Comments on: When nudity equals sex and art equals pornography

By: David

David — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 19:25:50 +0000

In my view, the Henson case is really a big deal over nothing. I mean, if he were making and wanting to exhibit real child porn (as in sexual acts, lewd postures or the like), yes, bust him like heck. However, I feel that as long as he obtained the parents’ consent and showed proof he was an artist (not a kidnapper or something), there is nothing wrong with him exhibiting art of merely nude children. The naturist/nudist lifestyle includes families with children all the time and many naturist magazines depict whole nude families with kids. Most parents, naturist or not, take pictures of their little kids in the bath. The fact that some people view all nudity, without exception, as sexual or pornographic is sad and I cannot help but feel such people do not have an open, understanding mind. We are the only clothed beings on the planet, after all. The human body is, in itself, a work of art, by God, regardless of age. Why censor God’s art? What’s going to happen next? Are we going to ban ultrasounds because somebody thinks they’re child porn?

One more thought: if he WERE using children for pornography, do you really think he would display his pictures in an art gallery, under his legal name, showing the whole world he was a pedophile? I think not.

By: Dean

Dean — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:43:30 +0000

personally i do not see much of anything wrong with children in art, nude or not, people these days are way to private, and no longer close to there children, i belive this is why children are acting out the way they do. if you talk with a nudist family, who have children, i belive you will find that there children are very well behaved, and understanding, and do not find anything wrong, or perverse about nudity, or nudity in art. i belive that we should be more open with are children. if you think i am wrong, then that is your choice. i think what i think, and that is good enough for me.

By: Melbourne City Council to pre-approve artwork, keep sex mild - Somebody Think Of The Children

Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:19:44 +0000

[...] a role for itself as a censor, but recent events like the Henson and Olympia Nelson cases, the Van Thanh Rudd rejection and pictures of a naked man near Flinders St Station looks to have them worried. Van Thanh was [...]

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 28 May 2008 03:13:22 +0000

@Russell: You’re right, the case involving Rudd’s nephew is very different. Nevertheless, on the same day that Mr Rudd called Henson’s works revolting, it was interesting to see one of his own relations also in the media in regards to what was considered an inappropriate work of art. I don’t believe PM Rudd commented on that?

By: Russell Blackford

Russell Blackford — Mon, 26 May 2008 13:50:15 +0000

A 13-y.o., say, is quite capable of consenting. Indeed, he or she would be able to consent to medical procedures, which are a lot more invasive than photographs. We may not let her consent to actual sex – pregnancy would be disastrous at that age, and so would fatherhood. We may also have very good reasons in public policy not to let young people of that age consent to take part in actual pornography. But there’s a huge difference between consenting to something that puts you at risk of becoming a parent – at one extreme – and consenting to be photographed in a non-pornographic portrait at the other.

Personally, I hope that reason prevails soon.

I don’t think the other case is at all comparable. No artist has any right to expect that work that he submits to an exhibition will be accepted. Being turned down by an exhibition – for good reasons, bad reasons, or even at the curator’s whim – leaves you with your good name and the freedom to market your work elsewhere. It’s very different from being punished and stigmatised as a criminal and having your work impounded by the police.

That’s not to defend the Council’s choice, but it’s a different sort of issue.

Russell Blackfords last blog post..Scandalous mischief

By: hello.com.au » The blogosphere reacts to Bill Henson

hello.com.au » The blogosphere reacts to Bill Henson — Sat, 24 May 2008 03:19:00 +0000

[...] until further notice, More Art Censorship, Bill Henson photography exhibit – a tangent, P.S., When nudity equals sex and art equals pornography, In the name of Art, Another uproar in the art world, But is it art?, Censorship, My 2c on the Bill [...]

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 24 May 2008 00:51:42 +0000

@ash: I do believe there should be an investigation by police because of the age of the subjects. I stated that in numerous places yesterday, but didn’t feel it needed to be said in my blog post above (as I was not advocating Henson’s work).

The objective of my post was to point out that Henson’s artwork had been packaged by the media as pornography, when clearly it was not. They were simply images containing nudity, and nudity can exist without being considered sexual, obscene, offensive etc etc.

Even the NSW police are only suggesting an indecent article charge, not one of CP.

Is Bill’s art any different to the nakedness displayed in nappy commercials? After all, a parent consented to that.

@Valter I think it’s just big cases like these get noticed more than the little ones that happen weekly.

By: Valter

Valter — Fri, 23 May 2008 23:19:56 +0000

When I heard about police turning up at this exhibition and the possibility of charges being laid, I thought I had gone too sleep and woken in the 1950′s.

Has our society gone mad with the obsession about censorship, or is it just a big cycle that happens every 50 years or so?

By: Ash

Ash — Fri, 23 May 2008 18:03:59 +0000

Panicking munchkin: you miss the point.

Photos of those over 18 with the ability to properly consent: Fine. Do as you and they want.

Photos of those UNDER 18 who legally DON’T have the ability to consent: Don’t. Get permission, and don’t take the photos. And think about it. Would you let your child have such photos taken? I wouldn’t.

Wait until you are 18. If they want the photos so bad, they can wait.