Famous Photographer Bill Henson in hot water

[Timmy P]

Looks like someone didn't like his latest exhibit, despite the fact he's been doing very similar art work since the 1990's.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/080522/2/16z32.html

While many may not agree with the subject matter, Henson's established record as an artist means to label them child pornography is beyond ridiculous.

I myself am going to enjoy seeing this enter court, so that precedent can be set to protect artistic expression. Although I have a feeling the Police will bring alternative charges of things to do with the welfare of children. Wether they will succeed I also doubt it.

Which is not to say anything depicting children should be labelled as art. I am confident that whichever court would settle the precedent would set down guide lines as to how to determine wether or not similar subject matter falls under "art" and who is an "artist". Bill Henson's years and experiance definately fit within the bounds of art.

Of course, in the mean time, we've got hundreds of child abusers who operate for years, sometimes even decades without getting caught. Nice to see where NSW police priorities are. Investigating a formal complaint by an anonymous person. About a photo. In an art exhibition. That they probably haven't even seen.

Oh well.

Cheers,

-Tim

 

[aizan]

haven't they heard of sally mann or jock sturges? just another cop looking for publicity.

 

[Timmy P]

Australia's pretty behind when it comes to free speech and artistic expression.

Technically, every movie that is viewed in this country has to pass an Official Classification board. They made it during WW2 and for some bizarre reason it still exists. They've actually banned some movies from being released here. As recently as this century too. They simply rate the movie unrateable. Hard to believe, but they do it. And apparently we're a "First World" country....

All we can hope for is a bill of rights if Australia becomes a republic, or for the Courts to lay the smackdown on the Government. The High Court here has been pretty good at doing that, they seem to be about 10 years ahead of the government in terms of what society actually wants. I'm thinking they'll do a similar thing with this case.

Be glad you guys have the Constitution. I'd say both legally and practically, Australia is quite behind many countries in regards to freedom of speech and expression. It is quite sad.

Cheers,

-Tim

 

[Bill58]

I hate to say it, but AU never had a "clean break" (i.e. revolution) from the Crown and as a result........... Look at all the CCTV in Great Britain now. AU actually sounds like Korea w/ respect to Free Speech and that's not too good. I'm surprised.

Australia's pretty behind when it comes to free speech and artistic expression.

Technically, every movie that is viewed in this country has to pass an Official Classification board. They made it during WW2 and for some bizarre reason it still exists. They've actually banned some movies from being released here. As recently as this century too. They simply rate the movie unrateable. Hard to believe, but they do it. And apparently we're a "First World" country....

All we can hope for is a bill of rights if Australia becomes a republic, or for the Courts to lay the smackdown on the Government. The High Court here has been pretty good at doing that, they seem to be about 10 years ahead of the government in terms of what society actually wants. I'm thinking they'll do a similar thing with this case.

Be glad you guys have the Constitution. I'd say both legally and practically, Australia is quite behind many countries in regards to freedom of speech and expression. It is quite sad.

Cheers,

-Tim

 

[__hh]

What if that was your child?

Also, does it make everything OK if the "guardian" gives consent?

 

[AzzA]

The problem is alot of people here (and i'd say all over the world), get caught up in the whole media sensationalism before actually forming an educated opinion. As far as i know its not illegal to take naked photos of children, it is illegal if they're pornographic though. Many people just assume nude = pornographic.

What are the issues here?
His work is not art, but porn. To argue that you have to say his work has no artistic merit. Hard to do when you cant see his exhibition. That doesnt stop people including the prime minister stating that it has no artistic merit without even reviewing it themselves.

If he was silly enough to photography these children naked without the parents permission, then he deserves all the trouble he gets.
If he got proper permission, but his work is deemed to have no artistic merit (by who?), will the parents of the children who gave permission for the photographs be held responsible too?

I dont have any opinion on his work yet as i have not seen it. It may be crap and indeed pornographic, i dont know. It's just frustrating seeing public opnion persuaded so much by what the media dictates. Art is meant to make you question things/yourself, i can understand why the government would be against it.

For the record, i dont have children (way too young), but when i do, theres no way i'd let them pose nude for publicly exhibited photographs. Supermarket catalogues included.

 

[Keith]

What a bizzare country this is ... I remember years ago travelling to NSW to see the Robert Mapethorpe exhibition in Sydney because it had been banned in Queensland!

OT ... I heard a report on the radio the other day that an Australian driver had been apprehended by the police for having his young son travelling with him unrestrained ... no seatbelt! The irony was that a carton of beer that he'd just picked was on the front seat safely secured with a seat belt.

Ozzie ozzie ozzie ... oi oi oi! 🙄

 

[jaffa_777]

While I haven't seen the images in question, Bill's previous work is clearly a good indication of what he may have been showing. From my point of view its clearly not porn, but it does push some boundaries, which art is meant to do isn't it? Bill has been showing this type of work for years, why does society want to prosecute him now?

Has Bill changed or have we?

 

[Keith]

Apparently our new PM Kevin Rudd has labeled the images as "revolting!"

Sigh ... out with the old, in with the old! 🙄

 

[Timmy P]

Well, further reading of news articles has revealed that they intend to charge people with this little part of the Crimes Act

s578C - Publishing of Indecent Articles

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s578c.html

Looking into this section, subsection 6 says

"(6) In any proceedings for an offence under this section in which indecency is in issue, the opinion of an expert as to whether or not an article has any merit in the field of literature, art, medicine or science (and if so, the nature and extent of that merit) is admissible as evidence. "

Well, who do you think they're going to ask for that expert advice. Art Critics. And you can bet on it that they like Henson. He is very, very well respected Australian artist. Like I said before, he's been doing this type of thing for almost 18 years!

I think it is enough that the Childs parents expressed consent, and that she agreed. If the young girl was in anyway co-erced that would be entirely different. But I think it is unfair to say that if the child did agree she still couldn't consent. Kids are smart these days, and personally I believe after about the age of 10, kids are quite able to make decent decisions. Maybe not within the bounds of 16-18 year olds, but still quite capable.

The display of the images all over the media I think is a far worse. To decry why the images were made, then blur out the "offending" bits while plastering the girls face everywhere to me is unacceptable. While the gallery images were online, it was merely to illustrate the opening exhibition. No body was forced to view them, nor where they broadcast in a way to draw attention to the images or displayed them as if they were child porn.

To me, this girl consented to be photographed for an art exhibition. She didn't consent to be turned into a media spectacle.

Then again, the media is usually our moral guide point. I mean, they did throw children overboard, right? Ask 10 people on the street, you would be VERY suprised how many people STILL think they actually did.

Cheers,

-Tim

 

[csaunders]

Weird: I've been trying to organise this exhibition where the cast of 'Neighbours' and 'Home And Away' all get taken to a gallery and shot in the back of the head in front of a live audience, but apparently some people think that's sick...

I reckon it's 'art'.

 

[Sparrow]

What if that was your child?

Also, does it make everything OK if the "guardian" gives consent?

I’d be pretty relaxed about it actually

My daughter, G’day

 

[csaunders]

Technically, every movie that is viewed in this country has to pass an Official Classification board. They made it during WW2 and for some bizarre reason it still exists. They've actually banned some movies from being released here. As recently as this century too. They simply rate the movie unrateable. Hard to believe, but they do it. And apparently we're a "First World" country....

Pretty much every "first world" country has such a classification process; it's not for censorship purposes, it's so people can make an informed decision about what they want themselves/others to watch... Nothing bizarre about it.

 

[lemos]

I hate it the way things are turning into.

I love kids street photography, but it's getting each time more awkward to shoot a minor on a public place.

some of my favourite:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/a_lemos/2427040465/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/a_lemos/2424360346/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/a_lemos/2423549189/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/a_lemos/2410305134/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/a_lemos/2410305532/

I feel pretty bad nowadays if I go out to shoot these kind of photos :\

 

[__hh]

There IS a difference between shooting kids when they are in public and displaying nude pictures of them!!!

 

[Timmy P]

Pretty much every "first world" country has such a classification process; it's not for censorship purposes, it's so people can make an informed decision about what they want themselves/others to watch... Nothing bizarre about it.

Actually, in Australia it is for censorship. Something which is exempt from classification cannot be displayed in Australia. Everything HAS to be classified before it can be brought in or displayed in Australia.

The legislation is right here

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cfacga1995489/

Or just fast track to section 6

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cfacgea1995596/s6.html

"
6 Sale or public exhibition of unclassified, RC or X 18+ films prohibited

A person must not sell or publicly exhibit:

(a) a film classified RC or X 18+, or​

(b) an unclassified film."


​

Keeping in mind, again, all films/games/publications HAVE TO BE CLASSIFIED before entering Australia. I'm pretty sure that amounts to censorship.

In America, they can just not get it classified. Barring material which is obscene, which would be illegal in both Australia and America in the first place. No such option is availible here. If the OFLC doesn't like it, it doesn't get in.

Think of it this way. All X rated porn in Australia, is techincally illegal. You're not allowed to own it, or view it. Also, you cannot produce any form of porography.

If you don't think thats censorship, well then I give up.



Cheers,

-Tim

 

[Sparrow]

There IS a difference between shooting kids when they are in public and displaying nude pictures of them!!!

In order to be offended by a photo of a naked child one would have to have had an inappropriate response to it.

If someone were to have such a response then it is they and not the artist that needs professional help

 

[Timmy P]

There IS a difference between shooting kids when they are in public and displaying nude pictures of them!!!

Really? Even if the nude child consented and the kids on the street didn't?

The Canadian Supreme Court would see that quite differently. I'll let you guess which one they don't like.

Cheers,

-Tim

 

[Keith]

In order to be offended by a photo of a naked child one would have to have had an inappropriate response to it.

If someone were to have such a response then it is they and not the artist that needs professional help

Well said! Why does a photo of a naked child have to be assumed to be sexualising that child. Anyone who can honestly make that statement and believe what they have said has a problem IMO!

 

[lemos]

Really? Even if the nude child consented and the kids on the street didn't?

The Canadian Supreme Court would see that quite differently. I'll let you guess which one they don't like.

Cheers,

-Tim

Precisely! If you were a father, would you like to have someone point a 200mm to your sons on a public park?

On the other hand, if you were the father, and had a fellow photographer that asked you to shoot some photos of your children, would you be bothered?