private feelings about child nudity that they themselves must be seeking gratification from images of nude children. You will gain no traction from emotive accusations.

Since you refer to no legislation or case law yourself, yet at the same time assert that I am as ignorant as you about it, I will spell out the legal issues for you.

Henson has only done anything illegal if:

(a) he has published an indecent article
AND/OR
(b) he has produced child pornography.

(a) In the question of indecency, the legal test is whether a reasonable person would find the publication indecent. Indecency itself is generally interpreted by the courts as an intention to gain or produce sexual gratification from the action being considered. Representatve NSW case law is _Harkin_ (1989) 38 A Crim R 296, which considers the definition of indecent assault.

This reasoning can be seen in a legal expert’s recent statement that if the Henson case becomes a court case, ‘a court will now have to define the community standard of indecency.’ See http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/24/2254455.htm?site=idx-nsw

Since none of the contributors here will be considered authorities as to the community standard of indecency in any Henson court case, there is no point in giving your personal opinion about his decency or indecency. Furthermore, condemning Henson on these grounds is not only useless but offensive to him, his models and their families.

(b) The definition of what amounts to child pornography is statutory.
_________________

_Crimes Act 1900_ (NSW):
91H Production, dissemination or possession of child pornography

(1) Definitions In this section:
“child pornography” means material that depicts or describes, in a manner that would in all the circumstances cause offence to reasonable persons, a person under (or apparently under) the age of 16 years:

(a) engaged in sexual activity, or

(b) in a sexual context, or

(c) as the victim of torture, cruelty or physical abuse (whether or not in a sexual context).
____________________

It is a defence to a charge under this Act “that, having regard to the circumstances in which the material concerned was produced, used or intended to be used, the defendant was acting for a genuine … artistic … purpose, and the defendant’s conduct was reasonable for that purpose.”

To me it is obvious that Henson would have an adequate defence due to his artistic purposes. But even if he did not, the only definition in the Act that might be applicable to Henson’s imagery is definition (b), and then only because the term ’sexual context’ is so nebulous. One suggestion on the public record as to what the legislature intends by the term ’sexual context’ is the following statement by the Hon John Hatzistergos on the second reading in NSW parliament of the Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography) Bill:

“A depiction or description of a child in a sexual context is a broad category that would cover, for example, situations where a child is depicted in an indecent pose or watching another person engaged in sexual activity. The requirement that the material must, in all the circumstances, be offensive to reasonable persons ensures that innocent family photographs of naked children, for example, will not be captured.”

This definition of ’sexual content’ is obviously poor, and I believe this is because all ‘thought crime’ is inherently bad law - impossible to police, and highly prejudicial in application. However, Hatzistergos’s views might indicate how a judge would deal with the question of what ’sexual context’ is in a published photograph.

I suggest no reasonable person could agree that the published pictures in the Henson exhibition even approach what the Minister offers as examples of a ’sexual context’. A glance at the pictures, however heavily censored, shows that they consist of figures who have been actually decontextualised, ie, placed on a solid black background. Hetty Johnston can complain all she likes that an image of a naked girl’s body produces a sexual context just by existing at all, but I don’t see how a reasonable court could agree.

I will now respond to some of your silliest comments.

“Why is there this nationwide investigation; unless there were legal grounds for it.”
What shoddy thinking. Perhaps the following analogies will help you see why it is shoddy. Why was there military invasion of Iraq, if there weren’t weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Why do so many Aboriginal males commit suicide in custody, if they are not feeling guilty for their crimes? Why were witches burned at the stake, if they were not truly witches? Why do you deny the enjoyment of naked child images, if you are not guilty of child abuse?

“Do you enjoy looking at naked children?”
I’ll tell you, if you tell me. Do you feel some reluctance to answer it honestly yourself? Perhaps people today might be reluctant to answer this question because Hetty Johnston has sought so vigorously to engender shame and suspicion about naked children in the minds of individuals, and to persecute artists on spurious grounds.

“All I have read is a bunch of frugal outdated arguments”
If this is true, then you haven’t read any more than you have thought about the issues in this case. Frugality is a virtue in argument.

You lead with your emotions, accuse others of indecency and ignorance without any grounds at all, and yet you yourself demonstrate little understanding of the Henson case, or the applicable law. You parade your private feelings as if they, just by being so vigorous, were some sort of argument against Henson.

“Bill has broken the law when it comes to the employment of children under the age of 15 for commercial gain (don’t forget that these photos were for sale).”
Are you aware that you are calling Henson a criminal in a public forum? Your own conduct may be legally actionable on that account. You forgot to demonstrate that evidence in Henson’s work or his conduct exists to satisfy the legal tests for indecency and/or child pornography. As to the legislation concerning employment of children, how could you possibly know that Henson’s arrangements with his models are? You are not equipped to judge what employment law applies to him.

How can you possibly know whether any proceeds of Henson’s sales go to his models? Is that a matter of public record somewhere? It would be resonable to expect that the proceeds of sales of Henson’s photographs go to him alone because he is the producer of the work and its copyright holder.

William I have no interest whatsoever in looking at naked children; can’t you tell? My tastes in artistic nudes are of the 18+ variety. I also have no interest in being in a room with naked children let alone the desire to take photos of them for whatever artistic or monetary gain.

It appears though that you do have a problem William in answering these questions. Come on William, clearly state to everyone here that
“Bill’s work should be protected because I like looking at naked children.”

William I was just wondering do you take photos of naked children? Are there a group of you guys into this? Your arguments seem to promote that it is OK for anyone to take photos of naked children for wider distribution and monetary gain. Correct?

You see this is where your argument faulters. For me although I don’t like the pictures and do not seek out this kind of “art” this is not what I am most concerned about. It is process, the idea that you think that a grown man (regardless who it is), behind a lense, taking pictures of a naked child for extended periods of time is perfectly all right. By the looks of it you would be happy to have naked 12-13 year olds pose for naked life studies at the local TAFE. Where does it end William? Where would you draw the line when it comes to anybody taking pictures of naked children for any form of supposed gain; especially financial. How would you regulate it to ensure that paedophiles don’t exploit your sentiments regarding child photography under the guise of artistic endeavour?

You can’t can you?

Brett,
I can’t be any clearer. But I’ll try to be more concise.
The Henson case is not a moral problem.
The Henson case is a legal problem.
Your feelings about child nudity are IRRELEVANT to Henson’s case. So are my feelings about child nudity.
Do you understand what flows from this?
I do not care what you think is all right. Neither should Henson. I do not care what you imagine I would be happy to do or think. Neither should Henson. Private beliefs about child nudity are IRRELEVANT to Henson’s case.

Henson’s case will be decided on the question of indecency and/or child pornography.
The only room for doubt or discussion is in what ‘indecent’ means to the courts. Your feelings and mine will have NO IMPACT on the judge’s decision if the Henson case goes to trial.

Your post, like those of many people here, is PURE SPECULATION.

Your post, like those of many people here, is offensive because it condemns Henson WITHOUT REASON. Bring some REASONS to the table and I will have something to talk to you about.

P.S. Your feelings about child nudity are IRRELEVANT to Henson’s case.

Couldn’t answer the questions I thought so….

Brett, bring some REASONS to the table and I will have something to talk to you about.
P.P.S. Your feelings about child nudity are IRRELEVANT to Henson’s case.

My reason’s are based upon closing the door of opportunity for paedophiles to take advantage of children.

I am sorry but by condoning the idea that it is perfectly all right for a grown man (regardless who it is), behind a lense to be taking pictures of a naked child for extended periods of time leaves the door wide open for child exploitation. I am not saying here that Bill’s intentions were not perfectly innocent. I personally do not know him or how he thinks. The problem is if you allow one person to do the above why not anyone else? And how would you regulate or police it? You can’t and that is why I support a zero tolerance appraoch to this issue.

You forget William that laws are based upon morals and ethics.

Brett, I appreciate your returning to the substantive issues in the Henson case. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the ethics involved in photographing nude children, though I am not interested in morals, which are dependent on individual emotional states.

“closing the door of opportunity for paedophiles to take advantage of children… if you allow one person to do the above why not anyone else?”

When people or governments announce their ‘zero tolerance policy’ for this or that conduct I am amazed at the implied ignorance or dismissal of the ethical complexities involved.

I hope it is not a distortion of what you mean to argue this:
“Charging Henson with the offence of indecency / producing pornography will disallow paedophiles from taking advantage of children.”

If that were true, the following would need to be demonstrably true as well.

(1.) ‘To take advantage of a child’ is equivalent to committing an illegal act involving a child.
(2.) ‘Paedophile’ has a clear meaning.
(3.) Henson’s photographs of a nude child give some paedophiles an opportunity to commit illegal acts involving children.
(4.) Charging Henson with an offence causes some paedophiles not to commit illegal acts involving children.

Proposition (1) sounds reasonable and I assume a dictionary of idioms would agree with it.

The _Crimes Act 1900_ defines what sexual acts involving children count as crimes. Therefore proposition (2) could arguably be justified by the self-identification of a person who was convicted of sexual acts involving children. For example, we might choose to believe someone who says, on their arrest, ‘I dunnit cos I am a paedophile’. That would be convenient, but it would not prove that anyone knows what a paedophile is. The common psychiatric definition seems to be of a male over the age of 18 who ‘is attracted to’ - whatever that means - young people beneath the age of puberty, whenever puberty occurs in an individual child. The ‘attraction’ is chronic and not just ’situational.’ However children are also rigidly defined by law in terms of their age rather than, say, their abilities or their intelligence. The law itself doesn’t recognise attractions, which are states of mind, and the legislation controlling sexual behaviour only captures situations in which genital contact really occurs between legally defined adults and children. All kinds of possible cases fall outside any easy definition of a ‘paedophile sex crime’. One example would be consensual sexual conduct between a 17-year-old and a 14-year-old; another would be forced genital conduct between a 40-year-old and an 18-year-old. If these cases involving physical contact are so ambiguous, how much more dubiously ‘paedophilic’ are cases involving mere photography of a naked body?

Proposition (3) is very difficult to demonstrate. There is nothing in a representation of a naked body that causes physical actions in a viewer of the representation. It leaves all viewers with an unimpeded choice as to how, when, where and why to act. Therefore it is almost impossible to prove that an image can somehow cause anyone to act illegally. I can see a possible counter-argument at this point that goes:
(i) External phenomena can cause states of mind.
(ii) A photograph is an external phenomenon.
(iii) A photograph can cause a state of mind.
(iv) States of mind are causally linked to actions.
(v) Actions may be harmful.
(vi) A photograph may be causally linked to a harmful action.

And so on. You would then try to show that a paedophile, unlike a normal person (whatever that is), can be ‘triggered’ by a nude child photograph into having a certain state of mind which is causally linked to a harmful action. But it is rather arduous and the causal links involved not very easy to demonstrate at any point in the chain.

Steps (i)-(iii) in the counter-argument are fairly secure, but states of mind are not illegal, so it is impossible to demonstrate that by, for example, producing a state of erotic excitement in a person’s mind (assuming this an objectively measurable phenomenon), a picture somehow causes that person to break the law.

Proposition (4) also has serious problems. In science and in ethics, it is a bad argument to propose something that cannot be falsified, ie cannot possibly be shown to be false. It is actually impossible to disprove that a photograph stops someone from acting in a particular way, because any and everyone’s actions would have to examined in order to do this, a set of observations which is infinite in scope.

So, in response to (2),(3),(4) above, I offer the refutations (x), (y) and (z).

(x) We can’t be sure what a paedophile is.
(y) We can’t demonstrate how a photograph causes anyone to commit an illegal act.
(z) We can’t prove or disprove that arresting Henson will cause people not to act in some way.
Therefore it is false to argue that Henson’s photographs prevent paedophiles from causing harm to children.

“if you allow one person to do the above why not anyone else?”

Finally I’d like to respond to your appeal to the slippery-slope argument. I assume that by ‘the above’ you mean the photographing of a child for an artwork, as Henson has demonstrably done.
My reasoning here is as follows.
1 Henson has artistic intentions, and has used reasonable artistic means, to have made his photographs.
2 The Henson photographs are artworks, not indecent articles.
3 Artworks are not harmful.
3a Any number of artworks are no more harmful than one artwork.
Therefore, nothing turns on the argument that, if one person makes artworks, another person may then, as a result, make artworks. It follows that if someone makes artworks like the ones Henson has made, ie, artworks incorporating images of naked children, the same indecency laws will apply, or fail to apply to them. No additional harm will result.

I put it to you that both the ‘closing the gate’ and ’slippery slope’ parts of your argument fail because of flaws in their reasoning.

there is a section that isn;t clear because of my mistake.
“Therefore it is false to argue that Henson’s photographs prevent paedophiles from causing harm to children.”
This should have read,
“Therefore it is false to argue that banning Henson’s photographs will prevent paedophiles from causing harm to children.”

Another error of mine needs correction. At one point I wrote:
“It is actually impossible to disprove that a photograph stops someone from acting in a particular way…”
This should have read,
It is actually impossible to disprove that a charging an artist with indecency stops someone from acting in a particular way…”

You are not getting my point or you don’t have the ability to address it. It is not about the images themselves, it is the “process” of getting the images. How do you maintain a safe environment for a child in this position
“a grown man (regardless who it is), behind a lense taking pictures of a naked child for extended periods of time” regardless of the intentions of a senior more dominant adult. How do you avoid this becoming an exploitative situation.

You appear to be an intelligent person and must of come across the odd ethics committee once in a while. There are a variety of pursuits that have been cut short because the end does not always justify the means even if the end product has some so called benefit for society.

While many professions have codes of conduct, policies and laws regarding child/adult interaction the art world does not. This is important for protecting both the adult and child.

The unregulated process of taking photos of naked children as part of your profession is fraught with danger.
A teacher can’t even be alone in a closed classroom with a student because of possible ramifications not to the student but the teacher.

Do you understand my point. How do you provide a safe environment for the “professional” endeavour of producing “artistic” child nudes. How do you prevent paedophiles from taking advantage of this pursuit. This is what I believe the broader community should be focusing on, not the pictures themselves.

William what kind of fair treatment do you think Bill Henson would receive if everything didn’t go as planned at the shoot for these photos? That at some point the family and child wanted to take financial advantage of Bill by fabricating some sort of scenario. What sort of policy or regulations are there to protect Bill from accusations of wrong doing during the shoot. There are none.

The unregulated process of taking photos of naked children for artistic pursuit involves too much risk.If the art community was really serious about protecting this form of art it would try and address the ethical side of the process, instead of just focsuing on the final product.

Wow, public debate in full swing!

Hi Brett, I think your last question (”How do you provide a safe work environment”) again can’t be answered as related to this case unless one were involved with the photo-shoot and it’s preparation.

But to offer some insight, my understanding is that it is not much different than the rules that apply to any business concern. Access the risks, involve the parties, and agree on reasonable steps to address those risks. Review the outcomes and adjust any shortcomings along the way. Over time the policies and procedures should stabilise into some reasonably safe environment. Let’s not forget, the parties involved here have not cried foul!

The reality is if a safe environment is a mythical ideal. You want to be safe; get out of your house; most deaths occur in the home!

No one can know what was going on in the mind of Bill Henson when taking the pictures but Bill Henson. This is the qualitative side of the argument. Every other opinion is pure speculation! And if his intention was not art, I’m sure he’s not going to let that become public!

A photo is just an unemotional record of light and shadow and colours. Every emotion projected onto an image is done so by the viewer! So those who see evil in it, have projected that themselves. Is that a reflection of what is in their nature, only they can know!

This public debate is what it’s all about.

The real questions are how can we award merit and measure that value and agree on an outcome. Should art be allowed to explore such a topic as a young nude girl? Should the rule for the future be made by the few or the many?

Bill Henson has provided the catalyst for such a debate, does that mean he should be found guilty or innocent by the outcome of such a debate?

It is a social milestone for Australia and is worthy of articulate debate. The forum is not in my opinion the courts or the police. A referendum might be the only way to really know Australia’s mind on this matter. Not likely!

Sadly the courts are where this matter will most likely be settled. Worse still is that the outcome will be seen as justifying for one side or the other. When in reality the only real test is whether Bill Henson was getting some sexual gratification when taking the photos and the fact remains that only he will know that! No Judge or Jury could as a matter of fact know or judge his real intention.

So we are left with the evidence trail. Does the evidence support his intention as an artist pushing social boundaries or as a pornographer???

My personal opinion is that the evidence would need to show how the elaborate construct of Bill Henson’s career, which has been the toil of many years, has finally been to one end. Getting his thrills from child nudity, without risk of prosecution.

Unfortunately, public debate has no correlation with informed opinion! And informed opinion has no correlation with what is good and best for all humanity!

Rage on the debate!!!!

BTW if I was unclear, I’m for protecting the innocent regardless of age! I’m for challenging our perceptions on a continual basis. I’m for diversity of culture and tolerance and understanding. And most of all I’m for freedom!!

Good luck Australia.

Paul

Brett,

I am happy to pursue the terms of discussion as you have now put them, but I do feel like a footballer chasing a tractor as it hauls the goalposts to and fro. You initially referred to a number of political and historical situations that seemed scarcely relevant to Henson at all. For example you mentioned the criminal conduct of priests and other authority figures toward children and alluded to child pornography laws. You put forward scenarios involving teachers and fathers in their roles as authority figures. You implied that Henson was ‘getting away’ with something illicit. You claimed that ‘the rest of society’ had known something that ‘bourgeois’ artists and their ’sycophantic’ followers had no clue about, implying that just to know this certain something was to be indisputably, morally right about it.

Now it appears your concerns are about legal liability implications for the artist-model relationship when the models are children. Should I assume you are not really interested in the problems raised by the ’slippery slope’ or ‘closing the door of opportunity’ arguments after all? You have repeated your ‘how do you prevent paedophiles’ question, but it is now your turn to show that my refutations of your arguments on that matter (see previous post) are wrong.

I can only agree that a photographer, particularly a commercial photographer who advertises his services as such and runs a business, is liable to certain business and legal risks.

It may be that an artist who uses film and photography as his medium, like Henson, also faces business and legal risks, but the role of the artist in Western societies has grown apart from that of a merchant or craftsperson. Granted, he probably sells them in order to continue loving and working, but it still makes no sense to find some moral failing in the fact that Henson sells his photographs.

I am sympathetic to the situation of teachers as I am one. You are right that they enjoy few legal protections should a complaint be made against them by a student. Teachers who become the target of a complaint alleging sexual misconduct are immediately suspended from duty, denied communcations with the complainant and denied any knowledge of the nature or content of the complaint itself (!)unless and until court proceedings are initiated. This treatment amounts, in my view, to a de facto presumption of guilt, which totally contravenes the principles of due process. The present policy response in State schools, which is to treat all encounters between students and teachers as inherently untrustworthy on either party’s side, is a poor one. Henson now bears the same burden of ‘disproof of guilt’ as a teacher accused, but in no way shown by any evidence, of misconduct. His livelihood has been suspended and his character has been impugned by complaints lacking supporting evidence.

An ethical regulatory system for teacher-student or artist-model relationships is not difficult to envision. It would entail equal considerations of the parties’ interests regardless of age or gender. It would not be adversarial. It would be communicative, and where disputes about consent, payment for service or some other alleged misconduct arose, these would be resolved by discussion on equal terms and overseen by a trained mediator. Disputes would be resolved non-punitively wherever this was possible. To the best of my knowledge most of this regulatory machinery is already available under the law of contract. The only barrier I can see to it operating fairly and protectively toward adult artists and child models is the inbuilt discrimination against the natural rights and wishes of young people created by statutory limitations on the validity of consent. An expert, whose views were published in _The Age_, has already given quite strange advice that because a girl of 13 might not be legally able to ‘consent to such photographs’ - whatever that means - she could later sue the artist for having been harmed by the pictures. A statutory denial of even the possibility of consent ‘to a photograph’ on the basis of the model’s age would make it even harder to decide such a bizarre question. See http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/henson-model-could-sue/2008/05/26/1211653938450.html.

We are actually in agreement that artists, like teachers, are susceptible to malicious complaints. Henson and his models worked in a consensual artist-model relationship. That is a matter of public record. If your real concern is that a model, or her family, or any other party for that matter, might maliciously abuse that relationship for financial gain, then our attention in the Henson case should be on Hetty Johnston and her conduct.

This returns me to one of my original points - that when a complaint is both brought by a third party and its content is prima facie absurd, as Hetty Johnston’s complaint about Henson is, the spotlight should be on the conduct of the complainant, not the accused. I personally hope Henson’s lawyers are investigating avenues to having Johnston and her like charged with libel.

Hi WilliamL,

I’ve enjoyed your discussion. And for the most part agree with your points. I make only this comment (as perhaps the devil’s advocate) you haven’t engaged the subjective end of the discussion. You’ve remained steadfast in your comfort zone, the objective end of the argument if you will.

Reason me this if you can; you understand game theory is my guess, what value might you give red over yellow? Of course this is only meant to highlight that subjective matter may not be quantified, yet should not be lessened just because is cannot be quantified.

No one can factually conclude if Bill Henson has utilised his activities for ulterior motive. My personal view is that the most unlikely of these scenarios is that he is feeding a personal gratification seeing young people nude. Has he sought to entice the small number of paedophiles to his shows; I seriously doubt it.

It is my expectation that he is not too different to our recent outcry regarding Jill Greenberg and the crying babies and her evil acts to make them cry.

Publicity!!!!

It wouldn’t take a huge leap of faith to suggest he presented these images knowing full well they would cause controversy. In fact you don’t get to his station in the field without actively seeking publicity.

Has he considered the fall out and it’s impact on his young models and the unusual attention they and their families will no doubt be subjected to????

Bill Henson, like many well-known photographers relies on media attention. Careful his defenders, they might find in time his intentions less artistic and more commercial.

But again, no one but Bill Henson is likely to know the facts of these matters.

Has Bill Henson acted amorally? Has he used his young models for notoriety?

Kind Regards
Paul

Hi again Brett,

I meant to talk to an earlier point you raised!

“I am sorry but by condoning the idea that it is perfectly all right for a grown man (regardless who it is), behind a lense to be taking pictures of a naked child for extended periods of time leaves the door wide open for child exploitation.”

I do photography on the side and might like to dispel some of your misgivings here.

Someone of Bill Henson’s professional status is unlikely to be left alone with a young (potentially nude) model. Having shot the occasional nude, most bring with them some chaperone (Mum, boyfriend, girlfriend etc) and this goes for most sensible models. Most well known photographers have assistants with them also.

Believe it or not it is a technically taxing time taking images (especially of young people). Lighting must be adjusted constantly, focus, fstops, speed, mood, etc. Then you have to try to maintain/direct the model’s focus, position, emotional portrayal, energy, etc. If you’ve been in a wedding you will know how bored of taking photos you become by the end of a couple of hours. Well times that by three when you’re the only subject.

It is much more likely that there were at least 2 other people at the shoot (mum and an assistant). Also the model would have most likely only disrobed for the shot. Not that many people are comfortable wandering around nude, much less under the intense scrutiny of a lens. It takes a lot of skill to make someone comfortable in that role. And most times young girls pick up on any pervert overtones very quickly, which would change the whole mood of the shoot very quickly.

Being behind the lens is not conducive to sexual gratification. Maybe latter when the images are looked at, but at the shoot, it is very unlikely.

Regards

Paul

To both of you,

Thanks for the different perspectives; particular Paul as your arguments are far more grounded in the real world than William’s which as you stated Paul are far more clinical and objective which doesn’t always equate to reality. I can’t keep going on with the debate as my own life needs to move forward (in the real world).

Although William you have not won me on this issue it has been a pleasure to be able to debate this in a public forum.

Ciao

Brett

Hi Brett,

You know what would be interesting. Is for you both to argue the opposite sides. This would probably open the door to real dialogue. Listening, so to speak.

Anyway, I have two daughters and couldn’t think of anything more weird than doing nudes of them.

However, if a world renown photographer approached them/us and the girls were keen to do such a thing, I would be open minded about it.

What I would hope is that a proffessional would inform us of all the potential consequences before making such a decision.

I think the real problem is the long term unknowable consequence on the young ones.

However, the Photographer should not be held accountable for all things, only those he/she knows or can reasonably expect to be issues.

But more than anything, art should be like freedom of speech. We all should have a right to express ourselves. Provided others can switch it off. In other words, if it’s offensive it can’t be in your face where you can not avoid contact with it. In Bill Henson’s scenario, one would have to go looking for it.

Long live freedom!!!

Regards

Paul

Kind Regards

Brett/William

Hi there, again!

I also would like to ask Bianca to expand on her employment issue.

To my knowlege employment has some specific elements to be met before it can be a contract of employment.

An afternoon shoot is unlikely to fall in to this scope. However, I have not employed for 10 years now and am happy to be corrected.

The test for employment is a complex one, where control over the person plays a large part.

In Bill Henson’s case it is unlikely the model has recived any financial compensation. In fact it is entirely possible she paid for the shoot. Most photographers get paid to go click! Bill Henson would be no exception. Many models would kill to have some one of Bill Henson’s standing shoot them. It is great for their portfolio to have a top photographer tear sheet.

But the norm is a Trade for Pictures arrangement and then possibly a percentage if sales came into play. In other words this young lady likely has some great shots for her portfolio and a nice pic for her wall at home. And maybe an royality cheque coming her way if a sale is made.

So in terms of “employment”, unless I miss my guess the legislation is unlikely to fit.

Regards

Paul

Risk and due proces are two different things, and nobody has a right to work with children.

The issue in schools is risk, British teachers are being connected to 700,000 (known) child pornography transactions over three years. That’s risk.

So the reason Henson can no longer travel to several countries, is because, his material is child pornography.

I don’t think hanging it on a wall is a viable prospect at this point in time, the police have decided otherwise.

Henson is finished, even if he gets away with it in Australia, his range is limited to countries which will allow him to visit.

That’s not going to be many. Bill Henson is one of the reasons the Brits changed their child pornography laws.

In several countries women can’t show thier face in public.

Nobody has the right to work with kids is a hugely open statement. Parents have thier kids photo’s taken every day of the week.

Naked mothers and fathers and babies are regular fair for everyday portrait photographers. You’d need to narrow down your field I should think.

I don’t think anyone here would be suggesting anyone condone pornography!

The issue is where does the line get crossed. Legal opinion thus far suggests the crown will have a difficult time showing Bill Henson intended to create pornography.

It’s your opinion it is pornography. Others would disagee. Your lucky we live in a country that allows you to air your views without censorship.

I respect your right to say it crosses the line.

Regards
Paul

Go to one of the largest stock libraries in the world http://pro.corbis.com/
and type in “naked children”

If the crown is successful prosecuting Bill Henson, thounsand of photographers will fall under the same test.

The main criteria is public presentation of children underage.

The list is a long one!

Regards

Paul

This whole business saddens me. Bill Henson has brought happiness to so many art lovers with his work over many years. Let us all leave him in peace to continue his artistic achievements.

I think Scotland Yard is about to go hunting for ‘reference’ photos in London. Henson’s child-fetish stuff is illegal there.

:o))

Philistinism:-
to despise or undervalue art, beauty, intellectual content, and/or spiritual values.

If the cap fits!!!

Dave

Art-My Definition. By The Artist:Is the expression of a perception or feeling as manifested to the ‘Artist’. To the VIEWER: Art, Can be anything, or nothing.For, what can be a work of art for some, may be rubbish for others.A Photographer is NOT an ARTIST. is a viewer who selects and captures objects to display.Often modifying (altering and often destroying them).Is a Naked child pornographic? It’s all in the mind of the “Viewer”.Is a shoe or a whip pornographic? What was in the mind of Mr Henson? Well one thing we know” Money. The other? Well,… he is a Photographer/”Artist”.And this people are beyond suspect… Should he be allowed to Exhibit and sell? If he sold it could be a bit like selling guns.It would be a crime only in some hands.But in an age when my mechanic can’t have a calendar with a naked ‘Bimbo’ of 20+ years of age, I don’t think he would be able to “exhibit” Mr Henson’s “artistic” “naked girl’in the workshop.Or is a calendar’s Photograph a work of art? Cheers, and God bless a naked body. PS. Next time you may try your (respectfully and seriously) granny, you will be more successful, and age won’t be a problem, Bill!

Hi Michael! Sacha Waldman! Photographer/Artist/Viewer/Granny-shooter (nude at that)!

By your definition does that mean an artist cannot be a photographer?

Can a photographer not lay down his lens and take up a paintbrush? Or must she have been an artist first and foremost?

Visit Sacha Waldman’s work and tell me Artist or photographer?

While insightful, perhaps you might unravel the photographer from the photograph and at what point the photographer or photograph breaks into the realm of art!

Clive Bell in his classic essay Art states:-that only “significant form” can distinguish art from what is not art.

You’d be long time convincing the art world that photography is or is not art. I think art is a subjective, personal, unknownable line in the sand! That varies as our lives and understanding evolve!

Thanks for you comment, I enjoyed it!

Regards

Paul

William wrote:

“My reasoning here is as follows.
1 Henson has artistic intentions, and has used reasonable artistic means, to have made his photographs
2 The Henson photographs are artworks, not indecent articles.
3 Artworks are not harmful.
3a Any number of artworks are no more harmful than one artwork.
Therefore, nothing turns on the argument that, if one person makes artworks, another person may then, as a result, make artworks. It follows that if someone makes artworks like the ones Henson has made, ie, artworks incorporating images of naked children, the same indecency laws will apply, or fail to apply to them. No additional harm will result. ”

1. How can anyone - even you - know Henson’s intentions? What are ‘reasonable’ artistic means? Why should you be the arbiter of what are reasonable artistic means? Where is your evidence for your statements?

2. What evidence do you present to support your to assertion that the photos under question are artworks not indecent articles? Surely the court will decide this.

3.What evidence do you present to be able to state that artworks are not harmful? What do you mean by harmful? Sydney Nolan’s painting which purportedly showed Patrick White and his partner in sexual congress may quite possibly have been personally distressing/harmful to White and partner. The models used in the Henson photos under question might be feeling harm from the current controversy.

3a If in your view no artwork can be harmful, then obviously in your view a number of artworks cannot be harmful. Since you have not proved your first point then nor have your proved its corollary.
The last part is incoherent gobbledygook.

I find the way that this debate has arisen - police swoops, seizures, threats of violence etc - deeply unsavoury and regrettable. The debate surrounding images of children is a fraught and complex one that obviously concerns many, many people. The issue of whether parents can/ should give consent for their child to be photographed is also an issue for debate. But being dismissive, however cleverly, of others’ genuine concerns does not advance debate.
Lou

Hi Lou, and others!

Welcome to the debate.

We all must be allowed our opinions; the trick is not to guise or confuse them as facts.

“I find the way that this debate has arisen - police swoops, seizures, threats of violence etc - deeply unsavoury and regrettable” - I second that!!!! “The debate surrounding images of children is a fraught and complex one that obviously concerns many, many people.” – absolutely!!!! “The issue of whether parents can/ should give consent for their child to be photographed is also an issue for debate.” I hope this doesn’t end up being debated. Far to many people assume a 13year old can’t know her own mind. Or that the government might know better!

I also don’t think William intended to be dismissive! An assumption on your part! As you correctly stated at the beginning of your discussion “How can anyone - even you - know Henson’s intentions? In this regard you can’t have known Williams intention.

Anywho, The wrong people are being put under the microscope. The media is at the heart of this matter. The young lady concerned deserves an apology from Rudd for his outburst. She is a pretty girl- and anybody who deny’s this fact needs glasses. To be called revolting is simply incorrect. His statement “let children be children” wouldn’t hold true for the infamous “Cory the Party Boy” I suspect. The police have fertilised this media hot-bed with their actions and the public in its typical mob mentality want blood.

The DPP will no doubt have a hard job deciding the fate of this. Already there will be a case for damages on Bill Henson’s part given that the classification board has cleared his work.

The young lady no doubt would have a case for pain and suffering.

I don’t think I’d like to be the person who cried foul.

If there are matters to be debated, they should be pointed at the media.

Freedom. I expect to be able to reach a sensible decision with my daughters without Joe Mob’s two cents worth. Laws exist to protect the children. The “Frenzy” is the subject here, not child protection!

Kind regards

Paul

Lou,
Thank you for responding to the arguments I presented, although I see no content in most of your refutations, and the main positions on the substantive matters in the Henson case have been exhausted by the contributions to this discussion.

“How can anyone - even you - know Henson’s intentions?” etc
If there is a problem with the word ‘intentions’ or ‘reasonable’; then it is the fault of legislation that purports to know what the words mean, not my argumentation. However a fair definition of ‘artistic intention’ is easy to suggest. The intentions of Henson’s work can be inferred from Henson’s statements about them. Here are some representative examples of his statements about his work.

(a)”Gradually, my ideas start to shift as to what this image could be about and how I should modulate it formally and technically. It is quite a lengthy process.” - on his artistic methods. See http://www.egothemag.com/archives/2005/08/bill_henson.htm

(b)”The reason I like working with teenagers is because they represent a kind of breach between the dimensions that people cross through.” - on his choice of models. See http://www.egothemag.com/archives/2005/08/bill_henson.htm

(c)”It’s the suggestive potential of the medium that is the thing that takes us all on our individual journeys” - on the role of subjectivity of the viewer of the artwork. See http://www.abc.net.au/rn/musicshow/stories/2005/1351738.htm

From these statements I would conclude that Henson sees the content of his work as changing with time and attention to it; the choice of child and adolescent models as representing human uncertainty or transitional states generally in human experience; and the effect of the artwork on the viewer as inherently uncertain and bound to the viewer’s subjective states of mind. It does not appear reasonable to characterise any of these intentions as pornographic. This would square with a view, I hope not contentious, that ‘art’ is at least a practice of using physical media to:
(i) represent the objects of human perceptions;
(ii) make an empirical inquiry into the nature of those perceptions;
(iii) make a sceptical inquiry into the ideology of perception itself.

“Being dismissive, however cleverly, of others’ genuine concerns does not advance debate.”
No, I was dismissive of other people’s priovate feelings and prejudices, where they were advanced to denigrate Henson.
I can accept that (2) is moot until further facts are publicly available, and I even accept that I may be proved entirely incorrect about (2) by sufficient evidence, should it appear in public. But then I am interested in reasoned arguments, not ‘people’s genuine concerns’.
As in any chain of reasoning, if the first link fails, the rest fail. What are you actually saying? That my arguments shouldn’t have been raised because they might be proved false by later evidence? The alternative to being reasonable is all over this thread like a rash.

“Why should you be the arbiter of what are reasonable artistic means?”
Who ever claimed I was such a thing? Read the post.

“What evidence do you present to support your to assertion that the photos under question are artworks not indecent articles? Surely the court will decide this.”
The evidence is in the construction of the legislation mentioned in the post. No reasonable reading of the provisions mentioned