Child Pornography

My concern with the media and the attitude towards this particular artwork, is that there are some simple questions that could be asked, like, NO.1…Did the parents give permission. NO.2 What is the content of the work, is it representing something in particular. NO.3… was the person/child in question happy to sit for the photos/art. Other than that, if its pornographic, fair enough, something should be done. But from what little I have seen and what we have heard in the media, there has been no explanation on what the artwork is about or whether this was organised through the parents etc.

I believe there is only a line drawn if it is endangering another person or being. So far media are not giving us any idea except that this was pornographic, and of course, we don’t know that we have not seen the pictures, although a couple were briefly shown that covered obvious parts of the body, and they did not seem pornographic to me. Hope I make sense lol.

ive been following this story and I have no idea still how i stand on this….the most interesting comment ive seen so far was that the child was not of an age to give informed consent and that she wouldn’t understand the implications of having the photos taken and displayed…..

and i have also seen the photos on the news and while i wouldn’t consider them pornographic they are quite provocative…

Just because some out there are not in control of themselves should not dictate that I or anyone be restricted from photographing and presenting what we feel to be beautiful art.

And just because some people find this kind of photograph ok should give them right to dictate whether or not they should stand up and say so. You know – you say you like it, I say I dont.

At the end of the day a child is a child. When government makes laws to stae that kids need parental consent for many things in their life, then no adult should be allowed to make a choice like this on behalf of a child. If what people are saying is right, and its up to the child, then the law concerning the age of adulthood needs to be reviewed.

While parental consent is required though – no adult should make this call for the 13 year old girl – who is naked in the photograph.

Tony why only photograph young girls, why not young boys. I have firm views that kids of this age or younger do not fully understand the ramifications of this type of photography whether it be artistic or not. I have young gitls one even 13 and lots of freinds with boys girls of this age and I know that none of them is mentally responsible enough to think through what posing for this would do. I am not say the guy is a pornographer as i have seen all the images but I wonder where her parents where in all this and what where they thinking. As for body issues, mine have been brought up to view the body as beatiful but still they comment when they see nudity. there is enough problems with young girls and anorexia do we need naked photos out there to make it worse.

just to note that Bill Henson does photograph boys too

I agree with all the against displaying under aged nudity. Many adults would take advantage of young children to make a buck.

The line has to be drawn out clearly. No under aged nudity full stop makes sure there is no doubt to what may or may not be quite right.

“Young girls have such beautiful lines and most an innocence and purity that the older women have long ago lost through society conditioning.”

I’m flabbergasted by this statement…..young girls will soon lose that allure and their innocence by this type of thinking. And I take offense to the idea that I’ve lost my beauty and line, because I’m 41…in fact, I dare say I like my line a hell of a lot more….

I’m tired of the term “Art” being used to justify just about anything, it is subjective so I guess it will be used.
Photographing young people naked or semi-naked is going to enhance them how?

Let our children and young people be just that…..

http://www.news.com.au/gallery/0,23607,5031912-5010140-1,00.html
This is a link to some of the photo’s..

“No under age nudity full stop” who is going to tell the kids, next we will be back to top to toe coverups on the beach, people need to step back and look at what is going on here, there is nudity and there is “nudity” as in pornography, maybe releasing some images particularly the girl was careless in this age, but many of his works are truley excellent for their depth, colour and meanings, Google Bill Henson and look at many of his images including the offending image on some of the related sites, his own site appears to be off line currently, but a lot of his work is there to see, it is not all about nudity, there is some great art there also.

I have to reinforce what Lisa has to say on it as well – we more mature women have not lost our beauty – we have just had it enhanced by good judgement and common sense when it comes to making decisions for our children if we have any. At 44 years young, I weigh in at under 130 Lbs – if my lines get any smaller or more refined, I will disppear.

Peter,

we are not having a go at Bill Henson – per say, we are discussing underage, nudity…...

“No under age nudity full stop” who is going to tell the kids, next we will be back to top to toe coverups on the beach,

I think this was meant in a different context to which you have read it Peter. There is nothing more beautiful than a little naked baby playing in the bathtub or running along a sandy beach having fun. The image is one of purity and playful innocence – it shows life, as it is. What isnt playful and innocent is a photograph of a naked 12/13 year old [male or femal], posing in a provocative way as to make the viewer see non innocence or things that could be argued should not be broadcast by children.

The fact remains – while a child needs parental consent to pose naked in this way for a photograph – then the photograph shouldnt exist [no parent should be able to decide this for their kids].

If people really think its ok for a child to want to do this, and that they should be able to make that decision for themsleves – then children should be classed as adults in all walks of life. Drinking age should come down to meet it, Drugs, working, smoking, have sex – all of it. If a child has the mental capability to decide to pose like this, they should not be stopped from doing all of the other things mentioned – but they are, and they are for good reason.

I feel it’s important to stay with the subject of this matter – that is of child photography (note I didn’t say pornography). In his defence I don’t think Tony was dissing the older woman’s form, you will see from his work that he admires every type of the female form. Each age brings it’s own beauty, now that I’m in my late 30s I’m having to learn to love my changing body and I appreciate my daughter’s changing body in a special way. If I could I would capture her changing beauty in a flattering way as Bill Henson did, my parents wanted to capture it and caught me looking gawky (fuilly dressed I add) and ugly, it affected me and to show my daughter the beauty of her body would be a very special gift.

The body is a wonderful thing, from new baby to the eldery, both male and female and it’s so sad that we can’t share that openly. It’s a sad world in many aspects and although I agree that publicly displaying images can encourage the trolls of the world, I’m also sad that I can’t get to see the true works of modern art.

I find it fascinating that this recent heated debate has only occurred since the media picked up the story.

Can anybody show me any recent discussions about the rights or wrongs of these images of Bill Henson here on RedBubble or any other ‘art’ networking’ website pre this current sensationalist media beatup??

What a huge influence the media has on our lives. And its the media that sexualises most things. Take a look in any magazine aimed at any aspect of our lives and see that sex sells.

As the father of a young woman, who was not that long ago a teenager, if the intent of the image being created is clearly not to sexualise her, but to portray her as an emerging adult, in a transition stage of her life, i am happy with letting her pose, provided that she wishes to do so.

My daughter at this age was about the same build / stage of development as this young woman in question. My daughter would not have posed, for that is her personality. But if she had wished to i feel that she would be able to make the choice, if the intent is right.

Now the issue of the media and therefore society sexualising these images has probably done more harm than good for the ‘model’; she will probably be very disillusioned by the way society – we ‘adults’ – have put our misguided sexual issues into something that was (probably) meant to be a representation of a young caterpillar beginning to turn into a beautiful butterfly.

Of course with the stats at 1 in 3 women and 1 in 7 men having been sexually molested, its no wonder many people are sexualising these images with the well intended (possible but not probable) prevention of sexual predators preying on young people. No wonder so many people, now they know of these images, are saying ‘not acceptable’.

It is though a sad day when ‘art’ turns to ‘porn’.

Its a sad day when honest well meaning people trying to represent a concept, an idea, are misrepresented by ….....the power of the media.

I don’t need to see the young butterfly emerging………… naked…………….. to see it……

I think it is a tragic day, when the term Art is used this way, I think it is a criminal day when we don’t leave our children and young people alone….

We are not talking about human development classes here…..

For Fucks Sake…..

Hi LisaG, just to be clear I do not support underage nudity, particularly if someone is benefiting from it. Kids need to be protected at all times.

to show my daughter the beauty of her body would be a very special gift.

totally agree with that – but to show it to the world on her behalf – is a bit different

You raise some really interesting points.
In today’s world it seems that the media cannot get enough of paedophiles, we hear about them constantly and how are children must be protected. But as I understand it there are no more than there were 50 years ago. When I was very young child I often used to run around my back garden naked,especially if the paddling pool was out, and I think there is even a photo of me doing just that taken by my mum because I put on her big 1970s sun hat and it looked funny. Until recently no one would have thought about taking such a picture of their own child. Now it’s socially unacceptable.
Because of this i now refuse to take any pictures or do any paintings of anyone under the age of 18.

I find it fascinating that this recent heated debate has only occurred since the media picked up the story.

Could be that people didnt know about it until they did

Samuel, there is a distinct difference between the taking a family shot, of a child having fun in the buff
and a studio image of a naked young person…..

I disagree also, I think there is a boundary and he crossed the line, which, yes, is Art in a way I guess, challenging perception or social values, but a 13 year old does in no way know exactly what they are doing, and even if she did give consent, it should mean nothing..

The images were provocative, and not just topless, and while the line of ‘porn’ may not have been reached, it shouldn’t matter,.

“Many adults would take advantage of young children to make a buck.”

Totally agree, next you will have sexual predators posing as photographers, its just not on in my opinion..

I apologises for my messy gamma and missing words, my dyslexia means I normally have to rewrite everything I do two or three times.

so please add the word “twice” in the sentence “until recently no one would have thought twice about taking such a picture of their own child”

@ Steve Bullock,

this happens all the time, the lure of you’ll be a fashion model, there are predators out there right now, and young girls in particular that get swept up in glamour….that are taken advantage of….

I need to step back, I’m reading my own stuff back and see I’m missing words and spelling errors…..apologies.

Its the taking of the photograph in such a provocative manner – then showing it to the world on exhibit thats the problem – not the taking of the innocent playful family image, to be kept safely in the family album, where the child can see it later in life and say – OMG, dont you ever show that to any of my friends [which is usually what they say].

I think their may be a very fine line here Lisa.

If a parent took a photo of their own child in a studio setting, because the parent was also a photographer and wanted to make a good quality picture. where does that stand?

This is why I just wont go near any kind of art of anyone clothed or otherwise of under 18. The issue is so emotionally charged that it’s not worth risking a career over it.

I think Samual there is a difference between taking a family photo and a photo on display for sale in a gallery.

The girl in question is 12 years old – she is a child who hasn’t even developed breasts yet and the images portray her in a sexualised way. I think it’s really sad that people like you seem to be incapable of leaving these children alone to develop their own sense of sexuality in their own way and their own time, without having to deal with all these adult male projections. They’re children for god’s sake, of course they’ll yes to these pictures because it’s a form of attention and any attention at 12 is good. But there’s no excuse for men like you – you should know better…..

Samuel,

I’d think there is something very wrong with a parent wanting to stage a nude shot of their child/teen….
That completely eradicates innocence……. the very innocence seen in a candid shot.

Well you may be right about the whole displayed in a gallery thing. But frankly I’m 35 now and if my mum, who is also an artist wanted to make a piece of art based on that family photo and hang it in a gallery would that change the image?

Would it suddenly go from being legal to illegal?

Samuel,

You’re 35 now, you can make an informed decision…...

my daughter is 14.he would not be posing simi naed/naked for anybody_.I don’t care how beautiful her “lines” are.she is a child.

the child in question is now an adult – I wonder if the image was displayed whilst she was still a child? Does anyone know?

Yes your right Lisa staging a photo in a studio does change things. But I know for a fact i have a baby photo of me take when 1 years old by a professional photographer in a studio. It’s just a baby photo and my parents just wanted a good quality shot to remember me as a baby. But if we just go what is and isn’t legal we’ll start to wander into some muddy grey areas. I’m just concerned here that the media has blown up these issues, and now we have all lost our innocence.

I wonder too if this photo of the 12 year old girl would have been taken, if there wasn’t this kind of controversy. it seems many artist hear the Zeitgeist and then swim against the tide to get publicity.

I will add my tuppence worth here…as a father whom has had his daughter sucked into the call of glamour and or modelling nude at the age of 12/13 (unbeknowns to the parents) I am totally appalled with this person taking these shots under the guise of ART…that is total bullshit…I don’t have the time of day for any arsehole to use the excuse to photograph juveniles as art…to me it is pedophelia trying to be disguised as art….18 years or older is fine…but do not try and tell me a child of 12 or 13 has the full understanding of what they are doing…and the pricks who are shooting should have far more sense…or be closely watched….well done to the police for closing this down…thankyou

I for one am glad that this debate has been opened up in the way it has. I have two teenage girls who model for my work, although both are over the age of consent and young adults. The frequently get seen naked around our house – we have an open kind of lifestyle here – and they just like the freedom of walking around half dressed most of the time, as do I.

Not at any time would I photograph either of them fully exposed – I have photographed the older sister naked, but covered with her own body parts [arms legs etc], and my girls wouldnt want to be photographed in a fully exposed way. The youngest one in particular wont even show a little cleavage when the camera is out.

So the point to the story. The older sister, now 20, asked me about five years ago [at 15] to photograph her naked for her facebook account. I, being her Mum naturally said no way, and told her she was not allowed to post a shot like that onto her facebook account. She listened and today, she is thankful for that advice. Helenes point is so valid. My daughter at the age of 15 wanted to woo the lads, and woo as many as she could. She wanted to gain ranking in the competition stakes of facebook community challenge against the other females on the site – and now, she knows better. She has a friend who did post a naked image of herself onto the site due to peer pressure, and she regrets that terribly now. The photo has been removed from her account, but she still sees it displayed on a hundred other profiles around the site. It has pushed her to the point where she doenst go out any more, where she is called a slut and a common whore by her peers and to where she is bullied – this is a terrible life for a young 20 year old beautiful girl, who just thought it would be a good idea at the time and didnt know enough to look into the future isnt it.

This whole thing has made me reconsider my art comppletely. There are posts condoning this sort of work, and I wonder if I want the people who have made them looking at my girls – it makes me want to stop creating and posting portraits for fear of who is looking and in what context.

In response to Samuel…political correctness has gone way overboard…and yes I have pics of my kids nude to…that was their attire half the time around the house…but not in public, and to be in a position where you are not allowed to or are classified a pervert to take pics of your own kids on the beach is totally stupid.

As a mother of two girls, aged 8 and 15, I definately say no to nude photographs of them, they lose too much of their innocence by what they learn in the school yard and to me i feel we need to protect our children as much as we can from the warped minds of some, I would prefer to never see nude photographs of underage children, because, frankly, I find it distasteful and just wrong, however I know I can not stop others from taking these shots…. yes my daughter ( 15yo ) models for me, but NEVER ever nude or semi nude, I do photograph adult women nude, because if its done the right way,its very tasteful and artistic, but c’mon, there has to be a limit, I sure as hell would never allow my child to do nudes at her age, I have seen the photo’s that are in question, and i was , to tell you the truth, really pissed off at how this guy was allowed to get away with it, how many others are now going to claim they are photographers and try to get away with doing the same sort of photographs????

With or without consent of the person being photographed is it not illegal for anyone to show naked pictures of a child? Afterall the young girl was and is a child!!!! there really is no argument in my opinion. People have to realise that seeing these type of images will strike a nerve with a great deal of people; for what ever reason. And anyway who would let their young pose for this type of portraits!

And anyway who would let their young pose for this type of portraits!

thats a key point – while people dont accept it, and make a stance to say they find it distasteful – not too many hopefully. Make it acceptable and the right thing to do – lots and lots of people will do it, which is the whole point of people objecting to it.

Unfortunatly there are a lot of people who would look at any naked picture art or not as being free porn. So leaving a young woman open to any undesirable attention is a vioaltion. Its that simple. Not only that but the potential for the media backlash. Which is making it all alot worse. Is this what Bill wanted to happen i wonder, any exposure is good exposure!

I’ve done quite a bit of travel in asia and have disgusted to see how young girls even younger than 12 be subject to sexual exploitation, trafficking and naked pornography. As they say, ‘out of little things big things grow’ and I would hate to see the innocence of children not protected here in Australian and the wertern world.

It may seem an over reaction to Bill Henson who’s ethics and morals are unquestionable, but a line has to be drawn to protect the young.

I agree with you Lisa that innocence of the young is so precious and should be protected at any cost. The human body is beautiful to photograph at any age, so by drawing the line at age 18, there is still so much to be photographed. Myself 42 feel that my body is as beautiful as when was in my 20’s. perhaps even more so, as more comfortable with my body, something that comes with age.

To spend time with a child that has had their innocence ripped from them, which i did in Cambodia, makes you feel very strongly about stamping out this from happening at any level.

I know that Bill Henson’s photographs are a far cry from what I witnessed in asia, but there is no control who views the art. Peodophiles would be drawn to these photographes for obvious reasons and who in their right mind would be comfortable for their daughter to be viewed by such a creature as this.

THERE IS NO CONTROL WHO IS VIEWING !!! Good point! To put it out there is to put these young people under fire.

And Peodophiles are very cunning, sick individuals who know how to weave themselves into the lives of the young. So protect the young!!!!

I raised this point in the main forums the other day and feel it such a strong point, that it needs to be raised here too.

Please make no misunderstanding to the red dot next to my name with this post – I do not work for Redbubble, nor do I speak for them [the red dot is a volunteer dot that signifies I greet new people to ths site and help them out with the technical aspects of uploading, finding their way around etc]

Ok, so back to the point

People who post that they think this kind of censorship to be wrong, against Art, damaging to Art etc. I take it that by your statements that you do not condone this kind of censorship, where a photographer shouldnt put on public display an image of a child with no clothes on, and you would stand up and object to it, and refuse to support it?

Then why, do you accept the TOS and use a site where the terms state – you cannot post images of nude children – you support it here, you use a site that supports and condones this censorship [which I am so glad of] – yet you find it intolerable that people have objectionable views to this kind of censorship elsewhere? What does that say.

Its like saying dont kill animals while youre eating your steak!

That law protects children. It is not so much about censoring a particular photograph as being too provocative.

Well said Demon, glad the majority here have some common sense..

tony i agree with you my friend, once more you surprise me with your wisdom. why should we be disallowed from making art involving any kind of humanity… in western culture it is forbidden to make images of humans from the ages of 6 or so to 16 or so. the question truly must come down to if the child is hurt in any way? if this is the case, then i agree.
and that must be the case in terms of porn. but nudity is not necessarily porn, and in terms of aesthetics the way i believe you and i share, how can there be a question of damage? i do not find images of children erotic. i am passionately opposed to child pornography (more than i am can possibly express, though i was not abused as a child, i have known adults destroyed by sexual abuse. i find it one of the most despicable possible acts a human can take.)

we are disallowed by our society to view humans of this age. it seems a tragedy to deny that their bodies can be beautiful, that we can be moved by them, because of the minority of sickness, abherrant minds in the monstrous form of paedophiles.

in a sense this is something more that these predators have taken from us, from the world.

perhaps this… – to take the photographs, and then allow the choice of the child whether or not they are viewed once they have become an adult? to never have them seen by anyone until this time? – also with the additional necessity that the shots be merely nude, and in no way sexual.

?

-paul

Very valid point Paul, and yes, to take a photograph and then hold it until the teenager becomes and adult before putting it on view is an option. What though, 7 years down the line [which would be the case of this little girl], she not only turns around and says – no, I dont want it shown to the world, but actually turns around and breaks down into tears, tells the parent and photographer that she really didnt want to have that photo taken, but felt that she didnt want to say no to her parents for fearing to disappoint them at the time. What if she then went on to become withdrawn and feel exposed in a way that she really couldnt cope with – what then? Too late to take it all back at that point isnt it?

And i would like to add the invitations to the opening featured one of the more questionable pictures; was that really nessessary? why choose that perticular photo? in hindsight would he change that decision? surly he expected an uproar; after all he is no stranger to upsetting people with simular images

I think a lot of it is to do with exposure Belle – maybe the want for exposure in this case has or will be his downfall. We all walk a tight line with regard to what exposure we want on times – it is whether we choose to cross it or not that defines how well we do it.

oh for sure Julie he just went too far, he really cant blame anyone media included. The intent to make a piece of Art is one thing but surly the thought had crossed his mind that these pieces were going to upset even a small minority of people.

surly the thought had crossed his mind that these pieces were going to upset even a small minority of people

Exactly. I think the thought probably crossed his mind that it would probably infuriate a large number of people – thus giving him the exposure he so greatly desires, but at what cost, not only to him now, but to the youngsters that he has allowed to take part in his career advancement.

All actions have consequences – and he must face up to those now – no matter what they may be, or how harsh they may be – he really should have thought about the outcome while treading the line so closely. Has he commited the offence called child pornography – IMHO, no he hasnt gone that far. Has he exploited the tender and likely unknowing to consequences mind of a child to advance his career – IMHO, yes he has. The question in my mind is, if allowed to keep going unchecked – just how far would he go if he has already gone this far.

Congrats Tony. What if our peak sexual essence is when we’re newborns? We, society, then proceed to discourage sexuality. Interesting.

Can some one tell me if the photographs were for sale? I assume so as they were in a gallery. Sorry, I don’t want to detract from the debate, the question was asked to me by a friend and I was uncertain.

What if our peak sexual essence is when we’re newborns

But it isnt is it? And until it is and the law or society says a new born baby is capable of making decisions for himself/herself – adults need to protect them. This is not about discouraging sexuality, sexuality is something for young people to explore, enjoy, learn all on their own [or with a partner if they so choose] in their own time – and about not letting others explore it for them.

I dont know if they were for Sale Lisa. It would make no difference for me whether they were for sale or not, but I can understand why the question may be asked. I will see what I can find on it for you.

Agreed, Julie it makes no difference to me either…...and I argued that point too…..
I just thought, I’d ask the question. I have been told that the National Gallery of Victoria has purchased a couple, but I’m not sure that is true. But if it is, what is that implying? Scary.

Yes Lisa – thats very scary, although I doubt with all the controversy surrounding this case now – that they will show them – I certainly hope not anyway.

@ Philosophy Lee

Fuck……………..yes we are sexual beings and yes if you open up a person’s natural sexuality before emotional and mental maturity then yes, you’ve fucked up a person. I’ll tell you why, we have built our society based upon moral rules, a code. That is reality. Whether it is right or wrong is of no consequence now, it is as it is. So all those that think it is prudish, stifling, against the natural flow….too fucking bad, you are happy to abide by certain so called civilised ways but want to banish others, as taboo.
They are taboo because we made it that way. Don’t fuck with the minds of those born of our world and in our world.

It seems that this whole debate has evoked strong feelings from many of you, and whilst personally i would err on the side of caution and say that perhaps we should not be subjecting underage children to this sort of art, we do have to decide what ‘underage’ actually is….who makes that decision? Take some of the emerging 3 rd world countries where girls as youg as 11, 12 and 13 are already classed as adults, have children and are actually married. Yes we in the civilised world think this is morally wrong but do they? No they consider it to be the norm.
We on the other hand have been conditioned by society and our rules that this is wrong and i for one prefer to conform to rules rather than oppose them unless it affects mine, my friends or my families personal wellbeing. So in all fairness Bill Henson is taking on a challenge he is unlikely to win and will probably be prosecuted, so whilst i understand your point of view Tony, do you think you can recondition everyone in the civilised world to your way of thinking so that we find this situation acceptable…..probably not, and whilst I respect your point of view as a great photographer and undestand that perhaps you do not find this sort of image erotic, i think it would be stupid to expect others to do the same.

So you’re suggesting child slavery as a viable option for our society?

I agree – in many asian countries this is the norm, but what has it managed to achieve for them. Thailand is a good example. When I visited Pataya about 10 years ago, selling sex was the normal way of life, even for very young kids. Kids were put out to work in this field to provide income for their families – but it was the western visitors that fed the trade, not the Thai community itself. I visitied with a Thai friend of mine who lives in the UK – she told me that although it is the usually way of life over there – it is not something that they mostly want to do, its done more out of a necessity to make ends meet. Also, she told me how when males are born into families over there, their lives are quite different to females in that they are made to feel that they cannot provide for the family – which results in so many of them taking the step towards changing gender. so, although it is usual in some countries, particularly in the third world countries – it is often the case that it is not the preferred way of life.

And we cannot use the way of life from elsewhere in the world to be comparitive if defence of what Henson has done – if that is to be the case – We need to consider if it is correct to cut off the hands of those who steal, hang those who commit more serious crimes etc.

Totally agree with you Julie, I was referring more towards African Tribes. What happens in Thailand is appalling. I think the point that Tony is making is that who decides if it is Art or Child Pornography? Who has the right to decide when a child becomes an Adult? Should we challenge the decisions of our governments on subjects such as this? Personally i think most western governments have made the right decisions which are designed to protect the young, naive people namely our children in society from the predators that are out there. That said when does Art become Pornography…..that decision is in the mind of the person viewing the picture!

Wow, what a firestorm of commenting. I have read only partway through what’s been written above and already I feel a need to add some thoughts of my own, tho I haven’t taken the time yet to organize them properly so they’re in a bit of a jumble.

First, the original poster says he finds “the bodies of some women aged as young as 13 or 14 to be aesthetically beautiful.” My response: no female aged 13 or 14 is a woman, she is a child beginning to display some of the physical aspects of a woman.

Second, a responder above wrote “If a child has the mental capability to decide to pose like this, they should not be stopped ….” My response: the fact is that no child has the mental capacity to make important decisions; precocious as they might seem, their brains are still not fully developed. If they could make adult decisions, they would be allowed to vote.

I did look at the link to some of the Henson photographs that started all this. Some of them are IMHO artistically beautiful, some of them are simply shots of a naked child, and some of them are disturbingly lighted and posed to enhance the vulnerability, almost as an offering of this subject’s innocence.

On the other hand, there is an artist on RB whose photographs of mostly unclothed children between the ages of approximately four to eight are provocatively posed and lighted, and these pictures are commented on as stunning, amazing, and beautiful. What I see as mere babies posed with plump, dark red moist lips and heavily lidded seductive glances with wispy tendrils of hair entwined with flowers, and so forth, I frankly consider inappropriate but have never commented. Others call it art, which we all know is sujbective; who am I to say these pictures could be misused.

I did also go to the Childhood group, where there are over 300 pictures, and I managed to look through only about a dozen. On such a cursory examination, I noticed that by and large, people have managed to portray the beauty and innocence of children who are fully clothed and engaged in activities that to not entail seductive poses or maturely suggestive glances.

We are still left with a quandary, and discussion is a good thing. Women and children have been objectified, used, and abused for as long as humanity has been on this planet, and it’s not going to stop now. However, as purveyors of art on this website, do we not have some responsibility to protect the defenseless? The children who have been portrayed in vulnerable settings, whether with parental consent or not (the child’s consent does not count), represent millions of children who may never have their picture taken, but who are the targets of perverts who may not actually get their ideas from suggestive pictures of children. But suggestive pictures of children do nothing at all to prevent people who are inclined to abuse from their proclivities.

Some good points well put Ginny….i also think that in some instances Men, the handicapped and dozens of other defenceless types of people have also been Objectified, used and abused as well, but i accept that women and children over the years have had a pretty raw deal and someone has to take responsibility for protecting the defenceless in this world. Saying that i do know women in particular in some instances have said ” i can play them at there own game” and actually taken advantage of the situation…and good on them to!

P.S. The fact is that there is a world-wide exploitation of children for sex. It may be closer to you than you think. so don’t believe it is a problem in only third-world countries. Children for sex are actually kept in cages. Whether or not you think that the artistic representation of innocent children is OK, please consider helping World Vision combat this problem with a small monthly donation. Thank you.

Second, a responder above wrote “If a child has the mental capability to decide to pose like this, they should not be stopped

Yes, they should.

As I stated earlier, I have a 17 year old daughter who wouldnt even let a bit of cleavage show if the camera was out – this maywell change if there was a promise of a pair of top of the range designer jeans as a prize or the promise of fame or fortune – Teenagers like attention, they like stuff to call their own, and they make a lot of their decisions on what they can get out of things. I wonder how many will later in life,wonder as they look at the torn old jeans in the wardrobe, think, yes – they were worth it. I have lost a lot of friends over what I did, I have been bullied and called names for it – but boy, those jeans were worth it – I think not many of them. A lot of teenagers are spoilt brats [I know, I have had three of them], and it is even more of a temptation to make a dcision like this, to gain attention, or a prize if the family are not particularly well off.

As Ginny points out – if they are old enough to make this kind of decision, they are old enough to vote, work, have sex, drink, smoke, take drugs and everything else that an adult can decide to do, but I dont see many parents consenting to their kids doing most of these things – and that is quite correctly the right thing to do.

G’day all,
Interesting topic and one in which I have some very strong opinions on. However I have some more work to do so will just jot down a few things.

It would appear the side of against is based primarily on emotion, not surprising considering the subject on this site. But there are stronger more primal feelings involved here that should be acknowledged but usually aren’t because of personal fear and or guilt.

A couple of points to ponder if I may:

1. Within galleries and galleries all over the world there are paintings of nude or partial nude children and youth of all types colours and races painted by very respectable and enormously famous artists. Some of those works are worth millions of dollars. These are not frowned upon or complained about except for a couple of religious fundamentalist groups; why is this so????

2. Those same works of art appear in history and art reference books that are accessed and often guided to by teachers or research by kids starting school right through to the aged learning art to keep busy. Except for the aforementioned group is there anybody complaining? No?....Why? I would have though that at least a couple of you in the negative would be burning museums!

3. Has anyone read any Teen mags lately? particular the type read by 10/11 to 18 year old girls. Why isn’t there people complaining, and not having a burn the Teen Mag day?

Do I detect an element of hypocrisy here?.....I think I might :-)

3. I’ve got to go at the moment but I think some of you need to check out the works of photographers the likes of David Hamilton, Patrick Litchfield, Lucien Clergue also have a look through the Victorian Nude Era,. These are the ones off the top of my head but there are many excellent photographers out there doing this type of work. If their work is not beautiful…...then I’m the next President of the United States.

Could anybody please give me directions on how to get to where the information on this incident is located. I’d better read it before I comment further. Thanks :-)

News gallery
the model
and another link

I do not care if it sounds like hypocrisy we live here and now not in the time when some of these things were accepted as the norm.
today we believe it is wrong in all ways to use children as objects of “art”

1. Within galleries and galleries all over the world there are paintings of nude or partial nude children and youth of all types colours and races painted by very respectable and enormously famous artists. Some of those works are worth millions of dollars. These are not frowned upon or complained about except for a couple of religious fundamentalist groups; why is this so????

Firstly, how do you know that I and others here dont frown upon these – you are assuming that I/we dont perhaps?. This post is not concerned with those – why would we add our opinions on that here? As it happens, I feel that painted art of naked children from years ago, is sligtly different in that the children may not have had to pose naked for them. If they did, yes I would be opposed to them, but seeing that the artists are probably dead by now, I wouldnt see the point in adding to discussions about it here.

2. Those same works of art appear in history and art reference books that are accessed and often guided to by teachers or research by kids starting school right through to the aged learning art to keep busy. Except for the aforementioned group is there anybody complaining? No?....Why? I would have though that at least a couple of you in the negative would be burning museums!

Again – we do not know that there is nobody complaining do we? Or do you know things that we may all not know? The same would imply with these images as what I have written above. If I saw Hensons image appear in a book, I would frown upon the book too.

3. Has anyone read any Teen mags lately? particular the type read by 10/11 to 18 year old girls. Why isn’t there people complaining, and not having a burn the Teen Mag day?

Actually no I havent, but I have always screened what was bought and read by my daughters in this household while they were young. Just because these things exist, doesnt make them, or what Henson has done right?

Do I detect an element of hypocrisy here?.....I think I might :-)

I have an opinion on this, and I am no hypocrate. I would stand in the defense of young children to have their dignity protected and for them to not be exploited no matter in what form it takes place – or where, or how long ago. If I had been alive in the days where children were painted naked [if they posed at all] yes I would have stood up to speak just as loudly as I do here.

See my earlier post about hypocracy before you call others hypocrates. You slam this form of censorship, then use a site with the very same kind of censorship because it suits you and your artwork, so that you can make sales, and show your work to the world – if you feel that strongly that this kind of censorship is really that bad – why condone it here.

Last century women had no legal rights at all and were unable to vote. If they did somehow manage to obtain a divorce from an abusive husband they had no chance of gaining custody of their children. Men had all the rights, even the right to beat their wives at one stage in the not so distant past. Thankfully we have been slowly moving toward a more equitable society, but we’re nowhere near to achieving full equity yet. The rising tide of public opinion against images like these is a healthy sign that we are starting to question some of the basic assumptions that still underlie our collective life. The fact that there have been many in the past who have sexualised children and got away with it is a sign of the gross power imbalances between men and women that existed then and to a lesser extent now. It’s not a reason for continuing an abusive practice.

In addition to my above response to point 3 above

3. Has anyone read any Teen mags lately? particular the type read by 10/11 to 18 year old girls. Why isn’t there people complaining, and not having a burn the Teen Mag day?

There are plenty of people who complain about it – not fundamentalists – just plain ordnary people, housewives, mothers, fathers, and even some teenage girls.

And we are not saying that we should have a burn Henson day are we – we are stating that we think what he has done is wrong.

Sorry I meant in the 19th century – I’m obviously still back in the last century myself!

Thankyou Jo Hopgood for posting those links, Ok picture number 4 is particularly disturbing to me, How can a child being naked in the head down, bum up position be erotic art!!!, c’mon ….this is very suggestive and to me, just wrong, This child has barely developed breasts and is made to be in this position, makes me wonder why this was allowed in the first place

Sorry but having seen these images, courtesey of Jo Hopgoods’ links, I have to say I have a fundamental problem with these images. Children of this age should not, under any circumstances, be allowed, encouraged or in any way allowed to pose for these shots-I am not a prude by any stretch of the imagination but I have no doubt that these images are there to provide sexual gratification to the low lifes’ of our society. This genre of “art” is plainly and absolutely wrong.

Looking at Jo’s links above, a few of the photographs can be seen. Many of them are not available for people to see any longer, but if you look at image 18 in Jo’s link – look at the art hanging on the wall behind him – I think I have now changed my mind about saying its not full on child pornography – looking at those – it is.

naked,toppless children IS NOT FREAKING ART. He knew it would cause a stir, bad publicity is PUBLICITY. This topic makes me wild so im signing off.

Jo Hopgood has kindly posted some links that are relevant to this issue. I’d just like to point out that the middle link which she has named ‘the model’ is not the 12 year old child we are talking about here. It’s a previous child model Henson used who is now an adult. This woman also stated that she had never posed nude for Henson.

Tony I am moved that out of all the passion and insight, and the outrage, you have replied to my comments… I have a couple more.
“Young girls have such beautiful lines and most an innocence and purity that the older women have long ago lost through society conditioning.”
Though I would not suggest ALL older women, I agree with you once more, otherwise, in entirety. In fact I KNOW you don’t feel that way, but you have to step carefully here dude!

It almost scares me that this work has caused such OUTRAGE.. wow you people are PISSED OFF!!
(I wrote much more than this but need to re-read it before I post it because I may otherwise find I have upset good people. Suffice it to say that I am a long-standing admirer of his work. Maybe enough of those who read this will be given pause by that because they know me a little. I hope so. I have seen so many monsters in this world, and held and helped their victims so much. I cannot see that this man is one of them.)

Here is the link to 24 of his works from the exhibition that was closed –
http://www.roslynoxley9.com.au/artists/18/Bill_Henson/1098/
the rest are random images i found from a web image search.

http://puddle.files.wordpress.com/2006/11/bonfin.jpg
http://www.trollback.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/51.jpg
http://www.pavementmagazine.com/billhenson.html
http://www.sauer-thompson.com/junkforcode/archives/Bill%20Henson.jpg
http://www.joannemackellar.com/designjournal/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/bill_henson300.jpg
http://www.dailyserving.com/art/Bill-Henson-12-15-10.jpg
http://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/media/archives_2005/bill_henson
http://www.roslynoxley9.com.au/artists/18/Bill_Henson/1098/40921/

well… reading the comments again.

here is a bit more of what i wrote -

It is only since I have turned thirty that I have come back to embrace the wisdom that I already held at fourteen in my kind, broken heart.
What I saw in his figures was the terror that underlies the facade in this country (corpse hiding, sex denying, sickness denying, self-deluded collective illusion of cohesion; the united Australian media believers. Pouring money to save pandas while humans torture humans. We live in a humanist society DESPITE this aspect of the media.)
I was already awake and had come back to myself by the time I saw his work.

And I knew it for truth.

It didn’t even occur to me that his models would be, themselves, hurt. How could this be when he could SEE THEIR FUCKING PAIN?

I have been so disgusted at the ‘art’ world, the ‘art’ scene. And I KNOW it. It is UGLY and FALSE and it is a MIRACLE that THIS work was ever included.
If you wish to make any sort of difference, never vote ‘liberal’ again and less kids will starve, take a good hard look at anyone driven to any kind of priest-hood, ask why FOOTBALLERS DON’T GO TO JAIL FOR HITTING EACH OTHER and

GIVE SOME MONEY TO AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL.
This is not cheap, or pornagraphic.
it is too REAL.
He is showing us vulnerability.
So that we may see it, once more. So that we are reminded of what that world, where the keenest wounds we bear are made, is LIKE. So that we are made aware of the softness of the skin and soul and heart at such an age.

I cannot believe that someone could portray such as this so deeply so consistently and be anything LIKE what you are all ABSOLUTELY DETERMINED TO SEE.

I remember being faced with this debate at Uni. It always causes strong emotions, no matter what angle one comes from. It should.

Just an idea. How would it be received if lets say the girl had the photos taken, then they were filed away until she was over eighteen. Once she is old enough, she could decide responsibly whether or not she wants them on display. Does this really change things? I’m interested to hear what everyone has to say about this.

A lot of this stuff is really positive for artists to talk about. But one point irritates me. Bill Henson has been a world renowned artist for many years now. He does not need the extra publicity.

Good discussion!

I beg to differ with you Tony – you said you would be open to the idea of shooting young girls in this way. That sounds like an endorsement to me – a very unwise endorsement considering you hadn’t even bothered to look at the images before you made the statement. Looks to me like you opened your mouth and put your foot in it. And calling the public response to your endorsement hysteria shows your bias in this matter.

i thought i read that police believe some of the younger girls pictures were taken overseas? it will be interesting to learn which countries. it will be interesting to learn if money was the motivator for these girls posing. i dont feel hysterical or emotionally insecure just because i dont agree with what the photographer has done. and im more than happy to let the police handle things… i dont agree with lynch mobs either.

In England alone [just England, not the whole of the UK] – 46,000 girls under the age of 16 fell pregnant with unwanted pregnancy in 2006 [www..gov.uk], of which, about 35,000 resulted in legal abortion [pregnancies which resulted inillegal abortion or miscarriage by induced methods are not included in this set].

Now, thats an awful waste of life in my opinion.

Girls certainly are exploring their sexuality without any fear, and it is exactly that which leads to statistics like this Tony.

I understand that you think that kneejerk reactions from society can in some cases be harmful, but in some cases, they are also needed. – We dont have to wait for flames before trying to put out a fire all the time. Sometimes common sense tells us that the smoke is enough of a threat..

Tony,

We are not living in the 20th century; sexuality is embraced, rejoiced, desired and acted upon. There are always going to be personalities that are slow to accepting or recognising their own sexuality or that of others. However, this is not the point of contention, at all.

There is a time and a season for all things…..young people are currently living in a society that fosters their sense of sexuality, the process should not be artificially sped up by the interference of an adult, by the taking of nude photos. Exploration is a natural and glorious thing, one that each person should venture into when they are ready to. What age that is….. Well, I’m not entirely sure….

But let them do it themselves…..

Why do you confuse the two issues here Julie one is not an indicator of the other underage sex has nothing to do with the issue of grown men taking perverse pleasure in the naked bodies of young kids, and that’s exactly what it is perverse.
As for taking the shots and putting them away until they are of an age to agree,as has been suggested by some here, I am sorry but that’s plain stupid. How can they consent by default of there age to commit an Illegal act, they are forever going to be photos of young children naked no matter how long you keep them.
And what shall we call this place that stores them? Because I have a few names for it already and many who find themselves with a store of naked child photos and are caught with them now are being rightly prosecuted.

I wasnt inferring that Alan, I am fully in support of Bill Hensons prosecution – his work is not Art in my eyes, but crime. I used the statistics above only in a response to Tony’s response where he claims that children are being forced by society to see their sexuality in a fearful way because they may object to this sort of thing going on – the unwanted pregnancies show that is not the case, and that kids explore their sexuality all by themselves – they dont need any help from adult men with cameras.

one thing I wanted to add is , These kids will go through their changes in their development going from child to adult , however, do they need to be naked to show their innocence and their transformation?? yes the innocent child is a beautiful thing, But only when they are clothed imo!!

That’s true Julie and I agree fully with what you say, perhaps I missed the piece you were referring to. I think those that think there is no wrong in this should be careful of what they say here. And maybe think again. Once or twice when reading some of the comments being written here i have thought that this is very close to if not actually perverted. And not acceptable in our society

First of all I’d like to express how deeply disappointed in you I am Tony. By your admittance that you would “not be closed to the idea” you have inadvertently condoned and endorsed a perverse and morally, ethically and illegal practice. This issue IS as simple as black and white, nude or topless photos of minors under the age of 18 y/o is wrong and illegal, period! And please, before you accuse me of being hysterical, scared, sexually damaged, emotionally insecure, or any other claims of “irrationality” let me say that I have waited nearly a day to make my response and think about what I was going to say. Also let me just say that the whole “in the name of art” is so worn out as the excuse of people to try to justify immoral, illegal or offensive acts.

Issues such as these are illegal for a reason and should, quite frankly, stay that way. There should not be a re-evaluation of societal views, there should not be any acceptance over time, there should only be the immovable, unequivocal condition of not allowing this to be done.

Also, though I am sure to little consequence, because of your indirect condoning and endorsing of child pornography, I will be removing you from my watchlist.

Thank you

~ Levi

Also, though I am sure to little consequence, because of your indirect condoning and endorsing of child pornography, I will be removing you from my watchlist.

I think he has been falling off many a watchlist this last 36 hours

oh my dear….. while i do vaguely understand the point you are trying to make… I think the be all and end all to this subject is that the fact you would find the image beautiful as opposed to sexually arousing is not the point, the point is that there are horrible people out there who would, and it would encourage foul behaviour… I appriciate that a women of an adult age is old enough to judge whether or not she wants her body to be ogled at by perverts (whether the shots are “tasteful” or not), a child of fourteen however doesn’t have this judgement, or the maturity or wisdom that comes with age to decide for herself whether or not the shots are a good idea. and frankly it all would just lead to sinister things. Having said that, candid shots of young children naked aren’t uncommon, but theres a huge difference in that theres is an innocence in a candid shot that can’t be found in a posed one, and also that once the child reachs puberty there is a significant change in them. The process of moving through kidulthood is a tender one and events like posing naked for a man in front of a camera are likely to cause significant trouble to the childs mental state in the future.
Encouraging children to be confident about their bodys as they grow up and to accept that essentially we are essentially all the same doesn’t have to be done by putting a young girl/boy posed naked in front of a camera. however you look at it, its sick and wrong. would you photograph a disabled person who cant talk for themselves naked for the same reasons??? and if you answered yes, theres just no saving you.
I wasn’t going to comment cause I’m sure you’ve had enough slack, however, surely posting a post like this you should have expected that.

Tony, my comment here is more on the reactions i have been reading these past two days than on your original post itself…. and it is a reminder to you of a quote i sent you several weeks back. I believe however , that it is appropriate for here. “Make people think that they are thinking, and they will love you. Make people THINK and they will hate you.”
I applaud you for your courage in stating your opinions and i am saddened by the emotional backlash that is so vehemently occuring against you personally. peace and light…...........b

i would like to respond to that comment butchart… the people here are concerned for the children and i repeat… children’s welfare. once again, im wondering what country would allow this to happen to 12, 13 & 14 year old children.

Some very interesting comments and views.

Here are mine :) :

- We live in a world in which the majority of folks are going to consider naked young children as ‘pornographic’. This alone should perhaps have been taken into consideration by the photographer. Whatever his ‘motives’ for the photo shoot were, he should have thought about the possible consequences – children need consent because it is assumed that an adult can make an informed decision that will offer the child the best opportunities to develop in life.

- Whether a person believes or not that it is acceptable to view naked children, this is not a true reflection on society’s views in general. Perhaps the photographer should have thought about this before going ahead – especially when there was a child involved.

- Adults are given the role of ‘protecting’ children for a reason. An adult who takes a child into an ‘area’ that is obviously going to create a lot of controversy is perhaps not showing a lot of consideration for that child’s welfare, or thinking of the consequences to that child. It could even be suggested that the photographer was displaying a behaviour that was more focused on meeting his own goals.

I do not believe that this is the time to taking away the boundary of child nudity. ‘Our’ society has removed too many boundaries, and people are still dealing with the consequences of this.

This may sound a little philosophical, but many ‘westernised’ cultures have plenty evidence of what taking away boundaries without informed though will do – i.e. children/adults not knowing how to respect others because they don’t know how to respect themselves, people turning to alcohol/drugs as a form of escapism, etc, etc. Although it may not seem obvious – boundaries offer security. Take away these boundaries and you have a society full of ‘lost people’ searching aimlessly for this security. It is my belief that this is where many cultures are currently at – taking away another boundary now would only result in negative consequences.

Even the most basic aspects of psychology show that people learn by the consequences of their actions. Get the consequences right and people will learn how to be happy within themselves, get it wrong and you have that world of ‘lost’ beings.

Rant finished :)

In this situation – the artist and the child are going to have implications on their future based on the outcomes of the investigations – but, why was it necessary in the first place, when a little ‘pre-thinking’ could have saved so mu

I am glad you think we are all confused Tony – I can assure you, there is no confusion here, and it does get so tiresome on Redbubble when people who stand up for what they believe in get called confused, irrational, supressed,sexually misguided, hypocrates, or any other number of words that have been used to describe us in this journal.

It happens a lot on here I have noticed – someone opens a discussion, invites people to add their views, and the minute the do – they are confused and all of the above!

Ive always said it, and I will say it again – philosophy was designed and created by a person called Mr/Mrs Right – and their first name was always.

A few times during your responses Tony, you have stated things that actually contradict your original post – I really dont think the majority are confused here.

I am sorry Butchart if you think speaking our minds about something we clearly feel very strongly about is seen as personal by you – I can assure you that none of my posts are meant to attack or be personal – but then, there is that Mr/Mrs Right again – its always the same deal. Ask a question, get answers you dont like, then claim that everyone is being personal or confused.

Now that I’ve seen the photos what bothers me most about them is their lack of honesty. When I was 12 years old I was checking out my muscles in the mirror, getting the ruler out to measure the length of the old boy, and skinny dipping at the creek, none of this oh so sensitive about my body image nonsense. What’s the matter with the world these days?

Um, it’s art, Digby. Isn’t the point of photographic art to transform the subject in accordance with the artist’s way of seeing? He’s attempting to communicate something HE is bringing to the images. That’s the point.

Agree with your comments, Tony, which I think were courageous in their honesty. I’ve just written an article on the Henson furore, which I’ve posted on RB and also on my blog

You might like to take a look. I’ve just come across your written piece, and think you might share some of the views I expand upon in my piece.

I think it is the main photograpgh that most people refer to here Tony, but many of them are in bad taste and there are a few facial ones that even I would find not offensive or be outraged by – however, the fact that someone only commits a crime [or do something that many consider a crime] on one instance, or two intances, doesnt take away the fact that they have done it! The good work which I am sure he he has probaby done over the years [and he must have done good work to be as successful as he is], does not take away from that one, or more instances where he has crossed the line.

I hope I explained myself properly there, couldnt think of a different way of putting it.

I didnt mean that people dont get confused about intimacy and nudity either Tony, not in the context that you have taken it by your response – it was directed at the fact that opposing opinions are being marred under the guise that you think its confusion, when its simply isnt, not all of it anyway, not even close.

It will be very interesting to see if Henson is prosecuted over this, and the outcome of the case – I wonder how many people will think that a judge and jury are confused also. All of his supporters – of course they will. how else could they defend what has happened by way of their tolerance for it.

WE live in a society that revels in spectacles, and no spectacle is more animating than a drama hinging on the issue of the protection of children.

Reading about the Bill Henson case from overseas, it has been impossible not to notice an element of kitsch as people – politicians, in particular – congratulate themselves on the vehemence of their response. After all, they seem to tell themselves, no one could be accused of being too vehement when it comes to the protection of children.

Of course, vehemence is detectable in the art world, too, where many have reached for a patronising and high-handed tone. Behind all that they say is the assumption that merely categorising something as art is enough to exempt it from the need to defend itself, which is nothing if not naive.

I know Henson – I see him in Melbourne regularly – and have admired his photographs since I was a teenager (it’s an observable phenomenon that teenagers are among his work’s biggest fans). I do not know the girl who modelled for his recent photographs, but I feel deeply for her at the moment: it can’t be fun to have the Prime Minister describe images of you as “absolutely revolting”.

The unctuous Kevin Rudd might have taken a moment to think of the effect of his comments on her before he spoke, but that would be asking too much. Of course, many believe the harm was done earlier, and that the photographs should never have been taken. I respect their opinion.

There is, of course, a long history of images of naked children and teenagers in art, but there are many reasons why the taboo around such images has become so strong in recent decades. The main one is simple: sexual abuse of children has become rampant.

The evidence is undeniable and the damage inflicted by those in positions of trust and responsibility is very real. We know that abusers of children often peddle in photographic imagery, and the thought, naturally, disgusts us. We want to stop the circulation of such imagery and to stop the abuse.

The situation is perfectly comprehensible and it needs to be acknowledged by Henson’s defenders. The issue is not as simple as an old-fashioned clash between philistines and cultured libertarians. There is more at stake: more feeling, more legitimate grievance and more fear.

But we are being extremely short-sighted if we respond to our fears by insisting that any image of a naked 12 or 13-year-old – no matter what the context – must, ipso facto, be sordid and depraved, or have been made in sordid and depraved circumstances.

I saw the images that were removed by the police from Henson’s gallery in his studio several months ago. I found them powerful. I was surprised by them – they seemed like something of a departure for Henson – but I was moved. Everyone reacts differently to different imagery. But despite the girl’s nakedness, I did not find them sexualised in the least. Undoubtedly I was influenced by my familiarity with Henson’s previous work, but I found them respectful, poignant, moving.

The girl was not “made available”; quite the opposite. I felt instead a combination of intimacy (how could such an image not be intimate?) and something else to do with an awareness of what cannot be known, touched, recovered. Henson has used the word inviolate. To me it seems apt.

Certainly, when I saw these images (along with similarly sized still lifes and landscapes shrouded in shadow, each intended to be shown with the others, to amplify and deepen them), it did not occur to me that they would be grabbed by police from the walls of Australia’s most prestigious commercial gallery as if they were smut.

Perhaps the real lesson of the past few days is that the language that usually surrounds art – the language of emotions, psychology, historical inheritance, beauty – is ill-equipped to answer accusations levelled at art in the moral and political sphere.

There is just nothing one can say in defence that does not, in a climate coarsened by fear (many of these fears legitimate, as I have said), sound like sophistry or, worse, naivety.

And yet Henson’s art is worth defending, because he is a great artist and his themes – solitude; intimacy; transitional, incommunicable states; desecration; what the critic Dennis Cooper called “moments of intense self-mourning”, and so on – are addressed with profound sensitivity and understanding. They have found expression over the years not only in images of the faces and bodies of teenagers and young adults, but in a whole array of other imagery, including landscapes, still lifes and urban crowds.

Of course, there is a kind of artist (one sees more and more of them these days) who finds a taboo and breaks it, hoping thereby to create a sensation. Henson is not that kind of artist. He is well aware that his work has the potential to stir up controversy. (He has sensible and sensitive things to say about this, but he is acutely aware that one cannot ultimately control the reception of one’s images.) But his vision is authentic and original. And it is highly sensitive to emotional ambiguity, as great art should be (and politics never is).

We live in a society that has less and less time for ambiguity. It is a society of maximum visibility. And yet the values of brightness and transparency that are so emphasised in the media are often little more than a veneer for various kinds of bullying. Just look at the way advertising – always so nerve-rackingly upbeat – incessantly cajoles and manipulates children into an awareness of sexuality that is always attached to emotional blackmail and commercial gain.

As an art critic, every month I see imagery that is revolting, cynical and exploitative in a way that puts Henson’s work into perspective. I have been subjected to video footage from a probe inserted into the artist’s anus (Mona Hatoum), I have seen mannequins of children with penises and vaginas attached to their face (the brothers Jake and Dinos Chapman) and, yes, I have seen images of naked pubescent and prepubescent children by the likes of Jock Sturges and Larry Clark that I find, for the most part, unredeemed by artistic merit.

Henson, who was first given a show at the National Gallery of Victoria when he was 19 and was later chosen to represent Australia at the Venice Biennale, has earned the right, I believe, to have his images seen in a context of dignity and contemplation. Or, I should say, the images themselves have earned that right.

Besides, how strange it would be if there were no context at all in which to contemplate imagery of what is perhaps the most poignant and moving phase of human life without it being seen as sordid or depraved.

“You can’t control the way in which individuals respond to the work,” Henson has said. And he is right, of course. But, as it turns out, it’s not so much individuals he has to worry about; it is groups, and individuals claiming to represent groups: people, in other words, who have given themselves the task of speaking on behalf of others.

We need such people, I suppose, but they are always the ones to watch. Such people have no time for private experience, unless it is the kind of private experience they deem dirty.

im reasonably sure put to the vote, people would individually be against 12, 13 & 14 year olds posing nude in front of a camera. i dont feel the media/politicians/whoever got it wrong this time. had the photos not been of children so young, they may have been beautiful. but they were not. they were of children.

In case you hadn’t noticed there are a lot of individuals from all walks of life on this journal post who don’t consider this to be art. I find it amazing that art professionals will wheel out Henson’s credentials as if these ought to put him beyond examination or criticism. Art is not a law unto itself and artists are not beyond public scrutiny simply because they call what they do art and it looks aesthetically pleasing. And just because an image looks beautiful doesn’t mean it isn’t sexualising a child. Children are already being bombarded by sexualised imagery and sexual stereotypes through the media, when, in Henson’s own words, they at a crossroads in their development and are extremely vulnerable. These images exploit that real vulnerability by constructing it as part of an adult fantasy and parading it for all the world to see all in the name of art. It’s not on.

Young girls have such beautiful lines and most an innocence and purity that the older women have long ago lost through society conditioning.”
this’ what is so scarey – your writing removes all subjectivity from the child – art becomes art as if it can be removed from everyday lived life, as if it has no power and so much more than this children become, within your scope something that is there for the adult to enjoy – their ‘innocence’, their ‘lines’ ....and hey, in terms of society’s conditioning the kinds of conditioning that we eperience is much more based around your ideas of the female child, or for that matter any child, as an object. and yes helene this writing validates the construction of an adult fantasy – which, to be honest, makes me sick.

and also what about those girls who are not among the ‘most’ who have an ‘innocence and purity’ – what is it you disregard when you disregard them?!

Thanks Jo for responding when I asked for some links toward this matter so I could at least be more informed, it’s a pity some others debating this issue didn’t do the same.

Although I paid my respects to people commenting on this issue and was
generalizing in my earlier comments and referred to us or we as a group or society specifically in an attempt not get emotional or personal I was still attacked for allegedly making assumptions specifically towards individuals that had already commented. Yet all I did was raise other limited examples of nakedness in society that have been around and lauded in the public eye since the Greeks and asked wasn’t this hypocritical when viewed along with whats been going on with Henson whose art has been exhibited around Australia for the past 15 – 20yrs with no problems until Rudd’s ridiculous outburst. Thats another thing since those against Henson have made it political, I haven’t heard not one twinkle of outburst against Rudd for what he called those images which I would bet he wouldn’t use face to face to the woman that is in them.

I examined those photos and others I was able to access and I personally cannot see anything dirty about them let alone pornographic. If some of you people believe this is porn then you have lived very sheltered lives.

All I see are a very small number, not the hordes of pornographic photos that there have been claimed to be, that depict a display of beautiful pubescence both male and female. (I note there has been no mention of the male amongst the hysteria going on….strange.. NOT).There is no sexual activity nor is there any indecent sexual display there is NOTHING sexual about them at all. At least not in my mind and my mind is open to all stimuli not closed and narrow, not searching for something wicked and dirty. With all that I’ve been through I still have trust in people.

I also see that the old anti western male spin has been made in many references within many of the comments here. Surprise surprise not !!

And just for the record I have done time in Africa and Asia for long periods starting from the earlier 1980’s.The locals were involved in the sex trade long before the white explosion into those same areas, in fact it goes back centuries..

I wonder what if anything would have happened if a woman had of taken these particular shots.
Oh but it wasn’t comes the feeble reply. Well do some research cause there are plenty that have. and what about the nude baby shots we see everywhere, why not lock up the photographers that do those shots some of whom are obviously posed with sexual inferences because of a raised bottom. Surely in these views because the baby cannot communicate at all we should be protecting them even more so? Then whose next ? The Mum who takes her daughters High School Graduation photo bending over with her hands on her knees in the sexy ballgown. Is she next for the Government ordered Vice Squad arrest?

I am dead against pedophilia and sex crimes on young children. in fact if I had my way they would all be castrated or in the case of women their vagina wired shut.

You see, unlike others who are desperately trying to pin the pornographic badge on Henson because that’s the only way that he can be prosecuted and also because the Rudd government is behind it all. I have actually investigated and prosecuted a number of real pornographic and sexual offenses both here and overseas. I have seen and lived the dirt, these images are not dirty.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23768044-5001021,00.html?
id=#vote-now-form

And another thing try to withstand the feminist’s, or the motherhood urges (which I greatly respect) or the political and religious ideals and don’t attack Tony. He only put this out here for public debate.

Don’t you think also that just because someone doesn’t agree with your views that taking that person off your watchlist is a little childish and hurtful towards learning your craft?

Some might say that pornography is in the eye of the beholder but let’s move away from the actual photos and address the bigger issue. The point here surely is whether we allow art to be censored by Nanny State or not. Do we protect society through education or imposition? Do I, as an artist, have absolute freedom of thought and expression only as long as Nanny State agrees with what I write about, photograph or paint?

Sure – with freedom comes responsibility but responsibility comes from education. If we start burning books and banning art will that really help educate us?

BTW, the poll referred to above gives, at the time of writing, 76% support for Bill Henson.

I have severe problems with photographing you boys and girls nude. It is not as much the nude that is the problem, as I believe the human body is beautiful and should be celebrated. But society as a whole has an obsession with “looks”. Someone who is older can hopefully put into context what affects their good or sexy looks can do for and against them. Someone who is 13 or 14 do not have the cognitive ability to do so. Just because the parents sign off on it, does not make it right. I am afraid that it will only make those younger people believe that the most important thing about them is their looks. And that is a very sad road to travel.

Hold a poll about this? Does that mean its ok to do it then? 76% support well done!
Perhaps we should now hold polls on all those other moral dilemmas child abuse, neglect, child slavery, murder, underage sex, we could save all that time if we only just knew a poll is the way forward. Forget morality hold a poll.
Kid yourselves on if you wish and please open your work to public display, it will make it easier for the police to prosecute.
And I have to say to those who have written “I have not and will not take photos of kids under a certain age” whilst agreeing with this “mans” right to do so is as bad as doing it yourselves.
Can someone tell me why a naked child is more beautiful than a clothed one? Because to me all children are beautiful and need to be protected from those in society who would abuse their position within that society.

The sooner adults start taking responsibility for their emotions the better for all concerned, especially the kids.

Totally agree with this statement Tony.

I also believe that people should start recognizing that 13 and 14 year olds are a lot more advanced these days than what some adults give them credit for.

Whether thats a good or bad thing is arguable but it is the case!!

And as for the poll result, all it suggests to me is that this Government leader is once again out of touch with the silent majority.

I also agree with you.
Being an Australian, I feel rather insulted that people who once celebrated
liberty and the values of democracy in our country are inactual fact contradicting themselves when they question such a censorship, especially when it comes to such an internationally celebrated artist.
The reason behind Bill Henson’s work is simple. He is exploring the confused and often vulnerable world that teenagers can find themselves, between childhood and adulthood. It is a place we have all been, but is a subject many people find difficult to explore as it does cut a knifes edge across the moral divide.
But that is no way to say that it hasn’t been explored in the past. Painters such as Balthus and Paula Rego spring to mind.
My concern is when the media seizes one of Bill Hensons images and places it on the front page of a newspaper with black rectangles to conceal parts of the figure, and by doing so-they themselves extract it’s original concept and sexualise the image.

As artist and philosophers we should always question why society reacts the way they do. In order to change society we must firstly understand it.

I just feel so sad that so many here support Bill Hensons work, work that is Illegal.
If the image did not exsist it could not be sexualised in the first place, it also seems to me the silent majority are the ones who if asked would say loudest that its wrong why do you believe it to be any other way?
I do take responsibility as an adult for my children and as Father i will shout loudly against the acceptance of this kind of so called art.

I too agree with most of the above , i think its wrong that people should photograph children nude, there are too many sick and weird people out there that get off on things like that so although i see that some people / artists belive we should be able to photograph nude people of all ages as its natural ..but the rules are there for a reason.

you point out issue tony!

Firstly I respect all your views, but let me tell you from my point its a no brainer. He should clearly be charged. You cannot hide behind art so as you can take nude photos of a 14yr old. As Adults we have a responsibility to protect our children. I have a 15yr old daughter and let me tell you that if some old man came to me wanting to photograph her nude I can not tell you what my reaction would be. Respected artist or not. You dont know what is going on in somebodies mind. Milton Orkopoulos was a respected politition.. go figure. What makes somebody think they can just go ahead and do this, being an artist is not a licence to go taking nude photos of someone who cannot make an informed decision and lacks consequential thinking is just deplorable and I find the parents lacking at the very least if not negligent. She may be fine with it when she is an adult, but then again she may not. Where does it end. Discussing teenage sexuality in an attempt to educate is one thing, taking nude shots of a minor is criminal. There is so much to photograph in this world what made this man want to select this subject??????? Would you let your children be photographed this way? If your answer is if thats what they wanted. Well lets just let kids do what ever it is they want to do? My 15yr old wants to stay out till 3am in the morning, it aint happening? Get a grip and protect our children.

Oh and Iam having a shot at Bill Henson

Thankyou Tony, I appreciate you posting this subject. Just to reply on your statement of, “if their awareness is only partially optimum then they are only providing the protection that they think they are”. I agree totally, and believe you me kids these days know a hell of a lot more than I certainly ever did, and could go as far to say a little too much. And us as adult are duty bound to make ourselves aware of the issues that kids are facing and also be informative to any misconseptions that they may have also. From listening and seeing the behaviour of my daughters teenage friends, they not only know about things such as sex and their bodies but also the vast variety. What they do lack is the consequential thinking that needs to acompany the decisions they make. Particularly when its the cool thing to do, an one cool thing to do for young women is to have male friends much older than them selves. That leaving them vulnerable to predators. Believe me Tony Iam as aware as I can be, and am always seeking to be more aware, but in no way does stripping a child down and taking photos make me any more aware of the issues that children face, except to highlight the fact that there are dirty old people willing to do it and display it. Can anyone take photos of naked children and call it art? or only a respected artist? I’ll say it again milton Orkopolous was a respected politition and trusted, until we all found out what he really was. You know where do these parents think they get off on allowing this to happen, whether the child wanted it or not. When I was 16 I wanted a tattoo, no way in hell my parents would allow it. I did get it anyway. It was very cool at the time. I now hate it. What if my parents took me to get that tattoo, how would I feel about them as parents now, if they had encouraged it. Id probably be sitting here saying how could they let that happen to me. Tony I appreciate your opinion but naked pics in no way bring about awareness and empowering our children. It just takes away the faith they have in us being their protectors.

The awareness I talk about is on so many levels. One of the main areas is the affect the inner thoughts and emotions of parents have on their children. Over this whole incident I have felt so much hysterior and fear amongst parents. This is on the surface level very natural. However my belief is that many of us adults have experienced life and stored hurt and fear rather than true understanding. Many of us are far less free and innocent in our state of being than when we were younger.

Then with all this stored experience that has touched us so deep in feeling we draw definitive beliefs about so many aspects of life. However given we have stored fear rather than wisdom the energy we pass to our kids is dis empowering. Having said this I have never advocated free licence on photographing children nude. I have just been trying to get parents to empower their kids with open communication rather than feed them fear and anxiety.

There is plenty of attention and awareness amongst kids about bodies and sex yet in my opinion this awareness is also only shallow in it’s depth of understanding. This is also something that we adults are shallow in. So few people treat sex or aesthetics with the respect worthy of such powerful aspects of human life. Kids may engage in sex and display of their bodies but in many cases do so in a way highly conditioned by media and also in rebellion to certain parental and religious attitudes. Censoring anything that even remotely touches on our protection buttons is not going to bring true awareness and direction to our kids.

Best Wishes Tony.

Hi Tony after reading you comment over the last few days, Many of us are far less free and innocent in our state of being than when we were younger
Of course this is true as we grow up we have to live in the real world, the world where we know the dangers. Where as children are happily unaware of the darker side of life (in most cases)
Is there another way to inform our kids? Or is it the way we are raised and the experiences we gain that guide us on how to do this. And to that end is this not how you have gained the experience that you have.
On my way home last night I was listening about a report of an artist in England who has said they will be having an exhibition of work of nude eleven year olds in protest at the prosecution of Henson. Is this not a massive misuse and abuse of children, where is the line who decides where its drawn, you? Me?
The media have always been scaremongers throughout history that does not mean there is nothing to fear.
Examining the male/female nude in art has been expressed many times over in history and in many cases children have been included in that. But this has only been because it was allowed within the society at that time.
Society has developed now into one, which in general is not as accepting of it.
What is in the artist head at the time of making the “work” is not necessarily the question its what in inside the head of the one looking at it that can be.
Remember your truth is not mine.

Do not know the picture, but my feelings are conflicting. I know many cultures view the body diffently (Finland, Sweden, Asia) then we in the US. I remember talking with a Finish friend who does group saunas with the whole family and neighbors all nude. It’s not a problem there because it’s not view sexually. They are brought up to view it as something natural. In the US that’s not the case, nudity comes with the baggage of our culture that does view it as sexual. So when we are talking about a 13-14 year old being photographed naked here, it’s exploitation of that child because like your friend’s daughter most children here see nudity as sexual and think it gross. Now if you were taking the pictures in another culture like Finland that might not be the case. It’s not so much the pictures as to how they will be used by less high minded individuals and what happens to the child. Were they cohersed by the parents for monetary gain to allow their child to pose for provocative picture. If so, it’s very wrong.. Not having seen the photo’s I can’t judge whether they were tastefully done or not. But it’s not the real issue, the issue is how a culture views them. Australia appears to have the same norms as we here. When one lives in a culture then one needs to understand it and the ramifications for stepping out of the boundaries.

The problem is the loophole for people to claim to be artists. It was a heavy handed approach and a bit disrespectful but it doesnt surprise me. I am a very liberal person but I wonder if the art in its current depictions needed to be that way. like something like burning the national flag, it shouldnt be illegal, but just ask what the purpose of that act was. Put simply i dont want to see 14 year old people nude just for that fact. I think its a worse tragedy that parents cant take photos of their kids at swimming events and so forth (a society succumbed to fear) that is total overkill but i dont totally support Henson’s right nor do i agree with adding barriers. cuase these barriers tend to enlarge and engulf innoscence and the good faith in activities some deem ‘reprehenonsible’...sorry bad pun…reprehensible

Well written Tony!!!!!! huggles

I gave up doing nude renderings, paintings, photographs, etc. because of the sheer number of persons who obviously only thought with what was in their pants. It was disturbing to me to have m work leered at in that manner, to be thought of as a pornographer and a wildly sluttish being just because I find humans beautiful, and it is obviously not good for the people who think that way to be exposed to such things as it only makes them worse.

So, for the good of humanity at large and my piece of mind, I decided, since humans are beautiful with clothes on too, it’s just as well for me to enjoy those aspects more and keep the sex-obsessed weirdos from overheating quite so much.

But, you know, to me, it is important not to just do what I like, but to also take into consideration other persons points of view and figure out what the balance is, if there is one.

However, I would not assume a man is a child pornographer, simply because naked children were in his photographs. I would be more likely to assume the persons who were uptight about it were molesters and/or molested and/or were barely keeping their nasty icky little desires under wraps.

If it was illegal and he knew it was illegal going in, that is his own look out. However, if it was not illegal and the child is making no accusations of anything more than a picture being taken, it shouldn’t matter a twiddle, to the law, what anyone else thinks!

I am being forced out of my flat with verbal abuse from my neighnours. I have written about it in my story. “Not Like Breakfast at Tiffany’s”. It is a case of the lodest squeal getting the oil. One compliant of theirs to the real estate agent was my showing them my nude art work, after they gave their permission. The agent didn’t ask them to leave because of their harassment of me.
I think it a shame that children can be exposed to violence but love and nudity are taboo.

And it is my opinion that if nude, or not nude, were important to me, then I would still be doing nudes. Beauty is important, aesthetics .. many people have all sorts of opinions about my work, anyway. It is too choppy, too colorful, to simple, not real enough, only landscapes are art, etc. but I didn’t stop painting things that are not landscapes regardless of their opinions.

Like, I said, it was both for me and for them. Because I was tired of all the leering, dirty jokes, idiocy, and it does no good to get mad about it. It won’t change anyone. But, there is not just the issue of people like that. There are religious people, who are very nice people, who would like to not see nudes or have their children exposed to them. They are also a part of this society, and, in both cases, for their different reasons, it is a matter of people needing to not see things that I absolutely do not need to draw, etc. I do need to draw, paint, write, bead, etc. but it doesn’t have to be of nudes to feel fulfilled. You know?

If I did anything else, based on my own beliefs and conscience, I would be creating the nudes in part for shock value because I would know that, one way or another, they would be bound to shock or titillate. I can’t stand people like Howard Stern, I won’t be one … I will do what I believe is right, will try not to do what I believe is wrong, and if I really do not care one way or the other, then I’ll do what seems to be best for the majority.

Also, most of the “models” I used for practice happened to be from pornographic magazines, so, in a way, I was helping to support an industry that I am very much against.

It is a shame that so many people cannot see the difference between an art nude and a pornographic nude, yes. But, then, that also goes for artists, sometimes. On another art site, I asked this guy how he could call what he posted art and he gave into a tirade on censorship, the statue of David, etc. The fact is, however, that he employed no degree of talent in the making of that particular series and, unless he built the camera himself, he was way off base ever comparing himself to someone like Michelangelo! The whole series was of two women having sex in the shower. It was black and white, the women were pretty, and it was controversial, so he called it art. But, he didn’t create the setting, enhance the women, adjust the lighting, or choose the posing, so it was, after all, just a fun afternoon’s pornography for him and had no business on an art site.

Since I haven’t seen the guy’s picture of the young lady, I could not possibly give my opinion as to whether it is nude art or pornography. I could only say, as I said before, that if he did it, knowing it was illegal, that is his lookout . But, if it is not illegal, if it wasn’t at the time he did it, then other people’s morals, feelings, thoughts, opinions should not come into play legally. They should come into it as much as the individual artist feels the need to consider them.

PS: For the record, because you mentioned men, I should remind you that I did not qualify what sort of people leered at the nudes, made assumptions about me based on them, etc.

So, for the further record, I did not mean men and I find it rather offensive that someone else should assume that is what I meant when I used words such as “people” . To me, women very much are people, too.

And, if I was going to be that sort of prejudiced, it would go the other way around. If it was only men leering, well when do they not? They leer at tires because they have holes in them for goodness sakes, and whether or not women have clothes on does not stop men from leering at them, as well.

However, women do leer, insult, etc. And men are sometimes in the nudes, rather than just creating or leering at them afterwards.

And for the furtherest record I care to travel to, I happen to have really enjoyed those soap commercials that were shown on occasion, over the last few decades, that many people were up in arms over. You know, the one with the man, woman, and child, all in the nude, dancing around and enjoying how good their skin felt because of the soap they used?

That was called child pornography and yet no genitalia was shown, no sexual acts were committed, and no one on that commercial had a facial expression that looked remotely like they were about to think of sex, much less that they were engaged in it. It was just a nice, happy family doing what many nice, happy families do when a child is still a baby: taking a bath together.

lol no, I am not suggesting that you don’t think of women as people I am suggesting that I do think of women as people and I hold them equally responsible for the flaws of humanity. I know that many women do not, but like to place all the blame on men. Then they demand equal rights. However, if you take responsibility, you already have equal rights as a human.. maybe not under the law, but in your own eyes. .. or something like that.

I don’t think it is my place to decide what is best or not best for religious persons, or other persons, unless I can see that there is irreparable harm being done The Mormons and their underwear worry me, but, it is their issue and as long as they change them frequently, there is no harm. I would never presume to have the right to force nudity onto them under any normal circumstances, then. Which is why I would never seek to put nude pictures in public buildings, since they are part of the public. If they go to a private gallery without researching the artist, that is their own problem.

i don`t think this kind of art should be allowed…it blurs the lines between right and wrong

i see advetising and marketing pushing the age of consent down…blatant to me

subliminal to most of the brain dead morons on this planet

THEY ARE CHILDREN

keep thier bloody clothes on..

Hi Arletta did i read the following comment correctly? I would be more likely to assume the persons who were uptight about it were molesters and/or molested and/or were barely keeping their nasty icky little desires under wraps.
a bit of an insult to those how are a bit up tight as you put it, your argument means any one how speaks out against it can be accussed of being one!
I am struggleing to keep this reply civil at this point

It should be as black and white as that, since you cannot see that you need to examine your own values.

Well, I did have the opportunity to view the pictures and I must say they are lackluster at best. He did not manage to capture innocence, or youth; neither did he create a compelling story with the lighting or poses of the young girl. The photography is a waste to say the least, and as for child pornography I could very well see how this could have been construed. While the child does not seem to evoke sensuality, she does none the less provoke sexuality even if it is not branded across the photo. Personally, I do not see how a child could even begin to be subject matter for serious nudes; because the very idea of a nude is to portray the human form because we are sexual beings with a sexual attraction to this form. Using children to portray this is in my opinion poor taste, and poor form. I have not viewed any of his other works so I can only form my view on this body of work alone. It would seem however; that perhaps there may be a bit of “opportunist” running just beneath his surface; but indeed this seems to be the norm when it comes to an artist and their work. Every opportunity is an opportunity for a wider audience.

As for those who appreciate the form of children, it is highly unlikely that any reasonable conclusion can be achieved from those who support this view as they are likely blinded by their own desires alone. I dare say, this is questionable behavior that could potentially be an indicator of some deeper psycho-semitic issues. What we do know, is that regardless of how society in general views “art”, it is still without a doubt impossible to imbue the wisdom that comes with age to a child who may only understand “glory” for the moment with regards to any situation they may be faced with. Nudes are beautiful indeed; but because of what they are, and what they aim to achieve: glorify the human form in all of it’s decadence and complexity, reminding us that we are in fact sexual beings with sexual attractions for one another. Yes, it is beautiful; but not for a child.

Well having found this I feel that I must comment…

I don’t know of the case mentioned in Tony’s original post but I do believe that Tony is one of the most respected photographers here on RB. I for one value his opinions and his art and have to agree that the physical sense of the adult gets very clouded with pollution and age.

My first question is where were the parents of this young model? Somewhere there had to be a model release signed and if so I would guess the parents should be questioned. We as a race of seemingly intelligent people need to stop bashing others in the name of religion, art, or “protecting” others… especially when it comes to our governments. Ours here in America under our current leadership decided that it was offensive to have a statue of a topless woman (we call her lady liberty) that had been there for over a hundred years. So they covered her bare breasts. It was a monumental embarrassment for our country.

One of the models I photographed and posted a photograph of here on RB was a photograph that had won some very influential awards in the past year or two and yet I was asked by a relative of hers to remove it because in his words “she was one step from being a stripper and prostitute”, I noted that while I understood his position that I had a long talk with the young lady prior to the shoot (and she is over 21) and then I note that I had spent more time with her and her family in the past year then he had in her entire life.

My point is there will always be people out there that make stupid assumptions, make judgements, make accusations with out ever looking or even asking those involved.

I truly believe that we are moving toward the dark ages on such matters and that really make me uncomfortable.

The ancient Greeks and Romans revered the human form… why do we in this time try and hide it?

And before I get pummeled for my comments I have a daughter here on RB and she is in a few photographs in my portfolio… she is 16 and I would not think of shooting her nude or partly nude but then she has a strong mind regarding that and would not anyway. She is studying to be in photography, art and has signed to a modeling agency and does understand the need for it… when I painted nudes (still do) she was 13 or 14 and would look away from a painting… eventually I told her it was ok to look but if she did she should give me advice if coloring was correct or shading needed to be different… when she started doing that I knew she was over this stupid closed minded view of the nude that we can’t help but instill in our children.

Tony, I agree with you… I stand by you on this and think it is a shame that an artist is being called a child pornographer because of this. I wish most of the adults would just grow up sometimes…

you can’t photograph young girls simply beacouse you cant stop some sick bastard from using that image in his head for sexual pleasure.
P.S i never had a chance to view the photography, but iv heard they wrnt all that good. I hate people who use shock to promote, like those dicks, chasers war on everything.

A_child_cannot_be_intellectually_or_emotionally_developed_to_give_truly_informed_consent_The_law_is_there_as_much_to_empower_the_child_as_to_protect_it

I’m not sure where I stand on this issue… It confuses me a little…

For one, it isn’t safe to assume that parental consent will protect a child who is underage from unseemly exposure or lewd conduct, because, quite frankly, some parents are less responsible than their kids, and aren’t fit to make such decisions…

I’ve also had experience with cameras and photographers… as a child… they weren’t pleasant ones, but the outcome of the sessions clearly depicted nothing more nor less than sleaze and porn, without scope for interpretation…

But…

Are today’s photographers simply becoming more subtle and a little smarter in how they both exploit and expose children?

And how far is it okay to things in the name of Art?

See…

I dislike censorship of most forms, but you can’t always tell, from the final, visual product, what the intent of the photographer was or what went on behind the scenes, and if there’s room for conjecture and supposition… Is it worth taking the risk?

I don’t know, a few weeks ago, I thought I’d formed an opinion on this topic, one that most definitely supported Henson and his art work, of which, from all appearances to me, is visually stunning, innocent and vulnerable…

But who knows? I wasn’t there at the photo shoot… Nor do I happen to be one of the models within the series of work who has to face the consequences of such publicity and exposure…

I’m still on the fence with this one… It’s an area fraught with inconsistencies, where the intent of the photographer, and even the parents of the children participating, may well be the only deciding factor in whether such photographs are as ‘innocent’ as they present themselves to be…

I guess we are all shaped by our own experiences when we form viewpoints about things like this…

What if the parents are not fit to protect the child?

And what was the intent of the photographer to begin with?

I guess those are the questions that bother me somewhat, because behind every picture, lies a human being, and in this case, a child.

So if in doubt…..............?

To Karl Denton… Not every parent is as intelligent or responsible as yourself to make such informed decisions on behalf of their child, nor is every photographer respectable and honest…

---

only_an_idiot_or_sicko_could_believe_a_pubescent_kid_could_be_wise_enough_to_make_that_irreversible_decision!_For_an_adult_to_decide_for_them_is_a_violation

Maybe even at some level we are protecting our own reactions to nudity.I cannot understand why so many people are so closed minded when fear is involved.

I don’t consider myself to be closed minded, I’m passionate about Art and the freedom of expression in most forms, is it closed-minded to want to consider or protect the safety of the child behind the photograph? I hope not… It’d be a sad world if we were all so tunnel visioned about the making of Artworks and its process, that the safety and impact upon its child models became insignificant. Stating that people who are endeavoring to consider the risk involved to children are closed-minded, is like saying that all people who think differently to yourself are closed minded – which, in itself, comes across as sounding pretty closed-minded to me…!

I have no idea as to your professionalism as a photographer, nor who or what kind of person you are, but the way in which you phrase some things, certainly leaves you wide open to yourself suspicion and criticism… Put it this way, I wouldn’t take some of the statements you’ve made here @ redbubble and paste them on your Resume…

Tony, I agree with you… I stand by you on this and think it is a shame that an artist is being called a child pornographer because of this. I wish most of the adults would just grow up sometimes…

But can you speak for all photographers Karl? And if a man was a perverted pedophile, wouldn’t photographing a child who is nude and vulnerable, place the photographer in a position of power from which to abuse?

A photographer here at redbubble, who I shall be professional enough not to name, as already stated that he gets sexually stimulated when seeing children nude during so-called, religious rituals, and that he gets turned on when photographing his nude models, well maybe the man was simply being honest, and he speaks for many photographers who are perhaps less than honest, I wouldn’t know, but I certainly found his comments to be distasteful, and would no way consider any child of mine safe before the lens of his camera…

And yes, it is immature for adults to call an artist a pornographer, it would be far more mature to state that some artists are in a prime position to engage in pornographic activity with a child, if not worse… And where there’s a risk to even one child, perhaps even your own, wouldn’t it be a bit immature and self centred of an artist not to consider this?

Perhaps some people are simply aware enough to see beyond the surface of the artwork that is being presented to them…

I think it would be a shame for all beautiful artwork of nude children to be condemned, but I personally, would hope that most artists are human beings first, and artists in the second instance, and would therefore make a concession to photographing children nude, if other, less professional photographers, were abusing children who were vulnerable and at risk…

I mean… What’s wrong with photographing nude puppies and kittens??? ;)

No_apologies;I_find_some_of_your_statements_sickening(and_alarmingly_familiar)_and_with_naivity_being_the_only_plausible_mitigation_in_believing_a_girl_or_boy_in_puberty_emotionally_and_sexually_confused_and_in_a_vulnerable_hormonal_upheaval_is_to_be_considered_capable_of_deciding_something_that_they_may_regret_later_when_it`s_too_late?Do_really_trust_a_sexually_confused_child_to_grasp_the_wider_implications_and_potential_loss_of_control_of_the_images?_I_have_to_doubt_the_motives_or_wit_of_any_adult_that_overlooks_the_issue_of_capability_and_presumes_adult-level_rules_apply!Do_you_have_any_reply_that_transcends_my_writing_style?

scroll_across=busted_keyboard

It is not about the intent or integrity of the artist.It is about the fact that he photographed naked children,in provocative poses and put the photos on public display.Someone asked if people had looked at teen mags lately,I frankly am very glad I don’t have a daughter because of things such as teen mags,video hits,bratz dolls,bratz clothing.We are sexualising everything more and more all the time and children are exposed to things now they never would have been.My 13 year old son is not allowed to have a myspace page,surf the web unsupervised,read inappropriate books/mags,watch inappropriate movies and guess what,he is fine with all of it. I discussed this case with him and got a teenagers insight.He thought it was wrong on so many levels.These are a few, an adult is taking the photos,they are in a gallery with full public access,the impact it would have on relationships with friends,the attitude of boys towards the model after hearing about or seeing the shots. There are a lot of girls on myspace and facebook that strut there stuff without even thinking about whos looking or what it is doing to their reputations.As for the author saying he finds the lines of young “women” beautiful,I find that statement to be very suspect and disturbing,he then goes on to say that he never photographs anyone under 17,still to young in my opinion,especially for a 44 year old that admits to liking naked young women.It is interesting that most of the people who think the shots are ok fall into the same sex and age bracket.My father is a photographer and he would never have even contemplated asking me to pose nude for him at that age.

Well where to begin…

Tony, I guess Shelby has no desire to pose nude for me or anyone else. I have photographed her cousin (over 21 and some photo here on RB) and she has seen them. A couple of them have won awards from very prestigious organizations. In mentioning to the father that had frustration over s few photographs I have taken I was asked what would I think if Shelby decided to pose nude when she turned the same age? My answer was great if that is what she wanted to do and it was done tastefully and along the vein of art.

Regarding JenniferB… You have had some horrid experiences with this, I know of them and yours were for the purpose of creating child porn for the sick minded men that participated in creating them. I would thank that before someone is hung out to dry or labeled a child pornographer that the whole body of his work is reviewed. This lynch mob and reactionary society is going to undo thousands of years of evolution!

Not every photographer has bad intentions, not every photographer is a pornographer and many here have made me feel like one because of what I shoot. The comments made by ClintonTyree are the type of reactionary nonsense that has to stop. It has gotten to a point where parents are afraid to take a simple photograph of there own child taking a bath because of fear.

Seems to me that an artist such as the one that was being discussed would have sat down and had a long talk with all concerned including the young lady. He is well known, and at that level you do not ruin your reputation for the sake of a nude. I am ashamed and for ever amazed at the reactionary methods used to condemn a parson form people that do not know the whole story.

If I was asked and the project was in good taste I would work on projects that included teens. But then even the 21 and over crowd I photograph nude I have a long talk with prior to the shoot, this way they have a full understanding of what to expect. I always shoot with many others on every nude session regardless of the age and this is to not only aid me in the technical aspects of the shoot but to ensure that neither myself nor the model is open to scrutiny. It would be no different with a teen shoot, makeup, wardrobe, my assistant and even my wife has been at the shoot. Shelby is welcome to be there but has chosen not to, though she does assist on my others. It is her choice.

Kjezt… I have a teen daughter, she has an account here on RB and I could not be prouder of her! She has the freedom to create what ever art she wants, she has a youtube account and a myspace account. She is very creative and has nearly 130 videos on youtube. You thinking you are helping your son by denying him teen mags, or the unsupervised internet is really just for your own comfort. Our children learn more… wait… they learn everything from school. My daughter loses her internet privileges when grades drop and this year that has happened once. More parents need to get involved with there children, understand the influence of the world and teach them how to deal with it, not try to hide it from them. They already know it’s there.

And one last thing… I do not see anything wrong with tasteful photography of nude teens. Like I said if I were asked and after a conversation with all concerned, the parents, the teen and if I felt the project was right I would. I even discuss and ask the opinion of many prior to the shoot… but most of all I would enter into this with respect.

rule … 18+ ...

To both Karl and Tony,

I’m sorry, but I feel you are both being somewhat tunnel visioned and self-centred in your stance to support the photography of nude children in Art, beautifully presented or otherwise.

I agree to an extent, nude children, portrayed artistically and sensitively, can make for a beautiful pieces of Artwork, but at what cost to the CHILD? – for yes, these 12, 13 and 14 year olds you have referred to Tony, on at least one occasion, as women, are NOT women, they are simply children, the very fact that you refer to them as women, I find quite disturbing, and yes, I have my personal reasons from which my reaction is influenced by, but that makes my viewpoint no less valid than your own.

So yourself and Karl consider yourselves to be two, respectable, artists? Well that may be the case, but for every two photographer’s who have children unclothed and vulnerable in their presence, there will be at least another ONE, at least, who will take advantage of the situation – and that is the reality of it.

So for the children and adolescents who fall prey to THOSE type of photographers, are you saying, that you would not sacrifice shooting child models, in order to protect them? Simply because you perceive child bodies as appearing beautiful in Art?

Can neither of you not see why some perverted men, would find photographing disrobed children, to be an ideal position of predatory opportunity and power?

Read up on it and get real, both of you.

This is the real world, and unfortunately yes, not all photographers of children who take advantage of them, are photographers of porn, some indeed, produce, pictures that could be deemed as being called beautifully artistic as an end result, very much along the lines of Henson’s work, which, by the way, I admire – but would be prepared to forsake, if it meant protecting children who could find themselves in vulnerable, threatening positions.

In an IDEAL world, we would be able to view beautiful artwork of children’s bodies, there would be NO pedophile photographers to worry about, and ALL parents would be responsible enough to guide and nurture their children in positive directions, but we DON’T live in an ideal world, children HAVE been abused by photographers with less than honorable intentions, and I’m not just speaking of photographers of pornography, parents HAVE exploited their kids for self exposure and gain, and the Law, such as it is, cannot protect children whilst making exceptions for those photographers who would never dream of causing them harm.

Are both yourself and Karl saying, that if I were to be able to substantiate, within the next ten minutes, that children, UNDER 18, have indeed been both exploited and abused by photographers whose end product could be perceived as Art work, and not porn, that neither of you would be prepared to forsake your wishes to have them photographed, in the name of Art of course, in order to protect even ONE child?

Sorry, I consider myself very open minded, I have no fear of nudity and I personally think that Henson’s work is beautiful and untainted, but I’d be prepared to forsake either the creation of, or observation of, nude-child Art, if it meant protecting even as much as ONE child at risk.

I’m surprised that neither you or Karl are able to see it from that perspective.

Especially Karl…

Karl’s willful inference beyond my own words is more of a disservice to himself.

Karl + Tony: my argument is mechanical and not moral; as an atheist I find the concept of Evil ridiculous.

I’m strongly against paedo-hysteria and find the sexualisation of nudity very dysfunctional
, but children are in a society where nudity IS sexualised and their development is interconnected. If you want to change society, enlist consenting adults! Exploiting the vulnerability of kids is abusive as well as selfish. 

A normal snap of a bathing toddler does not pose the risk of permanent psychological damage as does an adult taking pictures of a hormonally driven pubescent- which could easily be lead into sexual poses which Tony appears to think is morally just fine…Karl also overlooks that images of a confused child nowadays can easily be redistributed a millionfold and land back at their doorstep and follow them everywhere. A tough price to pay for a mistake 
, when responsible people were supposed to be protecting you!

Again my stance is, as is that of prevailing professionals in the field of child welfare (not dubious photographers but psychologists, criminologists, physicians, sociologists, social workers, psychiatrists..) that children need more protection than adults, that each stage of development has special implications. What consenting adults do with each other 
is of no concern of mine.

Again the reality is that we live with the sexualisation of nudity which comes with wide and potentially lifelong consequences. Adults exploiting children’s vulnerability NEED to be controlled, not as matter of morality but a duty of care. 

Your egocentric poopooing of any concerns about child welfare, including at least 2 abuse survivors speaks volumes… or in Tony’s complete blanking of one in preference to stating that getting turned on by pubescent girls and taking and distributing nude photos of them is¡just fine.

So, no, nude photography isn’t automatically porn, but it can still harm children and can still be considered abuse. And that has nothing to do with morals.

I have quietly watched in the wings, monitoring the responses to the questions, the questions raised by the responses, and the issues that only seem to provoke more issues. Apparently, nobody can persuade the other to agree on this issue. What is difficult to understand; is that calling others “close-minded” or “fearful” based on your own personal viewpoints is ridiculous. Indeed, the temptation to cut to the vein when dealing with this issue and to label those involved in child photography as being perverts is easy. Is it appropriate? It depends I suppose on the individual who may feel offended. I am not fearful, I am not close-minded, and I think that in this day and age it would be pretty difficult to be either. Our world is full of war, and we have been exposed to so much that perhaps a better term would be “non-minded”, because we simply want to shut down the overwhelming onslaught of disorder that hits us everyday. In the grand picture, all photographers will die, and so will their models. Do they leave behind a legacy, or have they left behind something shameful? Do we do things because we want to be great, recognized, praised, and in some way famous even if it is only locally and for only a moment. For those who argue for nude photography of children, only your conscience knows for sure what the true motives really are. You can say all you want with your mouth, but you only lie to yourself if your desires are inappropriate in anyway. I don’t believe any of us who have responded to Tony’s essay in a negative way intend to do away with art-but we do expect that art is handled responsibly and without any of the arguments with regards to history. That argument is so passe’ when considered in the light of todays society. Why is it so completely important that any photographer would want to photograph a child naked? Why? Why must they argue in support of it? I am a little confused by the way in which those who support this type of photography are so obstinate about it. The fact is, you can photograph the innocence of children, in all of their wondrous beauty and amazement as they look upon the world around them. They may have heard, they may have been told, but unless they have personally experienced the damage that can be caused by carelessness, they just do not process that the world can be dangerous and may at times attempt to harm them. They are fearless, invincible, and they believe that they can defy the odds more often than not. Like any of us when we were younger, we too believed in the goodness of mankind as well as the impossible. Experience brings wisdom, and sometimes the wrong experiences make this so. Children, as you mentioned have been “exposed’ to much in our world today, but this does not make it right, nor should we choose complacency because we just don’t think we can change it. Yes, there are parents who probably need to have their heads examined, and maybe they should never have had kids to begin with. This is irrelevant and because the protection of children should be our only concern at any cost to us as adults. If you believe for a moment that your own right to do something is much more important than the well being of children, then you have revealed something about yourself. Yes, this would make you selfish and lacking in compassion for the emotional well being of children. Art is extremely subjective, as it has always been this way from the beginning. Not everybody appreciates Van Gogh, Picasso, Rembrandt, Nagel, Warhol, or even Anne Getty. The beauty of art, is that there is truly something for everyone that can and will inspire an individual to achieve something greater whether it is personal or global. Freedom of speech, in any country is fundamental for communication, communication is for the purpose of organizing society and helping it to function. When our “speech” or the rights thereof become tainted with selfish ambitions that are not considerate of the well being of others under any circumstances we must ask ourselves why we have chosen such an attitude. Deep thought means that we consider every possible angle, and then make a decision based on the possible outcome of any given situation. The decision one makes is a direct statement about their own person that is undeniable-even if it demonstrates their own ignorance. I do not see that even as we progress as a society that we will be able to overcome the stigma of sexual-dysfunction which has been put upon us by religious institutions. Objectifying form whether male or female opens the door to a host of problems that even historical societies had to contend with. Setting standards because we believe a certain way, does not make us wrong, nor will everybody agree with the standards the majority may agree upon. The point is, that as a society, we have agreed that there is a standard of behavior we can expect from one another in order to create peace and harmony amongst one another. Making concessions for each other is not being weak, afraid, or ignorant; it is an action that is determined by each individual for the sake of others. When we are concerned about the welfare of each other (in all ways), then we are helping our world to work. When we make our own issues more important than others (as defined by general welfare), then we are selfish, lacking compassion, and possibly without any love for mankind in general. Preserving a certain right because you have a personal desire to do so should be weighed heavily by how such impacts the world. Will it result in something wonderful, good, amazing? Can it benefit us as a society and if yes, how? Seeking to to “unveil’ the minds of those who may be considered pious, or prude is inconsistent with love. Deeper thought as you put it, demands that we consider all aspects of a particular action, not just one part. This also means that we consider how it affects others whether we have chosen a different attitude or not. There have been good changes in the world since the dawn of time, and there have been bad changes. We must not give up just because it seems hopeless or beyond repair. As for “morality’, this is nothing more than a set of standards that society has agreed upon in order to maintain order. If you want to be a part of something that is more than you alone, you must agree to compromise in order to experience this benefit. If what I want will somehow harm or hurt another being (regardless of whether it is emotional or physical, etc), then I need to ask myself, “is it worth it?” The problem with the argument here in this blog, is that it is for something that really does not benefit others in a way that is productive, nurturing, empowering, or otherwise. The argument is for something so small compared to the big picture of life itself. Having nude pictures of teenagers does not make life more beautiful and wonderful, nor can it give any individual a sense of self worth, self value, and self empowerment.

1.) “attracted” is a synonym to me. Am I mistaken that physical attraction doesn’t constitute that? In my life someone stating an attraction for another person is usually a fundamentally sexual thing…

2.) Brackets were missing; couldn’t re-edit it, so the emphasis was knackered. But, irrespective, logically, by stating that think it’s fine to photograph pubescent teenagers, you must have surely already factored in the high possibility of the images become easily and widely distributed- and therefore deemed it insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

Language is one big grey area of personal definitions; so respond to my points instead of making side-ways references. Or are rhetorical critiques all you have?

Do you think a pubescent girl is intellectually capable of deciding for herself that she should be photographed naked?

Do you think that your art has the right to override the protection of a child?

Could you define “an innocence and purity that the older women have long ago lost through society conditioning”?

How you view the child as a part of society?

I am assuming that you are not a father, or at least not one that has acted as a parent, I am also wondering what personal interaction you may have had with teenagers- since your understanding of their psychology and development seems to be less than nil.

“However I do believe that society is greatly lacking in understanding about nudity, sex, art and many other aspects of life. In general I believe that we are very quick to jump to quick fixes whenever our fear buttons are pushed.”

Children have to develop in the society they have. Using children to change society is abusive whether it be religion, sexuality or art. The naked body is now sexualised whether you like it or not. So sexualising a child isn’t a solution and is potentially very damaging to a child, who needs to eb given space and privacy to sexualise themselves. Robbing them of that can ONLY be disempowering and abusive.

Just because you think abuse constitutes interfering with kids doesn’t make it the whole story.

The thing is 99% of people don’t have to have this explained to them. It’s intuitive that you do not engage children in socialisation that is taboo in line with the current morality. Whether that morality is right or wrong isn’t a factor in how damaged a child will be from the experience.

As an analogy. There is little objective sense in gender clothing, but how damaging would it be to dress a boy up as a girl and send him to school. It would probably scar that individual for life.

That anyone should personally find gender clothing stupid won’t change the effect.

Again, this kind of thing usually only surfaces as a topic in child psychology and child welfare literature because most human being already know it. It takes a special effort to go against group psychology, or certain types of mental or neurological disorder.

Hi Tony,

I’ll try to answer your questions as clearly as I can, it’s late at night here and I’m a little tired, so I hope my answers make sense to you.

“How do you know for certain that beautiful shots of nudes even of people under 18 would not be empowering?”

A:- Well where there is any chance, which there is, they they can be damaging then it makes your question irrelevant. But I do wish you’d just be straight and state under age. That a teenage girl may allow herself to be photographed is one issue, that her trust may be betrayed is another. Girl’s at that age can be very naive, which make them easy prey.

“How are you so sure that such images would not encourage people to respect each other rather than try to control one another?”

A:- That could possibly be the case with a few more enlightened people, but given societies current problems it is more likely to result in abuse occurring. It is just a really irresponsible position to put a child in.

“Further just because photographing children under 18 naked would be illegal how are you so sure that abuse will cease or lessen?”

I never said it would cure abuse. It would certainly stop children being put in highly dangerous situations. It would certainly largely continue to stop people exploiting kids and them becoming hurt in the process. Just as the alcohol, tobacco, credit, pornography and marriage laws already do. No law is designed as a cure all, but as a means of doing our best.

So how do you think that society should be regarding nudity and sexuality? Is there any particular culture of period you think got it right?

So, if a 13-14 year old girl were to ask you to photograph her naked, would I be right that you would see yourself as helping her free herself of society’s conditioning? Or what?

How would you shoot someone that age? What would you try to express in the art?

So how do you think that society should be regarding nudity and sexuality? Is there any particular culture of period you think got it right?

And, if a 13-14 year old girl were to ask you to photograph her naked, would I be right that you would see yourself as helping her free herself of society’s conditioning? Or what?

How would you shoot someone that age? What would you try to express in the art?

I would also say that I find the bodies of some women aged as young as 13 or 14 to be aesthetically very beautiful. Whilst I have never photographed anyone under 17 nude or topless I would not be closed to the idea. Young girls have such beautiful lines and most an innocence and purity that the older women have long ago lost through society conditioning.

The above statement by you is very worrisome to me. Girls aged 13 to 14 are not women; they are children.

Photographs of topless girls in this age bracket is considered child pornography in the United States. I see you are from Australia. Given the recent uproar around Mr. Henson and his photographs, I venture to guess the laws in Australia are very similar to the laws in the U.S.

ditto Helen…

and that sex and intimacy should be equal and free and without a need or desire to control.

I’m sorry? I’m not sure I quite understand how this part of your comment relates to child nudity in photography and Art? Sex and intimacy should be equal and free for whom? ... And who is it you’re referring to who may have the need or desire to ‘control’?

Secondly…

Kids are vulnerable and so are adults. I believe that we all need to go deeper into our emotions and experiences if we really want to feel and be safer.

This is true in a sense, but somehow the way you seem to merge the two categories, kids and adults, to be one and the same, is something I find to be both confusing and disturbing.

You’re right in some ways however, it is true that we are shaped and influenced by our own past experiences… Although I find it a little irritating that this seems to be an ongoing conclusion you draw as to why my viewpoints may differ from your own.

I’m certain in light of what Karl Denton has said, that you’re aware of, to some extent at least, a few of my past experiences, have any of your own experiences in Life helped to shape and form the perspective from which you view things today?

It seems a little unfair, though not unpredictable, that you have at least some background information about me to use to your advantage… ;-)

And Best Wishes To You Too Tony

Whilst I have never photographed anyone under 17 nude or topless I would not be closed to the idea.

I have looked at your portfolio, and the images you have posted are tasteful. I see your photographs as a celebration of the human form. I think you would be courting disaster should you accept a commission for nude photographs any underage person. I think I know where your thinking may be coming from: that nudity is a natural state and should not be made taboo. Correct?

While I agree with you in theory, in reality there is a sound sociological reason why nude images of children are taboo. Human beings are driven by instinct to protect our children from real as well as perceived harm.

We desire to prolong that period of innocence called childhood. We accept nude images of baby bottoms (not so much frontal nudity), but by the time they reach age 2 years we no longer find their nudity cute, but inappropriate. The irony is at this same age children begin to explore their genitals with great curiosity. The closer our children age toward puberty, the more fiercely we try to protect their innocence. Hence, nude or nearly nude images of pre- pubescent and pubescent children will almost always be met with much resistance.

The very real threat to our children’s innocence is the pedophile who (for whatever psychological malady he or she suffers from) will find nude or scantily clothed children a source of sexual arousal and gratification. Child pornography is rampant and a very harmful source of objectification of our children. In a world where children are bought and sold as objects for sex, you can expect no less than an uproar of disapproval for any support of nude images of children.

So in summary, I certainly hope you would think carefully before photographing children in the nude. Your neutral intentions may be perceived as the evil machinations of a pedophile.

I am very open to any questions that you wish to ask me.

From my previous comment:

...If a 13-14 year old girl were to ask you to photograph her naked, would I be right that you would see yourself as helping her free herself of society’s conditioning? Or what?

How would you, or how do you perceive other professional photographers. would shoot someone that age? What would you try to express in the art?

Where I did I assume that you wouldn’t question any “assumptions”- try ‘deductions’ ...

Again you deflected and side stepped me.

I read your other replies and they don’t seem to answer me.

What I do find “strange” is that someone posts something that seems to many to be tantamount to apologia for child pornography now just evades and pussyfoots around any concerns.

Oh, and my intentions are obviously not humble. You posts and comments here have quite obviously disgusted me, I have been quite frank about that.

That you can touch on such a sensitive subject and brush people off is even worse… It seems however having a womb makes a difference in eliciting a response… how ironic.

I feel as a human being concerned for other human beings that I think you need counselling Tony. I think your ideas if translated into action are very dangerous. You seem to be projecting something very sinister onto children and using power concepts,and sexualisation arguments that are all too familiar- to others that have read what you have been saying.

And with that I have nothing more to add, since I seem to have the wrong primary genitalia as well as manner.

And no that last remark isn’t an “assumption.”

If I was to photograph a 13-14 y/o I do not necessarily see that she would have her conditioning changed just by the shot.

An adolescent before a stranger without clothing is both at-risk and vulnerable, that in itself may invariably cause conflicting thoughts and emotions for the child. And then there are the repercussions and consequences of the Art work’s exposure itself, and how society will perceive it and respond to it, such as with the Henson Artwork, irrespective of how you feel about the artwork, many ugly, hateful comments have been publicly made about both the artwork and the children posing for it, I doubt the parents of the children would have been prepared for such an outburst, and the children, who must feel extremely exposed and violated because of it, most definitely wouldn’t have understood the consequences of their exposure.

Taking this into account, I fail to see how you are unable to move beyond your own belief systems to see this, remember, initially I was FOR child nudity in Art and in favor of Henson’s work, I’ve since looked at things from many other perspectives, particularly the perspective of the children involved, and have since changed my mind – and yet you would call this closed-minded of me or lacking in depth of thought?

However I would communicate with her and her parents about my beliefs on the beauty of the human body.

Again, I repeat, not ALL parents are communicable, responsible, or have the protection of their children at heart, even if they, for self-gain, can make it ‘appear’ that they have.

The photo itself would be shot for beauty. Other photographers may shoot with specific messages where my posing would be purely about posing for the most beautiful aesthetic. So for me I suppose the posing would be very similar for whatever age. My motive with all of my photography is to present the most beautiful aesthetic with a humble energy.

And this aesthetic beauty cannot be found in photographs of children with clothing on? At least until they’re mature enough to be able to make their own decisions, or be so easily at risk of being taken advantage of and exploited?

The finished photo in my opinion would empower those who viewed it. This would I believe help to condition people about appreciating beauty rather than suggestive imagery than in my opinion creates a commodity out of the body.

Again, in an ideal world yes, but we don’t live in an ideal world, public reaction and condemnation of the Henson Artwork substantiates that very fact, therefore children ARE at risk of both during and after the photo shoot, when the artwork itself is exposed.

Are you therefore saying that your belief in Art itself, and the messages you would ‘wish’ it to convey, overrides the safety and protection of the children themselves?

There are so many photographic styles and motivations out there and some would present images that in my opinion would have a negative impact on the community. This is where communication and depth of thought is very important.

But even those photographic works that are not intended to have a negative impact on the community, such as Henson’s work, invariably have a negative effect on the children who have posed for them, once those in society oppose it and become angry, so the children end up innocent casualties irrespective, which, in my belief, is the worst negative impact of all…

Hence, Laws and Education to protect children, for that is, unfortunately, all that we have, and the ability for photographers and artists to see beyond the Artwork itself they’re so passionate about, in order to be able to really see the child…

Children shouldn’t be used as political pawns through the medium of Art, as an attempt for reformation and attitudinal change… This very concept and Act in itself is a violation.

JenniferB:

I’d really love to know how those photographs evolved, in terms of who approached who with the idea. How it was pitched by whom to whom…

I guess we’ll never know now, as everyone has an agenda in skewing events.

1. “Not ALL parents are communicable, responsible, or have the protection of their children at heart, even if they, for self-gain, can make it ‘appear’ that they have.”

2. “the Henson Artwork substantiates that very fact, therefore children ARE at risk of both during and after the photo shoot, when the artwork itself is exposed.”

3. “Laws and Education to protect children, for that is, unfortunately, all that we have, “

4.” Children shouldn’t be used as political pawns through the medium of Art, as an attempt for reformation and attitudinal change… This very concept and Act in itself is a violation.”

Those points pretty much close down any pro-child nudity photographs as far as I’m concerned.

Any failure to acknowledge those points has to be willfully blinkered or delusional.

Thanks for your support Clinton… but I fear, some people may just never ‘get it’...

ok ok ok…somebody (not mentioning who) has just alerted me to read this and respond / read….
There is aLOT of writing here and clearly it is understandable – the topic being what it is!!

I will come back and read through – or sift through carefully at a later stage…however, for now, I want to say just this…after reading the author’s write-up…

_*I have an 8 year old daughter. IF she saw some nude photography of a ytoung girl or anybody for that matter, and threw it at me and said it was ‘gross’ then that is how she feels about it!
It is her response, hers not mine, it is her right as a child to retain her innocence and sense of perspective as a young child with a developing mind – with sexuality NOT being (probably) at the upper most front of her list, and it is my duty as her mother and parent to defend these issues for HER! – not anybody else who would like to either ‘enjoy’ artwork or ‘benefit’ in any way from ‘artwork’ of young children that are nude!

Another thing I would like to add is this…if, at any time in my young daughter’s life. anybody (artisitic predisposition or not), decided to artistically photograph her, (for whatever reason) and even if she DID agree, I would probably use my hands if I needed to get a message across to them! Enjoy art in other ways…...and be mindful that CHILDREN ARE CHILDREN!!!!

Suzanne German

I can’t say naymore at this moment…but I will go back and read this carefully

I won’t say I’ve read everything – not going to lie. Too much to read.

But..

It appears that there is division between what is classified or qualified as ‘artistic’ and what can be seen to be downright ‘exploitation’.

The problem-
...If only it were that easy to draw a line here – but tony and everybody else….IT ISN’T!!!!
and that is why we live in a world with laws and social morals. You may scoff and retort, you may think laws are outdated….but since when is sexuality measured in terms of which century we are living in? The human species has been the same since its inception…..child sexuality and psychological development included.

The language, styles, fashions of the day will vary yes, but that does not eradicate the mere fact that a developing mind is a developing mind.

And Tony, I’d like to ask you ‘where in your write up did you stop and consider the perspective the child?’......

And, if not – why not??!!!!

I don’t think you did…only to say that they are being conditioned by censoring. Children are not commodities for photographers or artists alike or for anybody for that matter. They don’t belong to us yet we are responsible for their wellbeing.

Where is the respect and nurturing that children deserve in this debate you raise?

My first and foremost concern to which I direct my response and comments is in ‘the best interest of the child’ – period. All else is secondary.

A child at 8, 12 or 15 may acquiesce or even outright choose, to being photographed nude, but what about the process they go through in that experieince? Did you think about that?
Where does your responsibility as a phographer/artist …whatever label you want to use….towards the child come into this? Does it???? Do you think that artists have some super above ewverybody else rights to have what they just because they want it? Oh, the world isn’t fair to them I see…..let’s all pity these phographers then…...Let’s sacrifice the innocence of children so that some individuals can go around feeling liberated at their expense…I THINK NOT!!!

Another thing, a child, does not have the same artisitic values as an adult when it comes to the human body. If they do, you cana rest assured that they have been exposed to situations that are inappropriate and are not commensurate with healthy child development.

Did you give that one moment’s thought??.......Perhaps you need to Tony, and anybody swaying towards believing that phographing nude children is ok…for whatever reason….!!!
A toddler photographed having a bath is one thing…but let’s leave that there where it is appropriate. Yet even in family situations this can go wrong…so how far worse is it to make this exercise a publically acceptable thing? Way way too dangerous…..It is not ok!!!

So sorry, everybody, but since this is not a flippant matter of the ‘poor penalised artist’, and these are children we are talking about here….it is the duty of every adult – yes including high brow artisitic types to provide and uphold healthy and safe boundaries for children not try to penetrate them for their own reasons.

True that some cultures advocate and indeed are comfortable with even walking around nude. That is a different kettle of fish though isn’t it? I mean you can’t compare the mindset of say indigenous cultures /tribes with that of children living in cities that wear uniforms, go to school, etc…..can you now?

Why do you think anybody should agree with ‘normalising’ exposure of the most private and precious thing a human (especially a child) has….their innocence and sexuality?

I urge anybody that thinks that this is ok, to really really re-think this long and hard.
.it is utter bullshit to think that it can comfortably become acceptable that children of any age, will suffer no consequences from being exposed in this manner.

Artisitic intentions are irrelevant and secondary if even that, when it comes to the rights and needs of a developing child or teenager.

Children and teenagers are at their most vulnerable, the last thing they need is a confidence boost or artisitic stardom or celebration or even less glamorous than that, to screw them up well and truly!!!

Have you not heard from the mouths of those who have experienced inappropriate child / sexual exposure (photography, or whatever format), what the consequences of those experiences have been in their lives?

Let me tell you then, because I have spent thousands and thousands of intense and extremely painful hours working with people who were still recovering from childhood inappropriate sexual experiences (always for the benefit of the older person and to the detriment of the child), it SCREWS PEOPLES’ MINDS UP – WELL AND GOOD!!!

If this quest to normailse this type of artistic exposure of children is in the name of art…then fuck art and think about the rights, needs, long term consequences and best interests of the child here!!

Suzanne German
Group Leader

Tony feel free to reply please….

suzanne

Well said Suzanne.

Tony’s made a new journal entry on the subject, you might get a response from him if you post your comment on that one. LINK

Thanks for that Suzanne!

“Have you not heard from the mouths of those who have experienced inappropriate child / sexual exposure (photography, or whatever format), what the consequences of those experiences have been in their lives?”

Those opinions have indeed been given first hand and duly rubbished right on this thread… I understand however that detailed reading is as cumbersome, tiresome and repetitive as the debate has been.

If an ‘artist’ feels the the need to photograph the sensuality or sexuality of anyone, under the age of consent, they need some serious therapy…

This issue IS black & white.

End.

Tony,
You state “I would also say that I find the bodies of some women aged as young as 13 or 14 to be aesthetically very beautiful.”
I’m sorry mate, but at the age of 13 or 14, they are not young women…...they are children!!!!

I completely agree with you Suzanne – I can think of no circumstance where photographing a child nude is appropriate or necessary and everything you have said here about the consequences for the child is absolute truth. The body “houses” a person, a sacred person and that is the only lesson we need to teach children – that they are sacred and deserving of respect for their person, body and soul. How does a young child learn about self-respect, about boundaries of what is appropriate if they are “objects” or “subjects” even in the supposedly lofty pursuit of “art?” A photograph is not really any different than a touch – and if you touch a body, you touch the whole person. I have seen too many people who were “touched” inappropriately as children whose entire lives are ruined, who have lost the sense of connection between body and personhood.

While I respect Tony’s desire and concern that photographers or artists have the freedom to express the beauty of the nude form – male or female – it is not “empowering” to project your views on those who are developmentally too young to discern for themselves the distinctions between ART and what is sexually provocative or even what unquestionably is the objectification of their bodies apart from their sense of personhood. Even 17 year olds do not have the emotional and psychological maturity to do this – our society has already taught them too well that their means of “belonging,” of “being someone” is through their external appeal. You are 44 Tony – but a child does not have the ability – even if you discuss with her what your “intent” is – to see this issue as you do. She hears only that her “body” is beautiful or desirable or marketable no matter how artistically rendered. [I am referring to your nude “subject” as she primarily because you did so in your original post and Hensen’s “subject” was also female.]

No matter how much you would prefer society – and children – to see nudity as just aesthetically appealing – using children to accomplish your social agenda is manipulative and unrealistic. You cannot reshape society to your standard of innocence and beauty – and I for one do not doubt the sincerity of your motives here – by using that very innocence in a way that is ultimately counterproductive and harmful given prevailing attitudes about sex and body image. And who says your artistic view of what is beautiful is healthy in any case? Do you have any idea how many women in the real world no longer see themselves as “beautiful” because our society – and photographers and artists – have chosen “young and innocent… and thin” as the representation of beauty? You have said as much yourself in suggesting that only the young female form is innocent and pure and beautiful and that “older women have long ago lost…” that kind of beauty. What makes you – or photographers like you – the arbiter of what should be deemed beautiful? Perhaps we need to concentrate on empowering the 50 year old to see herself or himself as beautiful. What is “empowering” to anyone in focusing attention on only the aesthetically beautiful “body” rather than the spirit it houses?

Our culture already gives too many mixed messages about sex, sexuality, nudity to adolescents and adults without encouraging that detachment of body and personhood in children too young to begin to comprehend the lesson they are learning. There is no ART that could ever come of this that would ever be worth the price for the child and the ultimate cost to society of another destroyed life. While I have great respect for you as a person and as an artist, Tony, I respectfully disagree with you on this issue. I agree with Jennifer and with Suzanne. Children are too precious to become pawns in some social debate – above all their right to develop in their own time as persons with a balanced physical, emotional and psychological self-image takes priority over artistic freedom in any case.

children are the world’s greatest natural resource and they need to be protected ,nurtured and not used as props for someone’s artistic endeavors. there are lines that should never be crossed.

I totally agree with Suzanne and could not put it better myself. Children do a lot of things on their own that they regret when they grow up. They do not need to have a manipulating adult twist their minds into consenting to something that can leave them with emotional scars for the rest of their lives.
When it comes to photographing a child in the nude, when in doubt … don’t do it!

Also as my last thoughts on today’s writing could I ask people who have been abused to provide some thoughts as to how they have as adults dealt with their pain? Further to this how they deal with pain now?

Tony,

I read in your journal somewhere that you were considering writing a book along the lines of this subject matter some time ago. I would like you to know that, given what I have read and discovered from the comments made about this topic, if there were any people I would not trust to divulge any of my past experiences to, in order to fill the pages of a book, it would be yourself and Karl Denton.

---

Oh, I can just see it. Tony will checking under the dresses of the abuse survivors to check the have no testicles… and then he’ll feel safe to rubbish their concerns. But hey never mind, the males can always get the girls to smuggle their concerns in their underwear.

Tony I dealt with my abuse in part by trying to kill my father. It doesn’t come any more “empowering” in therapy than manslaughter on the grounds of self defence.

I continue to deal with it and will do for the rest of my life as will anyone who has been damaged profoundly as a child. Part of that dealing with it is standing up to people who either intend or will harm children by their foolishness.

You aren’t th slightest bit interested in listening to abuse survivors. You have demonstrated as much here.

And you really should feel deep shame in that opportunistic, patronising and self-serving manipualtion and exploitation of people’s trauma.

_This was one of the photos that my friend’s 8 y/o viewed and called gross. I don’t think she really even looked at the image properly and was basing her comment on what her conditioned view of nudity is.

I beleive this shot to be a very beautiful picture and one that should in no way hurt anyone of any age. I do not see this sort of attitude to nudity by young children as giving them protection and strength in life. _

Tony sorry, but don’t you understnad that from birth to the grave we develop and can only take as much as our age / maturity can handle??

Your account of ‘one size fits all’ – i.e. an 8 year old found something repulsive because of conditioning? – regardless of her conditioning, if she is a child and it is sexualli explicit…..it is wrong for anybody including you, to think that this should be ok for her.

Let me ask you this, if a child has a natural a response of feeling uncomfortable, awkward, embarassed, shy (hope you’re getting the drift), etc., to anything to do with bodies, sexuality or things of a sexual nature,
doesn’t that tell you something? -

And woudn’t trying to encourage / normailse children feeling comfortable with these things (actually called grooming) be the same as conditioning them in the opposite direction?

Respect for childrens’ innocence is paramount – and let them discover what they will when they are old enough to cope with it.
It’s not up to adults to force or cajole them into liking nudity or anything like that.

As for your comment about people / adults expressing their views on their personal experiences of sexual abuse, it is both amazing and insightful for the reader to learn what the repercussions of inappropriate exposure or experiences of a sexual nature to a child/teenager not yet equipped to deal with such things can have in the long run.

Honour the truth Tony not the fantasy !

Suzanne

Hi Suzanne,

I am preparing a reply that I will send you this week regarding the concerns you have over all this and my views.

With regards to the shot I have referenced titled Humble. It is on page 3 of my gallery here on bubble. I am wondering if you even looked at it to call it sexually explicit. I would appreciate it if you could in the meantime look at this particular picture and advise me if you see this as sexually explicit.

Best Wishes Tony.

yeah yeah yeah…

Was at Chadstone shopping centre yesterday which is a major venue here in Melbourne. Just near the cinema was a restaurant that had two nude busted sculptures in full view at it’s doorway. They were beautiful creations and there were kids all over the place. I felt that if anything these structures were giving off an empowering energy for the people there including the kids.

Also in the front yards of some of the surrounding houses near where I live there are similar sculptures some fully nude. Once again the energy of these creations to me is very pure and empowering. Whilst I can understand the feelings of most about children being photographed nude I still feel that beautiful nude imagery can be very empowering to children and adults alike.

Perhaps we should be putting a greater effort into the direction of photographs across the board including clothed shots. To really try and encourage creatives to release beautiful rather than suggestive photography of children and adults.

I applaud your take on this subject, Tony. It’s a sad and shameful commentary that the dictates and mandates of our society ultimately reflect a sickness and depravity that mars our ability to love and embrace the total human condition. How did we become such a guilt-ridden race that we let pedophilia be our barometer for enjoying the natural beauty of our race? Kudos on this piece.

I just want to say a couple things for nothing I say is going to be new to you so…. I niether agree or disagree with you. Everyone is entitled to thier opinions, art is art, but when I was around that age I could honestly tell you I would have posed for a photo, but not because I felt like it was what I wanted to do but because the other person wanted me to. Looking back if I would have done it, I would have regretted it because I would have been used and I try my damndest not to ever regrett anything because it was a lesson I needed to learn at the time. But thats me and I can not speak for every girl in this world but only from what I would have felt. I admire that you put out there your opinion with no shame and knowing that this is a very touchy subject. Its good to know that thiers others out there that ruffle feathers.

I agree it should provide strength, I know there have been many things in my past that I regret doing, and Ive done enough to have a group of people learn from and it provided me with the strength to make me a better person, but that dosnt change the fact that as a child we do things without really understanding everything that we are doing at the time. But like I said I believe everyone is entitled to their opnion and should be respected unless it brings harm to others. Keep your beliefs close to your heart and never give in to ones you do not believe are true to you.

Bill Henson is a rubbish photographer who needed publicity .. creepy work from a creepy guy

Not to mention the hormones which are put into the animals we eat like cattle and chicken and even our dairy cows. That is why I believe the young girls of today have such raging hormones and more curvy bodies and what we may call ‘sexy’. Some men cannot help themselves but to look. I also have a daughter who is the same as I am speaking and I had to stand up and let some of those grown men that she was a minor. And my daughter was not even that kind who would wear that make-up and try to act older…it was her curves. Hey, Isee no harm in looking…isn’t it natural for a man to look in public so why is it bad in private to look at a picture. This should not classify a person as a child molestor…does it??

In fact, when I took my daughter to college for her first year I saw some very attractive young men who are attending there. I told my daughter the little comment, “They didn’t make boys like that when I went to school.” Does that make me a pervert?? I doubt it! I just noticed the great physical shape they were in as in comparison from when I was a teenager. It doesn’ mean I want to sex them or anything. They are definitely below my league and I am more mature than to think of such thing. Now if a person is a child molestor and then caught looking at porn then it could be a problem. I am sure everyone can understand where I am coming from.

How right you are. Look at nudity in Europe for example. Imagine how it would be being a considered a child molestor there. Nudity is legal there. They even show boobs and other nudity on everyday television and have many nudist beaches from what I was told. Just imagine…I can’t I think things would be so severe here in the states.