Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 5
Send Topic Print
In the name of Art (Read 16563 times)
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
In the name of Art
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:29pm
 
I heard the first complaint yesterday and had a look at the site before the photos were taken off because I thought those complaining were exaggerating. It was quite shocking, even taking into consideration that this person’s photography wasn’t all that good.  

The main subject was a young girl in puberty who was allowed to pose naked for this “artist” in the name of Art.  Apparently the photos were blown up to a 2 metre height and could sell for thousands of dollars.  Some of the older works showed very young males in sensuous poses with young girls, but were more discreetly photographed than this current exhibition.

This morning interstate patrons and visitors to this gallery were disgusted at the closure – stating that Australia was backward and regressive in not recognising modern art and if the photos had been of  a young native girl with a loin cloth – this fuss wouldn’t have been made.  

I must be missing something.  Are these people serious?  What parent would allow their child to be used in this way?


The controversial art exhibition by Bill Henson is set to reopen to the public after several of the works of naked young adolescents were withdrawn.

The Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery has released a statement today saying they would remove several of the works which prompted a police raid on the premises last night to investigate claims of child pornography.

"After much consideration we have decided to withdraw a number of works from the current Bill Henson exhibition that have attracted controversy. The current show, without the said works, will be re-opened for viewing in coming days," the statement said.

The gallery will remain closed while the current exhibiton is re-hung.
Bill Henson and the gallery owner Roslyn Oxley, have declined to comment.

Dylan Welch reports: Police returned to the gallery at 11.30am to seize 12 photographs that have at the centre of the controversy.
Uniformed police including detectives from the Rose Bay police command entered the building.

A lawyer, understood to be representing the gallery, also entered the building at lunchtime.

It is not known if officers from the child protection and sex crimes squad are at the gallery, but they are involved in the investigation

http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/nudes-show-to-reopen/2008/05/23/1211183060208.ht...
Back to top
« Last Edit: May 23rd, 2008 at 2:01pm by mantra »  
 
IP Logged
 
Sprintcyclist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 39430
Gender: male
Re: In the name of Art
Reply #1 - May 23rd, 2008 at 2:40pm
 
i did not see it.
Can't just slap the title "art" on anything to allow it to be passed though.
Back to top
 

Modern Classic Right Wing
 
IP Logged
 
Sappho
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1406
Gender: female
Re: In the name of Art
Reply #2 - May 24th, 2008 at 11:16am
 
What were the poses Mantra? Was it just frontal nudity, or was there something more sinister than that? Since you've seen them could you explain?
Back to top
 

"Love is a cunning weaver of fantasies and fables."
 
IP Logged
 
RecFisher
Senior Member
****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 347
Re: In the name of Art
Reply #3 - May 24th, 2008 at 1:23pm
 
From what they showed on the news (with the rude bits all fuzzied out) I think the LAW would call it child pronography and exploitation, regardless of what the ARTIST calls it. 

Let's hope the law wins out.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: In the name of Art
Reply #4 - May 24th, 2008 at 2:21pm
 
I saw it on the news too. It looked nothing like a porn shot in the style, though some of the poses were similar, but you get that with art. It was black and white, kind of rough.

We rented a house once for a week that had photos of naked children up everywhere, even in the toilet. It was a bit weird but didn't really bother us. I think it's the age of the model that was the problem. Any naked shot of a girl that age is going to be associated with child porn.

I had someone complain about the photos of naked babies I have on the funnies page. Photos of naked children are not porn (legally speaking), even if you can see the genitals. There has to be something 'sexual' about it. I don't think that is the case with this artwork. However, the cop on TV did raise some valid points about the kid being able to give informed consent.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Sappho
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1406
Gender: female
Re: In the name of Art
Reply #5 - May 24th, 2008 at 4:30pm
 
RecFisher wrote on May 24th, 2008 at 1:23pm:
From what they showed on the news (with the rude bits all fuzzied out) I think the LAW would call it child pronography and exploitation, regardless of what the ARTIST calls it.  

Let's hope the law wins out.


I agree that the law needs to win here. Men are twisted, perverted suckers when it comes to pubescent girls. It's not the art at fault, but the perverted men who see in it what is not there.
Back to top
 

"Love is a cunning weaver of fantasies and fables."
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 37678
Gender: male
Re: In the name of Art
Reply #6 - May 24th, 2008 at 5:21pm
 
Sappho wrote on May 24th, 2008 at 4:30pm:
RecFisher wrote on May 24th, 2008 at 1:23pm:
From what they showed on the news (with the rude bits all fuzzied out) I think the LAW would call it child pronography and exploitation, regardless of what the ARTIST calls it. 

Let's hope the law wins out.


I agree that the law needs to win here. Men are twisted, perverted suckers when it comes to pubescent girls. It's not the art at fault, but the perverted men who see in it what is not there.


Make entry to the Exhibit available only to women, then.  Do you think that would impact the question of whether it is art or porn, Sappho?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Sappho
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1406
Gender: female
Re: In the name of Art
Reply #7 - May 24th, 2008 at 8:20pm
 
Aussie wrote on May 24th, 2008 at 5:21pm:
Sappho wrote on May 24th, 2008 at 4:30pm:
RecFisher wrote on May 24th, 2008 at 1:23pm:
From what they showed on the news (with the rude bits all fuzzied out) I think the LAW would call it child pronography and exploitation, regardless of what the ARTIST calls it.  

Let's hope the law wins out.


I agree that the law needs to win here. Men are twisted, perverted suckers when it comes to pubescent girls. It's not the art at fault, but the perverted men who see in it what is not there.


Make entry to the Exhibit available only to women, then.  Do you think that would impact the question of whether it is art or porn, Sappho?


Damn fine hypothetical there Aussie. Hmmm... just imagine that suggestion posed publically...

We've all seen the news now and have some context on this hopefully. Is it Art? Is it Porn? Is it a Metaphor? Why is it dangerous? What is it alluding to in society?
Back to top
 

"Love is a cunning weaver of fantasies and fables."
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Re: In the name of Art
Reply #8 - May 24th, 2008 at 9:05pm
 
Quote:
Was it just frontal nudity, or was there something more sinister than that? Since you've seen them could you explain?


If the models had been over 18, perhaps you could call it art - but Henson's talents are over-rated in my opinion.  One of the photos of the 12 y.o. girl was full frontal and it appeared too intimate, exploitative and distasteful.  No doubt she would have been paid a large fee.  Her parents are fools to allow their young daughter to appear naked in front of a 53 year old man (and a good proportion of Australia), regardless of what he calls himself.  

What was even more abhorrent was a naked boy about 8 and although he was only photographed from the pelvis up, the distress and misery on his little face was heartbreaking.  It was obvious he didn't want to be there.

These children aren't natives in their natural environment.  They were stripped bare in a clinical studio to be gawked at by those who claim to be artists.  In my view Henson is a pervert who has gone outside  the boundaries and the arrogant pig thought he could get away with it.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 37678
Gender: male
Re: In the name of Art
Reply #9 - May 24th, 2008 at 10:11pm
 
Mantra....how do you know that those ages are correct, especially "the 12 y.o. girl?"

Further...

Quote:
What was even more abhorrent was a naked boy about 8 and although he was only photographed from the pelvis up, the distress and misery on his little face was heartbreaking.  It was obvious he didn't want to be there.


You have to be joking.  I have not seen the photo, yet from your description, I can see art at work.........YOU have SEEN all that heartbreaking distress and misery on his little face, and that he did not want to be there.

A great work of art on the part of the kid and the photographer.........

After the shutter did it's bit, all of kid, Mum and Dad, and Henson went to Maccas, laughing.

It was Henson's shout.
Back to top
« Last Edit: May 24th, 2008 at 11:01pm by Aussie »  
 
IP Logged
 
Sprintcyclist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 39430
Gender: male
Re: In the name of Art
Reply #10 - May 24th, 2008 at 11:33pm
 
sappho and mantra - i agree entirely with you both here.

Unfortunately us men do do the majority of the sex crimes against minors.
Your sentiments are there to assist those who are defenceless against the offenders. I support entirely those efforts.
Back to top
 

Modern Classic Right Wing
 
IP Logged
 
Sappho
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1406
Gender: female
Re: In the name of Art
Reply #11 - May 25th, 2008 at 8:27am
 
I actually do think it was Art... I think the uproar is a very sad reflection on our society... because of the uproar... because incest and sexual abuse are upmost in the minds of leading individuals... I don't think it can be shown.

We are not sophisticated enough to appreciate the beauty as beauty only. We have to sully it with sexually perverted inuendo.
Back to top
 

"Love is a cunning weaver of fantasies and fables."
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: In the name of Art
Reply #12 - May 25th, 2008 at 3:55pm
 
Page two of the Australian has one of the photos. It was full frontal, but the pubic area was completely black due to the lighting effect, or maybe the dodgy printing job of the newspaper. That one I would definitely call art, not porn. There is something really strange about it. She looks almost deformed, rather than sexualised. Her rib cage looks too small. The shots they showed on the news looked more like porn, but it's hard to tell from a 1 second shot.

The articles also pointed out the very low rate of success in cases such as this. It may go to a jury to decide whether it is art or porn. If that is the case I think it is unfortunate that the PM and opposition leader have made such strongly worded criticisms of it.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Re: In the name of Art
Reply #13 - May 25th, 2008 at 4:36pm
 
Quote:
After the shutter did it's bit, all of kid, Mum and Dad, and Henson went to Maccas, laughing.

It was Henson's shout.


Well I'm sure they would have demanded more than maccas from Henson - and got it - especially after encouraging their minor daughter to bare it all for his camera.

Quote:
actually do think it was Art... I think the uproar is a very sad reflection on our society... because of the uproar... because incest and sexual abuse are upmost in the minds of leading individuals... I don't think it can be shown.


Sappho - these photos should never have happened in the first place. Why do you think we have laws to protect minors?  Why should an artistic clique pronounce that they are above the law because they view these images artistically and righteously - but the rest of society is wrong because they don't recognise this particular sort of art?  Art is for everyone, not just a minority and it should not involve child exploitation.  

Quote:
Page two of the Australian has one of the photos. It was full frontal, but the pubic area was completely black due to the lighting effect, or maybe the dodgy printing job of the newspaper.


I haven't seen the Australian today - the photos I saw had some partial shade, but only enough to emphasise the focus on certain areas.   Here's what Henson had to say - and it's obfuscation at it's best.  He convinces his subjects to work alone with him.

"Kids of this age, they seem to, as all those cliches go, be half in childhood, half in the adult world," Henson says. "They're at a point where there is an exponential change, both psychological and physically, taking place and this all kind of creates a floating world of expectation and uncertainty."

As minors, Henson's subjects make the decision to pose with their families.

The artist, who shot much of his latest work in Europe, works alone with his subjects.


"I say I want you to take a minute to look left, slow down, slow down," he says. "And of course the slower you go, the more you see."


http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/he-calls-the-shots-and-lets-audiences-decide/2008/05/21/1211182887495.html
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: In the name of Art
Reply #14 - May 25th, 2008 at 4:53pm
 
Mantra, the laws are there to protect minors from pedophiles, not artists. It is to stop children being sexually abused, because filming and photographing so often forms part of the abuse. But by itself, there is nothing wrong with photographing a naked child and parents do it all the time, though admittedly few do it once their kids hit puberty. Going from a ban on child pornography to a ban on child photography takes things too far.

He is not pronouncing himself above the law. The law is on his side.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 5
Send Topic Print