Outcry over "artistic" nude photos of 13 year old girls

[beso]

Australian photographer Bill Henson took nude photos of 12 and 13 year old girls. They were displayed as part of an exhibition but a huge public outcry has ensued and the photos have been withdrawn. The photos were included an online gallery website that has also been taken down.

Proponents say the photos are art not pornography and the outcry is unjustified because Henson is a reputable photographic artist. They claim it amounts to censorship.

Police say charges of child sexual exploitation will be laid but have not said who will will face charges. I expect the photographer, gallery, website author and parents could potentially be charged.

What do you think?

[styley]

Maybe he did it to provoke a reaction - this reaction. But at the end of the day it is difficult to advocate taking nude photographs of children for any reason. What is art, where does one draw the line?

[tw@t]

er yeah styley
read the posts that view was covered

[styley]

I can't read.

[saxy_jag]

Without seeing the exact photos in question, it's not easy to comment, but there are some of his photos here:

http://www.pavementmagazine.com/billhenson.htm l

It's nothing new. Charles Dodgson was giving as much cause for concern back in the 1850s:

http://community.livejournal.com/babyart/29161 0.html

[andy-hughes]

Ethel - I have to take issue with your comparison with the world-famous photograph of Kim Phuc.

This photograph shows nine-year-old Kim Phuc running from her burning village after it was napalmed by American helecopters in the Vietnam war.

The photgraph is used as an icon of the brutality of the war, and it's toll on innocent civilians like Kim, who'se body was severely burned by napalm. Ironically, she was unwillingly used as a 'poster' by the North Vietnamese for this vary purpose, proving that the brutality of war is not simply physical, its impact loves on. Kim was seriously emotionally damaged by being used in this way, when her people died anonymously in their millions. She moved to Canada with her husbad and lives a gratefully obscure life with their two sons.

But back to your point - a padeophile can see sexual allure in any picture, even a nine-year-old girl screaming in agony and terror, but that was not the intention of the photograph - which draws us back to the question - is this exhibition, and the fall-out from it, a matter of receiption or intention. That is the issue here.

[beso]

The links posted ^^ are not representative of the controversial photos.

The first one in http://www.pavementmagazine.com/billhenson.htm l comes nearest to the style except the photo is full length.
My impression of these photos is they are junk.

The other set are alright if you like reconstructions of period photography.

[vehelpfulguy]

There was similar debate about the photographer Robert Mapplethorpe.

While there is no doube he was a great photographer (flowers, statues, faces etc) he was also gay and took many photos of nude men (and boys).

While some of these photos are considerdd "art" there is not doubt many would be considered pornographic in a different context (in a book in a sex shop for example).

Some show "fisting" and other gay activities in graphic detail.

In fact if you search for Robert Mapplethorpe in Google, then select "images", you find a photograph of a naked young boy which might be enough to get a person arrested if it was on your PC.

[saxy_jag]

Beso, I thought that would be the case. I've been to the gallery's website, and it looks as though all the controversial images have been taken down. And to be honest, if the rest of his work is in a similar style, it doesn't do much for me anyway.

The second set I gave a link to aren't reproductions, but genuine images shot by Dodgson. They were controversial at the time and they still spark plenty of discussion and debate. Are they art, or are they erotic images shot by a paedophile (Dodgson is known to have enjoyed the company of young girls)?

[jno]

a shame that enjoying the company of young girls is now thought to be immoral; liking children used to be a nice thing (though perhaps never among the English). Lewis Carroll did occasionally photograph young girls naked, though not in an especially erotic way, but I believe only a small handful of times - 3 or 4 photos, I think, and always with the approval of their parents.

[Golem]

Those people who are trying to find images of the photos surely illustrate a crucial aspect of this whole issue. Someone, somewhere, has decided that you SHOULDN'T get to see these pictures because they are potentially pornographic. The point is, is that you are not allowed to make your own judgement - someone already made it for you.

[saxy_jag]

Good point, Golem. As a very amateur photographer trying to get as broad, comparative and objective a view as possible of what's already out there, my reasons for searching the images are innocent enough (that and wanting to see them so that I can give as fair a comment as possible in this thread). On the one hand, I could say that I have a right to be able to find and look at them for the reasons I've given. On the other hand, there are paedophiles out there who'll want to look at them for all the wrong reasons and I don't think they should be encouraged. Very fine line, this one and I don't pretend to have the answer.