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exhibition by Bill Henson is set to reopen to the public after several of the works of naked young adolescents were withdrawn.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

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?

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.

Sappho wrote on May 24^th, 2008 at 4:30pm:


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?

Quote:


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.

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.

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.

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.