Forum

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

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 
Send Topic Print
In the name of Art (Read 17172 times)
Kytro
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Blasphemy: a victimless
crime

Posts: 3409
Adelaide
Gender: male
Re: In the name of Art
Reply #60 - Oct 28th, 2008 at 4:28pm
 
mantra wrote on Oct 28th, 2008 at 4:01pm:
Henson used older teenagers in his previous work and the "photos" could be described as very sensual bordering on mild, mild porn - but the models were old enough to make their own decisions.


For something to be pornographic, it usually has to be explicitly sexual.  I have yet to see any indication that any of Hensons work is like this.

mantra wrote on Oct 28th, 2008 at 4:01pm:
These recent photos are different altogether and take on a whole new meaning.  Henson was pushing the boundaries and thought he could get away with it.


Pushing boundaries is not an inherently bad thing.  If the pictures were actually pornographic, Henson would have been prosecuted.  It seems to me that people automatically assume seeing a child naked is somehow wrong, bad or otherwise sexual. 

I agree with Henson's answer - if you see it as sexual, take a look at yourself.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Re: In the name of Art
Reply #61 - Oct 28th, 2008 at 4:40pm
 
Quote:
If the pictures were actually pornographic, Henson would have been prosecuted.  It seems to me that people automatically assume seeing a child naked is somehow wrong, bad or otherwise sexual.  

I agree with Henson's answer - if you see it as sexual, take a look at yourself.


Henson wasn't prosecuted because he was covered by the NSW Crimes Act.  However in the next few months - he will not have the chance to make a repeat performance.

Are you - or have you ever been the parent of a 12 year old girl Kytro?  Did you see the original photos on the Galleries website?  I did.  The photos of this current exhibition were taken off the site in a matter of hours and rightly so.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48831
At my desk.
Re: In the name of Art
Reply #62 - Oct 28th, 2008 at 6:58pm
 
The Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, announced yesterday the Government has accepted a recommendation by the former Supreme Court judge James Wood that the leeway given to artists to depict children as the victim of torture, cruelty or physical abuse or children engaged in sexual activity should be removed from the Crimes Act.

Maybe the specific change has been misrepresented here. It appears to rule out for example the photo that Time put on it's front page of a young female vietnamese victim of a napalm attack. It would also appear to forbid artists from speaking out against child abuse through art, for example by painting a picture of the face of an 'imaginary' child with a black eye and some slogan that implies his father beat him.

If my suspicions are correct, this has not been thought through.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Re: In the name of Art
Reply #63 - Oct 29th, 2008 at 11:11am
 
Quote:
The Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, announced yesterday the Government has accepted a recommendation by the former Supreme Court judge James Wood that the leeway given to artists to depict children as the victim of torture, cruelty or physical abuse or children engaged in sexual activity should be removed from the Crimes Act.


As with most of these matters - it is always up to the magistrate, judge or jury to make the final decision.  If it is a genuine case of torture, cruelty or physical abuse - the photo would hardly be enlarged and placed in an art gallery to be gawked at by "artistic patrons" or "voyeurs" and copies sold for $25,000 a piece.

The photograph of that little Vietnamese girl on fire may have been an excellent photograph but it was taken because it was of international and human significance depicting a current war - hardly in the same category as Henson's predatory work.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Kytro
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Blasphemy: a victimless
crime

Posts: 3409
Adelaide
Gender: male
Re: In the name of Art
Reply #64 - Oct 29th, 2008 at 4:04pm
 
mantra wrote on Oct 28th, 2008 at 4:40pm:
Are you - or have you ever been the parent of a 12 year old girl Kytro?


I am not, but that is completely irrelevant to being able to determine if something is pornographic.

mantra wrote on Oct 28th, 2008 at 4:40pm:
 Did you see the original photos on the Galleries website?  I did.  The photos of this current exhibition were taken off the site in a matter of hours and rightly so.


I did see some of them, but they didn't strike me as overtly sexual.  There are for more things to be concerned about, like actual child porn, rather than art that makes some people uncomfortable.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 
Send Topic Print