Hmm... Most of the critics I've read are making the claim that it's child pornography, not art. If that isn't the critical issue to them, what is?
After all, if someone wants to see photos of naked adolescents they are readily available from any newsagent (e.g., www.naturist.net.au/products/magazine_subscription) or from a DVD store (e.g., Blue Lagoon).
I'm not sure where the critics are fishing.. I'd be delighted to find out however.
Most of the critics I've read are making the claim that it's child pornography
We must be reading different sources. Most of the negative comments from the public seem to confuse it with pornography, but the more thoughtful "anti" commentators I've read talk about consent, child welfare and dealing with the unfortunate reality of the current situation.
My feelings tell me that the question has more to do with the subject of the images than anything else. It is my view as someone who works with victims of trauma that the 12 year old girl at the center of the works is not of a developmental level to have full comprehension about what it is she is engaging in. There is no way she can have complete understanding about the impact and potential use of the images, especially when they are transmitted across the freedoms of digital communication networks
( ... )
A very interesting viewpoint, and one I haven't seen elsewhere so far.
Overall, I'm against censorship, but there must be a line drawn somewhere. It's beyond me just where that line should be, and it varies from person to person and incident to incident anyhow, I suspect.
my views are not a simple conservative knee-jerk "won't someone think of the children" argument
Indeed. They are a nuanced, considered "won't someone think of the children" argument. I'm not sure that makes them correct, however.
I have heard very few voices saying taking the photographs may be wrong because of the psychological impact on the subject.
You can't have read the mainstream press on the issue, then. That seems to be the primary focus of the "pro-censorship" camp.
You cannot tell me that she is of a level of understanding to fully realize the impact of the images.
Indeed, but I expect that society will ensure-by painstakingly defining for her what is good and what is evil, such that it becomes clear to her that evil has indeed been done-that one day, she's fully traumatised by it.
No one has discussed her freedom to not be sexualized, to not have her image in the hands of inappropriate users.Do you think there aren't paedophiles tossing off to the images in the Target kiddiewear catalogues every day? Where are the
( ... )
You cannot tell me that she is of a level of understanding to fully realize the impact of the images.
Surely your studies in developmental psychology indicate that any post-pubescent person has the capacity to engage in adult cognitive reasoning? That is certainly what I have read from Piaget, Kohlberg and Gilligan (et al)
As for people who have been photographed in the past:
I think whoever is in charge of the NSW police action should be locked up and never allowed to inflict harm and ridicule on society again. I'd expect such action from the Middle East or a small-town sheriff in the deep South of the USA, not Australia
( ... )
Pictures containing nudity do not equal pornography and are not, in themselves, illegal.
While true, this merely leads people who don't understand the difference to extend their definitions of "pornography" through the ill-defined term "sexualisation". And remember, we're talking about more than just the waist-up topless thirteen-year-old; some of the less well-publicised images originally in the exhibition are arguably more sexual in nature (cf. that archive.org link, above).
The internet is now a gallery, but so what?
Anyone can view it with a casual click-through, so Art is no longer simply the domain of "Art lovers".
The fact that an image can be misused is not an excuse to ban its creation.
Ah, but this is about public display, not about creation. If nobody ever saw these photos, it would be very hard for anyone to credit the notion that they are dangerous.
All harm that has occurred to the subject of the photos is directly caused by the negative comments from some portions of the media, the NSW police and the Prime
( ... )
Okay, I'll rephrase: The fact that an image can be misused is not an excuse to ban its public display.
I don't believe that the opinions, usually anonymous anyhow, of the small (but highly vocal) minority of the public cause significant harm, so it doesn't matter that they can't be charged. Basically, nobody cares. My opinion or yours is unlikely to have any effect on any of the participants in the exhibition either. The public comments to the media by the PM and the NSW police are a different matter altogether.
I wouldn't be surprised if the PM's comments were deemed to make a fair trial impossible and get the whole thing thrown out anyhow. Whichever side he's on, I'd suggest that the PM making a big deal of his view of a matter which is the subject of a criminal action is a bad idea.
He - or the Media - certainly caused a stir about his work. It got people talking, reflecting and asking themselves what is acceptable and why.
For this - he should be congratulated and considered a success.
His work captures that awkward vulnerability, often unwanted and decided uncomfortableness of new female sexuality. Hardly a new topic for Art - but in stark contrast to works such as Lolita or other works where the female seemingly 'controls' her allure.
As for the actual subject of his work - apparently her folks were ok with that! Nice. That sort of opens up the floodgates for any legal guardian to exploit their charge.
I think the judge who threw his case out of court probably did more for Art; Henson's been taking and exhibiting his photos for years, after all.
That sort of opens up the floodgates for any legal guardian to exploit their charge.
But hang on: if it's Art, surely it's not "exploitation". Aren't the parents and the subject participating in the production of something worthwhile? I mean, my post was questioning the wisdom of subjecting the easily-traumatisable masses to something that the media has prepped them to see as kiddie-porn; but if you accept that it's worthwhile and valid Art, then it's difficult to object to the steps that were required to produce it. Although I guess that's an ends-justify-means argument. Maybe he could have just photoshopped adult models to look like adolescents...
I bet Olympia Nelson's parents wouldn't place such an importance on 'The Art' if some sick b@stards got their hands on their little girl and she was found raped and killed.
Would indeed that be an appropriate subject for 'The Arts'? - plenty of adolescent rape scenes in the Old Masters.
Different people accept different things in life. I certainly would not be happy with my daughter even being asked to pose for such shots.
But how far do we want to go as a society? I think it is about time we examined and decided on what is and isn't acceptable - much like we do with racial and gender items.
I bet Olympia Nelson's parents wouldn't place such an importance on 'The Art' if some sick b@stards got their hands on their little girl and she was found raped and killed.
I suspect they wouldn't associate the two; one would not be the cause of the other. Even if her exposure had increased her public profile, her rape and murder would still be a random event of vanishing rarity, and the risk inherent in the original photographs still very tiny.
I certainly would not be happy with my daughter even being asked to pose for such shots.
And that's an entirely reasonable personal point of view.
But how far do we want to go as a society?A very good question-in fact, that was the question I made this post to ask. I do think that we need to balance Art and Public Sensibility, although not because the public are able to make an accurate risk assessment in the circumstances (they're patently not able to do so, by reason of the way their brains have evolved, such that they're fine-tuned for the realities of living in small, isolated groups
( ... )
Comments 24
Reply
To be fair though, whether the works are pornographic or not doesn't seem to be the critical issue for most commentators.
Reply
After all, if someone wants to see photos of naked adolescents they are readily available from any newsagent (e.g., www.naturist.net.au/products/magazine_subscription) or from a DVD store (e.g., Blue Lagoon).
I'm not sure where the critics are fishing.. I'd be delighted to find out however.
Reply
We must be reading different sources. Most of the negative comments from the public seem to confuse it with pornography, but the more thoughtful "anti" commentators I've read talk about consent, child welfare and dealing with the unfortunate reality of the current situation.
Reply
Reply
Overall, I'm against censorship, but there must be a line drawn somewhere. It's beyond me just where that line should be, and it varies from person to person and incident to incident anyhow, I suspect.
Reply
Indeed. They are a nuanced, considered "won't someone think of the children" argument. I'm not sure that makes them correct, however.
I have heard very few voices saying taking the photographs may be wrong because of the psychological impact on the subject.
You can't have read the mainstream press on the issue, then. That seems to be the primary focus of the "pro-censorship" camp.
You cannot tell me that she is of a level of understanding to fully realize the impact of the images.
Indeed, but I expect that society will ensure-by painstakingly defining for her what is good and what is evil, such that it becomes clear to her that evil has indeed been done-that one day, she's fully traumatised by it.
No one has discussed her freedom to not be sexualized, to not have her image in the hands of inappropriate users.Do you think there aren't paedophiles tossing off to the images in the Target kiddiewear catalogues every day? Where are the ( ... )
Reply
Surely your studies in developmental psychology indicate that any post-pubescent person has the capacity to engage in adult cognitive reasoning? That is certainly what I have read from Piaget, Kohlberg and Gilligan (et al)
As for people who have been photographed in the past:
"'I never felt uncomfortable. Bill made you feel incredibly safe and calm'"
http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2008/05/25/1211653848660.html
Reply
Reply
While true, this merely leads people who don't understand the difference to extend their definitions of "pornography" through the ill-defined term "sexualisation". And remember, we're talking about more than just the waist-up topless thirteen-year-old; some of the less well-publicised images originally in the exhibition are arguably more sexual in nature (cf. that archive.org link, above).
The internet is now a gallery, but so what?
Anyone can view it with a casual click-through, so Art is no longer simply the domain of "Art lovers".
The fact that an image can be misused is not an excuse to ban its creation.
Ah, but this is about public display, not about creation. If nobody ever saw these photos, it would be very hard for anyone to credit the notion that they are dangerous.
All harm that has occurred to the subject of the photos is directly caused by the negative comments from some portions of the media, the NSW police and the Prime ( ... )
Reply
I don't believe that the opinions, usually anonymous anyhow, of the small (but highly vocal) minority of the public cause significant harm, so it doesn't matter that they can't be charged. Basically, nobody cares. My opinion or yours is unlikely to have any effect on any of the participants in the exhibition either. The public comments to the media by the PM and the NSW police are a different matter altogether.
I wouldn't be surprised if the PM's comments were deemed to make a fair trial impossible and get the whole thing thrown out anyhow. Whichever side he's on, I'd suggest that the PM making a big deal of his view of a matter which is the subject of a criminal action is a bad idea.
Reply
Methinks he struck a blow for Art.
He - or the Media - certainly caused a stir about his work. It got people talking, reflecting and asking themselves what is acceptable and why.
For this - he should be congratulated and considered a success.
His work captures that awkward vulnerability, often unwanted and decided uncomfortableness of new female sexuality. Hardly a new topic for Art - but in stark contrast to works such as Lolita or other works where the female seemingly 'controls' her allure.
As for the actual subject of his work - apparently her folks were ok with that!
Nice.
That sort of opens up the floodgates for any legal guardian to exploit their charge.
Kate
Reply
I think the judge who threw his case out of court probably did more for Art; Henson's been taking and exhibiting his photos for years, after all.
That sort of opens up the floodgates for any legal guardian to exploit their charge.
But hang on: if it's Art, surely it's not "exploitation". Aren't the parents and the subject participating in the production of something worthwhile? I mean, my post was questioning the wisdom of subjecting the easily-traumatisable masses to something that the media has prepped them to see as kiddie-porn; but if you accept that it's worthwhile and valid Art, then it's difficult to object to the steps that were required to produce it. Although I guess that's an ends-justify-means argument. Maybe he could have just photoshopped adult models to look like adolescents...
Reply
Would indeed that be an appropriate subject for 'The Arts'? - plenty of adolescent rape scenes in the Old Masters.
Different people accept different things in life. I certainly would not be happy with my daughter even being asked to pose for such shots.
But how far do we want to go as a society? I think it is about time we examined and decided on what is and isn't acceptable - much like we do with racial and gender items.
K
Reply
I suspect they wouldn't associate the two; one would not be the cause of the other. Even if her exposure had increased her public profile, her rape and murder would still be a random event of vanishing rarity, and the risk inherent in the original photographs still very tiny.
I certainly would not be happy with my daughter even being asked to pose for such shots.
And that's an entirely reasonable personal point of view.
But how far do we want to go as a society?A very good question-in fact, that was the question I made this post to ask. I do think that we need to balance Art and Public Sensibility, although not because the public are able to make an accurate risk assessment in the circumstances (they're patently not able to do so, by reason of the way their brains have evolved, such that they're fine-tuned for the realities of living in small, isolated groups ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment