controversial exhibition

[wutheringheights]

I don't know whether this has made international news yet but in Sydney, an exhibition by the photographer Bill Henson was closed yesterday by cops.
The exhibition involved naked (but not sexualized) images of models aged from 12 to 13. Apparently, someone came across images on the gallery's website and contacted an independent group concerned with the protection of minors. This ultimately led to the closing down of the exhibition and furthermore, the possible bringing of charges against both Henson and the gallery. Currently, the police are trying to locate the models and their parents to interview them. There have been those who have testified in favour of Henson and his photographs, but the media has priveleged the opinions of its detractors and even the wording of the headlines seems deliberately intended to mark Henson as a voracious paedophile. Even Kevin Rudd, the PM of Australia, has been recorded as saying the exhibition is 'revolting' and that one should just let 'kids be kids'. This scandal occurs in the wake of a recent decision in NSW to ban models under 16 from taking part in Australian Fashion Week ( an international model from Poland, aged 14, was recently banned from the Sydney catwalk).
I suspect there may be members on this site who will support the closing of this exhibition. However, I for one find it very concerning that the police are able to close down an exhibition based upon pure assumption and projection. Neither Henson's models nor their parents have contacted the authorities to suggest that they have been manipulated or coerced in any way. And seriously, if you had something to hide, would you be exhibiting publicly?
Regrettably, it will now be very difficult for the average person to even see the images in question and form an opinion about them. Many will nonetheless respond to media manipulation and hysteria and take the expected conservative position. Indeed, now that it has become a media issue, many with a public profile will feel compelled to take a negative position to preserve their image.
If these images are condemnable for presenting naked minors, what is to be done with all of the thousands of Renaissance paintings depicting (very) young naked cherubs and angels. What about all of those religious paintings depicting the naked baby Jesus? There is one in particular by Michelangelo where an adult figure seems to be clasping the Christ child's groin.
On what grounds does one suggest that nudity equals sexualization much less pornography?
If depictions of naked children automatically amount to child pornography, doesn't that mean that any image of a naked adult by definition amounts to (adult) pornography?
There has been no reason to assume the models in these images acted other than consensually and I find this kind of knee-jerk reaction to nudity, regardless of the model's age, very disturbing.
Child abuse is an element of our society that I do not intend to deny or belittle. Indeed, there are many different forms of child abuse, both legal and illegal. The pressure that is placed on kids to succeed academically, etc., the repression of their sexuality, the manipulation by authority figures and so on and so on...
Explain to me where the depiction of someone without clothes equals exploitation simply on the grounds of their age.
No doubt there will be those who will take a contrary view to mine, but hopefully there will be those of you who will not automatically associate nudity with exploitation.
Keep in mind, if we were talking about people of any age being forced or coerced into something they didn't want to do, I wouldn't be defending it.

[csrakate]

Keep in mind, if we were talking about people of any age being forced or coerced into something they didn't want to do, I wouldn't be defending it.

BUT...at the ages of these models, who is to say that coercion didn't take place? Can you honestly say that a child of 11 or 12 can make the decision on their own to pose nude? Does a child of that age truly understand the implication of posing without clothes....art or not??? Children certainly do not have the LEGAL right to make that decision...who's to say a bit of coercion didn't take place on the part of the parent, the one who has the power to sign the release to allow the use of these photos????

What you have here is a case of an overzealous artist hoping to gain a bit of notoriety over a controversial exhibition and I am appalled that he is using children to gain this notoriety. I am sorry...but I don't get your argument here...where do we draw the line at what is or isn't appropriate to allow for children? Desensitizing the public to the naked form of a child in the name of art is pushing the envelope of good taste and certainly isn't being done in the best interest of the child...WHO, I might add is who we should be focusing on and not the right of the artist to display this work. My biggest beef isn't with the artist, incidentally, but the parents who allowed their kids to be used in this manner.

Just my :2cents:

Hugs,
Kate

[darkeyes]

Dus concern me sumwot...not that me cant c mumsy's argument..but me loathes censorship in ne case but havin not seen ne of the pics of these kids jus hav no idea wetha it cud b considered bad or not... been lots films made wer kids of that age hav been filmed naked...an been passed by the censor.. think its a dodgy area but until me knows more won for now comment further in ne detail... but hav seen pics in exhibitions of naked kids, painted an photographed...wy this 1 singled out?? Regardin parents, me hasta assume they wer happy for ther kids 2 b photgraphed... an took appropriate action that nowt untoward happened an had control ova wot wos an wosnt published.

Jeez..look at me mum an dads scrapbook ther more pics a me an me bro an sis naked than me had hot dinnas... an a load more in me auntie's an uncle's for that matta... sum times me thinks mayb we jus gettin 2 paranoid bout things like this...in Europe mostly no 1 gives a sod..seems mainly the English speakin so called anglo saxon world wich gets so uptite...

Victoria Lives!!!

[12voltman59]

This photographer should be well aware of the climate of the day that is very much against showing nude photos of underage children---it is one of those hard questions to decide if such a thing is "art" or exploitation.

The photographer and the museum directors should not be surprised at all that there was such a response to the exhibit and they had better be prepared to "pay the price."

The way things are these days--if I had little kids and we still had film that had to be processed at Target or Wal Mart--I would not take the standard pics of my wee ones in taking a bath or playing in the yard naked anymore--parents have been turned in by lab people to the cops for that no matter how innocent the photos are.

Being a photographer-- If I would take nude photos of anyone--- I am not going to take a nude picture of anyone less than say 27 or so and I will have to see a certified copy of their birth certificate before I take the photo because the way things are now ---I don't want there to be any room for misunderstanding or some such thing. I know that some artists who want to capture "youth" and want to take what appear to be photos of very young people will find of age models who can pass as being underage--I am not even going there--I would only take nude photos of people who are very clearly and unquestionably are adults---we are still in the freak out stage regarding chilrdren and sex---and rightly so it sadly seems----

Being an artst too--it bums me when exhbitions--especially ones that deal with sexual matters get shut down-but that this one has been considering the subjects of the photos are children---I don't have too much problems with that--it makes the environment all that much tougher to have exhibits of any sexual nature--even when the models are all adults taking part in things on a fully consensual basis.

Exhibits like this just go and play into the hands of those who don't like anything of a sexual nature at all and would wish to control such things---it gives them ammunition to point to things like this and say: "see-these artist types can't be trusted and will do sick things like show nude pics of kids if you let them!"

[jamieknyc]

Unfortunately, a great deal of 'art' is based on pushing the envelope on tickling prurient interest, and a lot of 'artistic expression' consists of seeking attention through shock value. And most of it is not being done for some ideal of advancing the artist's expression, or to combat censorship (which in America is almost nonexistent today), but rather for commercial exploitation.

[eddy10]

The human body is a beautiful work of art no matter what its age.

[wutheringheights]

I'm going to try and respond to all of the above comments in one hit.
First of all, I agree with DarkEyes that there seems to be a cultural difference here. Yes, there does seem to be more fear of such material in Anglo-Saxon countries. What to say about that.... hmmmmm....
With regard to what CsraKate says about children having the legal right to decide for themselves they want to pose nude, I think an interesting contradiction emerges here. On the one hand, you decry suspected coercion of children, but at the same time you feel their decisions should be made for them? You ask, 'who's to say coercion didn't take place?' But the point is: people are assuming coercion took place because THEY don't approve of the images.
In response to Voltman: I certainly agree that both the artist and the gallery were pretty naive if they didn't expect controversy, but 'pay the price' for what exactly? You raise a crucial issue when you talk about the dangers of images being misunderstood in the present climate. Exactly! This kind of censorship actually contributes to the 'prurience' it claims to abhor. As with any kind of censorship, I think its exponents need to take a hard look at their own values and what exactly they believe they're trying to prevent. Will the rate of child abuse seriously decrease if images of a naked minor are removed?
Paradoxically, the more obsessively authorities try to protect children, the greater their vulnerability. Central to the vulnerability of children is their economic dependence upon adults, most usually their parents and the polarization of age groups. Placing children in such an overprotective atmosphere restricts their social and intellectual horizons and limits their access to information. So we have a circular problem here. And let's not be naive about the cultural relativity of children's social capacities. In various cultures, 'children' are active participants in the community from a much earlier age than is the case in the West. We tend to take a lot for granted about what kinds of decisions they are or aren't capable of making for themselves. Remove their economic and educational segregation and it would be very interesting to see what would happen.
Finally, in response to JamieKNC: 'Censorship is almost nonexistent in America today'?! Censorship exists at different levels, both externally and internally. Government-imposed censorship is hardly necessary when there is such a proliferation of self-censorship, watering-down from the inside out and absorption of religious values into secular culture.
I find it very interesting when people passionately proclaim the 'rights' of children when, in fact, it is essentially their own values they are discussing.
On the one hand, it is an infringement of children's rights to photograph them naked but at the same time, the children don't have the legal 'right' to decide for themselves whether they are consenting. So what 'rights' are we talking about that nobody in fact seems to have?

[csrakate]

With regard to what CsraKate says about children having the legal right to decide for themselves they want to pose nude, I think an interesting contradiction emerges here. On the one hand, you decry suspected coercion of children, but at the same time you feel their decisions should be made for them? You ask, 'who's to say coercion didn't take place?' But the point is: people are assuming coercion took place because THEY don't approve of the images.



There is no contradiction here....I merely stated that children do not have the LEGAL right to make such decisions and it is up to their parents to make them on their behalf....but those decisions should be based on what is good for the child and I simply don't believe allowing your children to pose nude is in their best interest. In addition, I don't believe that children are capable of making such decisions on their own so I don't believe that their rights are being infringed.

Children are being forced to grow up too fast these days and it's high time we focus on what's best for them instead of what's best for our personal rights and freedoms. You want creative and cultural expression? I support that totally....I don't believe in censorship but more than anything, I don't believe in using children to promote selfish interests.
My opinion..simply stated.

[jamieknyc]

There is a reason why the law places restraints on what children have the legal right to consent to. Children, because of their age and dependency on adults, do not have the ability to protect themselves against exploitation. Parents cannot always be relied on to make proper decisions about the use of their children in such photography, either.

Also, eveyone who is an Internet porn user should be aware that possession of child pornography materials, including computer images, is a serious crime, and will get you not only sent to jail, but also listed in the sex offenders' registry.

[shameless agitator]

This is an interesting situation. I tried to google the images in question and wasn't able to find them. I was however, able to find other examples of his work. Nearly all of it was highly erotic/borderline pornographic. This leads me to lean a little more towards thinking his detractors may be right. It's of course not really possible to say without being able to see the work in question. I fear this is going to wind up being like the Maplethorpe case where we were all expected to just take the talking heads' word for it that his work was "obscene". I finally got to see his work many years later and thought it was wonderful. Personally, I have no beef with nude pictures of children if they're not sexualized. For all we know he was trying to show the innocence of youth. Is it just me, or does the whole thing feel kinda Kafkaesque?

[The Barefoot Contess]

This is an interesting situation. As others have said, it is hard to judge without seeing the pictures, but I think my comment applies anyway.
First, I agree with the OP that no one would be saying anything if the pictures depicted adults (well, they might, but not in the same way). I think we are VERY naive when it comes to children and their sexuality. Children ARE sexual beings, in a way that is different to adults, but they have sexual lives as well. Believing otherwise shows a desire on the part of the speaker to deny that reality, in the same way that we want think that old people are not sexual either because we find it "gross".
Second, someone pointed out that there might have been coercion. The key word is might. Prove there was coercion, then shut down the exhibition, not the other way around.
Third, it is hard to say who has control over children's rights. Anglo-Saxon and I'd say Western society in general overwhelmingly support the parents' right to decide "what is best for the child". I am not convinced this is the best way to go about this, but on the other hand I am also very uncomfortable with the state deciding on the lives of children.

[chook]

Well as an innocent bystander I did see a couple of very blurry pics of the ones in question on a news program and believe me knowing the Australian press as I do they would have picked the more explicit ones to begin with and to tell the truth they were really nothing to write home about, I've seen more revealing baby soap and shampoo commercials on tv. Personally I reckon some stuffed shirt got his or her nose outta joint and decided to make a name for themselves. Anyway what I saw was in no way sexually explicit or of an erotic nature....and believe me I know my porn. Now before you all start to jump on the band wagon just let me say that I am totally against child pornography in any way or form and I will never condone it. But I do want to ask everyone is where does art become pornography wether it had naked children or naked adults??? And the other thing is lets wait and see if these girls did this against their wills and if the parents forced them to do it for money, then let the judge decide.

Just my :2cents:

Cheers Chook :bigrin:

[darkeyes]

There is a reason why the law places restraints on what children have the legal right to consent to. Children, because of their age and dependency on adults, do not have the ability to protect themselves against exploitation. Parents cannot always be relied on to make proper decisions about the use of their children in such photography, either.



Neitha dus the law or the state Jamie hun wich 2 a gr8 degree reflects the prejudices of society at ne given moment in time... thats wy law evolves an changes an often statutes simply repealed... no 1 is perfect...

[*pan*]

The human body is a beautiful work of art no matter what its age.

i agree, theres too much dogma about the naked body, most people think theres something dirty or it is related to something sexual when they see a naked body no-matter what the age. people are warped in their thinking as far as sex goes and assume something sexual must have happened, sick bastards. i say it's just their warped sick ideas about sex that so quickly they assume that a naked photo of someone any age has to have sexual implications. whats wrong with these people ? must have something to do with the puritan way of thinking i guess. wake up people just because you see a naked body dosent mean they want sex or had sex or even thinking about sex lol. you would know this if you ever went to a family oriented nudist camp where adults and childern are roaming around in the flesh. the naked body is natural it's mans ideas and laws that have made it un-natural which dosent make it right. whats popular isn't always right and whats right isn't always popular.

[wutheringheights]

There is no contradiction here....I merely stated that children do not have the LEGAL right to make such decisions and it is up to their parents to make them on their behalf....but those decisions should be based on what is good for the child and I simply don't believe allowing your children to pose nude is in their best interest. In addition, I don't believe that children are capable of making such decisions on their own so I don't believe that their rights are being infringed.

Children are being forced to grow up too fast these days and it's high time we focus on what's best for them instead of what's best for our personal rights and freedoms. You want creative and cultural expression? I support that totally....I don't believe in censorship but more than anything, I don't believe in using children to promote selfish interests.
My opinion..simply stated.

The contradiction I was identifying was that you were insisting on the children's 'rights' then denying those same rights in the form of the children's making of their own decisions. However, you have now gone on to say that since you 'don't believe children are capable of making such decisions.... (you) don't believe that their rights are being infringed'.
Huh?! So do you see this as an issue of children's rights or don't you?
You're entitled to your opinion, Kate but how does one (a) make a blank, general statement about the mental/decision-making capabilities of a particular age group and (b) make absolutive generalizations about what is or isn't in children's interests?
If you're going to say that naked images of adolescents/children are automatically wrong, regardless of context (and this is how I interpret your comments), what else are you planning on condemning? Renaissance art, religious images, scenes in movies where parents are seen bathing their children, nappy commercials........
There seem to be many people concerned about the implications and possible effects of children posing nude but they aren't being very specific about what those implications/effects might be. In response, I could pose the question: what about the psychological effects of telling a 12-year-old girl her body is obscene and should be covered?
Child abuse flourishes in overprotective and sexually neurotic environments where children are forced to depend upon an ever-reductive and closed circle of 'protectors'. The highest incidence of child abuse seems to be perpetrated by people the child knows and who have gained the trust of the child and/or their family. Censoring (awareness of) the child's body indirectly benefits potential child molestors insofar as they are then able to potentially exploit the child's enforced innocence.
It is not just my contempt for censorship but also precisely MY CONCERN FOR THE WELFARE AND NON-REPRESSION OF CHILDREN that compels me to express my concerns here. I don't believe that it is to the benefit of children (or people of any age) to suppress their bodies or their sexualities.
Child abuse, like any sexual abuse, is, I believe, motivated largely by sexual repression and a pathological need to treat sex/sexuality reductively. Awareness of the body and of sexuality that isn't tainted by guilt is a step in the direction of creative and non-repressive co-existence.
I know you're well-intentioned, Kate but I think the kind of protectionism you advocate can in many ways lead to precisely what it fears.

[csrakate]

Please don't put words in my mouth! You asked for opinions and I simply gave you mine. Debate is one thing but drawing conclusions about someone merely because they don't agree with you is quite another! I made a simple statement...don't you presume to "know" me or what I feel...you have no idea. What you do need to know is that when you invite debate, at times you have those that don't agree...it is not up to you to berate them with your assumptions as to what they mean or feel. I never suggested that a child should be told that their naked image is obscene....those are YOUR words, not mine....You are drawing conclusions that are simply not correct. I simply said I don't think it is in the best interest of a child to have them pose nude to further the career of some artist hoping to make a personal statement. I said I think it is up to the parent to make sound and solid decisions that will affect the life of their child and I don't believe allowing them to pose nude is a good one. I said that children are too young and don't have enough life experience to make certain decisions regarding this matter. That is all I said...no mystery there, no underlying agenda....I am a mother who cares about the welfare of children...PLAIN AND SIMPLE!!...and I would appreciate it if you would not presume to take that any further than what it is.

[Hephaestion]

Csrakate puts the case extremely well and with great reserve. 100% support for her views here.

[wutheringheights]

Please don't put words in my mouth! You asked for opinions and I simply gave you mine. Debate is one thing but drawing conclusions about someone merely because they don't agree with you is quite another! I made a simple statement...don't you presume to "know" me or what I feel...you have no idea. What you do need to know is that when you invite debate, at times you have those that don't agree...it is not up to you to berate them with your assumptions as to what they mean or feel. I never suggested that a child should be told that their naked image is obscene....those are YOUR words, not mine....You are drawing conclusions that are simply not correct. I simply said I don't think it is in the best interest of a child to have them pose nude to further the career of some artist hoping to make a personal statement. I said I think it is up to the parent to make sound and solid decisions that will affect the life of their child and I don't believe allowing them to pose nude is a good one. I said that children are too young and don't have enough life experience to make certain decisions regarding this matter. That is all I said...no mystery there, no underlying agenda....I am a mother who cares about the welfare of children...PLAIN AND SIMPLE!!...and I would appreciate it if you would not presume to take that any further than what it is.

I think you're taking my comments far too personally. Part of this is my own fault insofar as I began the previous post with a quotation from you. However, I was not directing my remarks exclusively at you; I was addressing a broader current that seems to have taken shape. In light of your response, I now regret that I didn't make that clearer.
In fairness to myself, however, I did clearly and explicitly emphasize that I respected your right to your opinion and that I recognized the sincerity and integrity of your intentions. It was NEVER my intention to put words in your mouth or to implicitly malign your character or to impute any sort of insidious hidden agenda to your views on the subject. I don't believe I 'drew any conclusions' about you or your beliefs; nor that I attempted to impose silence on anyone (yourself included) with a differing opinion. Yes, I did invite debate, but surely debates can be on-going and multi-responsive. I did feel and I still feel that you have made some unwarranted generalizations... and this is based not on personal assumptions but on sentences that you yourself did in fact write. After all, not knowing you personally, I can only respond to the content of your thread posts and the implications that are apparent to me. If there has been a miscommunication of some sort, then that can be discussed and hopefully further clarified. I regret that you have taken offence, Kate because that definitely was not my intention. Once again, I will emphasize that I don't wish in any way to detract from your right to your opinion and believe it or not, I welcome your commentary precisely because it opposes mine. When I respond critically and analytically to another member's thread post, I hope that it will be taken in a spirit of intellectual exchange and NOT AS A PERSONAL ATTACK. I don't pretend, however, to recant any of my earlier commentary and I don't believe I invented anything.
There is a difference between 'putting words into someone's mouth' and identifying what appear to be contradictions in what another person is saying. It may well be that I have simply failed to understand some of your comments accurately, but I assure you there was no malicious intention to distort their meaning. I hope you will accept that I mean no denigration of you or your opinions. I completely support your right to criticize or disagree with any comments I or others on the site might make. LOL

[Delilah]

When I was a kid around 9 and my cousins between 9 and 12, we took naked photos of us just for fun. We knew what we were doing. We got in trouble but we had fun doing it. We pretended to be like those models on playboy magazine.

However...

If a grown man ask us to do it, we wouldn't know how to handle the situation because an adult ask us to do it. So....

WHAT THE HELL WAS THESE PARENTS THINKING IN THE FIRST PLACE????

Why would they concent in the first place? The photographer and the parents are BOTH to blame. One for initating as the other permit it.
That's the first thing we have to think about aside from censorship. I wouldn't even think about censorship. I would think more clearly on punishing this so called artist, the gallery, and then go after the parents for allowing it.

That's my three cents :2cents:

[csrakate]

I do appreciate your comments, wutheringheights, and I thank you for them. I am sure my feelings were not always so plainly stated by what I posted and I can see where you could question my responses. It's very difficult for me to express the frustrations I have as a 50 year old mother of two when I see issues regarding children. I guess I get frustrated in this day of technological advancement....one where the media is ever present at Britney's latest bare crotch shot...one where the exploits of the "bad" girl or boy are given such attention as to desensitize the rest of us into believing that this is just how things should be. I get frustrated at the parents who are so into their own lives that they sometimes forget that having children is not just a God given right, but a true responsibility that we should never take for granted. I do firmly believe that our kids are growing up much too fast and I simply hope that there is someone, someplace that is looking out for their best interests...someone who is helping them to grow as people before they continue to grow as sexual beings...someone to give them guidance and structure so that when the time comes, they are capable of making sound and realistic decisions regarding their lives. That is all that I am hoping for. That being said, I simply do not regard this "controversy" as one of censorship as much as one where some very bad decisions have been made and the best interest of the children involved have been ignored. There are far better ways to teach the beauty of the naked body than putting the naked images of children up for public display, and I can't help but believe that this was more about making a controversial statement than a case of artistic expression.

Hugs,
Kate

[jamieknyc]

Neitha dus the law or the state Jamie hun wich 2 a gr8 degree reflects the prejudices of society at ne given moment in time... thats wy law evolves an changes an often statutes simply repealed... no 1 is perfect...

No, you are wrong, sexual exploitation of children is a dangerous criminal activity. Criminal laws exist to protect the public from conduct that is harmful to others, of which this is a prime example. Saying that laws against sexual exploitation of children reflect 'social prejudices' is okay as an attitudinizing pose for college kids trrying to act sophisticated (so long as they don't try to carry it out) but is still objectively wrong.

[matterinhand]

I do find it surprising that people get all hot and flustered over photographs of naked children.
Jock Sturges took many pictures of naked teens and pre-teens at nudist beaches in France, both with and without their parents appearing (but always with their permission.)
Sally Mann has taken photographs of her children naked.
Both these people, and more, have their books available on Amazon.
Nobody forces anybody to log in and buy them.
Just as nobody drags people in off the streets to look at pictures in a gallery or museum.

Obviously people should use discretion, you wouldn't put a poster of a naked 10 yr old in the window to get people in without running the risk of it attracting the wrong person.
But when you can pick up a holiday brochure and see 'family' holidays advertised with a picture of a naked child building a sandcastle you wonder why thats allowed if the same picture advertised as 'art' in a gallery would attract criticism.

[darkeyes]

No, you are wrong, sexual exploitation of children is a dangerous criminal activity. Criminal laws exist to protect the public from conduct that is harmful to others, of which this is a prime example. Saying that laws against sexual exploitation of children reflect 'social prejudices' is okay as an attitudinizing pose for college kids trrying to act sophisticated (so long as they don't try to carry it out) but is still objectively wrong.

Not rong at all..but of course me jus a lil thicko who aint a lawyer.. hav not sed sexual exploitation aint rong or criminal or shud b allowed.. we not talkin bout that..wot me sayin is that society's morality an therefore its prejudices change an law is changed 2 reflect that..always has been..always will.. homosexuality wos a crime up till the 1960's (at least male in the UK..since we werent sposed 2 b able 2 b homosexual.. tee hee.) Abortion is anotha... in many ways even more contentious an controversial... an even more serious than a few pics wen considering kids future.. Jus 2 examples of society changin law cos of its changes in morality an prejudice..ther r lots more.. the degree 2 wich we react in law 2 the publication of exploitative pics of children or ne 1 else depends on wot society will put up wiv..an is prepared 2 accept.. sum things won change very much..on othas ther is more scope for change cos society's attitudes change more readily..

[Hephaestion]

If other people have got away with breaking the Law then that is their 'luck' for now. If when others break the same Law they are called to account, that is theirs.

That the works of those who have escaped the Law have it sold in public auction is no validation of their previous actions. What next - imprisoning children in Belgian and Austrian cellars to study their bodies? How much of that is now on the internet? Only tonight 25 May 2008 on the news at six pm it was given out that someone had tried to auction a human baby on eBay; is that attempted auction right also? A situation with the words 'Neverland' and 'celebrity' rears its ugly head - I can't think why.

By all means push the envelope but bear in mind that when this is done the outcome is invariably judged against what is reasonable and, as such, it is perfectly justifiable for society as represented by OUR state machinery to push back with overt and established opinion i.e. the Law. That is all that has happened.

Should anyone want to openly campaign to change the Law to allow the 'exploitation of children' then they are free to do so in the same way that others shall be free to oppose and throw rotten tomatoes at them.

[wutheringheights]

If other people have got away with breaking the Law then that is their 'luck' for now. If when others break the same Law they are called to account, that is theirs.

That the works of those who have escaped the Law have it sold in public auction is no validation of their previous actions. What next - imprisoning children in Belgian and Austrian cellars to study their bodies? How much of that is now on the internet? Only tonight 25 May 2008 on the news at six pm it was given out that someone had tried to auction a human baby on eBay; is that attempted auction right also? A situation with the words 'Neverland' and 'celebrity' rears its ugly head - I can't think why.

By all means push the envelope but bear in mind that when this is done the outcome is invariably judged against what is reasonable and, as such, it is perfectly justifiable for society as represented by OUR state machinery to push back with overt and established opinion i.e. the Law. That is all that has happened.

Should anyone want to openly campaign to change the Law to allow the 'exploitation of children' then they are free to do so in the same way that others shall be free to oppose and throw rotten tomatoes at them.

I'm sorry but I don't see the connection between baby trafficking and nude photography. Nobody is attempting to justify or defend the exploitation of children. The whole point is that nudity has been associated with exploitation and that blank assumptions have been made about the degree of the models' consent.
I've already written at length above about my feelings on this matter so I won't repeat myself, but I will reiterate the point that nobody has actually been specific about what consequences or implications they fear from this, nor has anyone explained where and how images of naked children automatically amount to child pornography. After all this, I'm not even sure how many of the exhibition's detractors have even seen the photographs in question. Furthermore, the other photographers mentioned above were not 'getting away with breaking the Law', since the material in question didn't in fact fall outside of legal parameters. The whole legal issue in Sydney right now surrounding this exhibition is that the potential prosecutors will need to prove that the images are in fact 'sexualized'.
Coverage of the incident can be found on the internet for those interested, including testimony from different sources. Part of the crux of the detraction, as represented in the media, seems to be that Henson has taken and exhibited these photographs at a time when many people are concerned more generally about 'sexualization of children in the media'. One commentator admitted he found the images 'not in any way pornographic', but contended that the present mores and media 'sexualization of children' placed them in a less acceptable context. Now, this is an interesting position: it is effectively suggesting that non-pornographic work be suppressed because there exists pornography elsewhere. Another legal representative in Melbourne (Henson's home town) suggested that had the models been under 10, there wouldn't have been a problem but because they were (supposedly) between the pubertal ages of 10 and 15, it was concerning (!!) So, by that rationale, Henson is guilty of not having 'exploited' someone even younger?! It's not even clear how the age of the model is even known given that authorities have been unable to contact her. I will end by providing just a little more background on the origin of the charges. Prior to the exhibition's opening, certain (unnamed) parties came across an image on the invitations and others on the gallery website and communicated their concerns to an independent child protection group. Simultaneously, the gallery owners received threatening calls/messages and were allegedly holed up in the gallery against angry protestors outside until the police arrived. Due to community pressure, the exhibition was suspended and several images confiscated. Henson has received the support of the Law Society of NSW as well as other noted legal officials. So it is in fact not a case of 'the Law' against Henson and his 'pornography'; it is a case of someone being investigated based upon certain public members' INTERPRETATION of the images in question.

[welickit]

We visit nudist resorts all the time and see people of all ages. Odd that youngsters can feel free and visit a nudist resort but not have their picture taken. We guess it pretty much depends on the person viewing the picture or the person live. If it is sexual to the viewer then we think it is probably better left unviewed. If it is a matter of everyday life then who really cares?:bipride:

[Hephaestion]

Dear Wuthering,

You asked for opinion on this matter and now you have it. Overall, it is wrong to exploit children in this way. Were the exhibit a photographic study on 'old tennis shoes in a box' I doubt whether anyone would be bothered and the adults involved wouldn't really have 'product' to peddle.

The Law already embodies an established interpretation of the situation and that is almost certainly why the People's state machinery has moved into action after public disquiet. Our collective systems of justice say that, if prosecution follows, the case against the 'offenders' must be proven regardless. Then, as defendants, they shall have their day in court to be heard.

Possibly philosphy is competing too hard with common sense on this matter. The general concensus in western society is that things to do with the minors/children, sexuality and adults must have clear blue water about them.

Warm regards

Jim