Artiste or Kiddie Pornographer?

Artiste or Kiddie Pornographer?
Posted Sat, 31/05/2008 - 23:53

 

The role of art has always been to reflect and challenge our concepts of society, culture and sensibility. The debate swirling around the media over the appropriateness of Bill Henson photographing and then displaying images of a 13-year-old girl topless does everything to satisfy and tick box: art.

 Without wanting to rehash that dreary dinner-party-esque wank debate: what is art? Merge does feel that photographs of a 13-year-old girl without her clobber on, is worthy of discussion.

  What relevance does art really have in a conversation about the rights of a child?

Digg This Del.icio.us Furl reddit Stumble it!
‹ In the Spirit of the Games: China v Tibet The Hunt for HMAS Sydney ›
Chihiro's picture

Artiste or Art

Sun, 01/06/2008 - 09:38 — Chihiro

For me, art has always & will always be my interpretation of visual images another has created. It says more to me about me than it ever could about the artist. The artist, the storyteller, the photographer, the painter, the author,  showing me something about this world from a perspective I may not have had the opportunity to experience. 

As I look at an image of a 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, or 20 year old nude, whether I choose to see porn or beauty, vulnerability or confidence, my youth, humanity or peace is, in my minds eye.

 Is the artist showing me the reality behind teenage modelling, in an age where we think nothing to have young women spilling over each another fawning over our products?

 Last and final point, censorship has never work, just pushes determined individuals deeper into the shadows.

 Is the banning and level of official & media attention part of the artwork itself? For me it has been an amazing display! Great art!

 Why is it that films which depict, express or otherwise deal with sex, violence or course language are more acceptable for a younger audiences than those which contain real depictions of actual sexual activity between consenting adults in which there is no violence?

 Why is it ok to watch someone being hacked to death with a machete on prime time but not Janet Jackson's nipple?

 Who are we?

 Is the artist showing me the hypocrisy of our culture?

 P.S. I wonder how harshly we would judge if we actually had the opportunity to view the works. I haven't seen them all, have you? Here's your opportunity Merge..!!.. worth a stint in Long Bay?.. the reality of this ridiculous world.

 

 

Owen's picture

Hmm, hmm

Sun, 01/06/2008 - 00:03 — Owen

I think that basically: yeah, what Henson has created is art by definition - but that doesn't necessarily exclude it from also being "pornography", "paedophilia", or "bad" art. And just because it is art doesn't mean that it has some sort of ethereal significance or inherant worth, either.

jamesakerman's picture

Henson...more like paedophileson

Wed, 02/07/2008 - 23:23 — jamesakerman

Being severly left-brain dominant, I struggle to see how art can ever be seen as showing 'vulnerability or confidence, my youth, humanity or peace'. Thats like saying "elephants have pink and purple spots" to me, it just dosent make sence! As far as I can see there should be no reason to take photos of naked people other than for porn (18+) or for studying anatomy and physiology.

Photographing a nude minor is paedophilia to me. This poor girl has no idea what she is doing in this stage of her life, or what the consequences will be. This is because human beings are biologically very slow in developing (like elephants!). What were you doing when you were 13 years old? Theres a reason we cant drive cars, buy alcohol, have legal sex, get loans, drink at pubs, go into strip clubs, get married or leave school at this stage.

While Henson is giving himself a thumbs up and saying in a peanut voice 'Prime Age', I wouldnt mind if his alleged art is burned, and he gets to spend a few nights behind bars. Lets see if the prisoners are as lenient as the NSW Police.

 

Owen's picture

Wellll

Fri, 04/07/2008 - 14:39 — Owen

I think you stitched yourself up there in the first sentence James, as the easiest way to defend art is always to say "yeah, but you just don't GET it!" But I'll refrain from doing that. I think you do have a good point about the (legal) age of consent being linked to very real biological developments in the human brain - but I reckon you might just be being a bit harsh on old the old Henster. There is definitely a place for the naked human form in art, and it's pretty preposterous to try to argue otherwise. Look at what those crazy cats were doing with chubby angels during the Renaissance, or try sticking a tasteful leaf over David's package. Whether or not there is a place for the naked human child form.... well, that's the issue here.

And even though you can attempt to recontextualise photographs after taking the, the fact is that your subject was one who may not realise the implications of his/her decisions - and (though not in Henson's case) may not be aware of the intent of the artist. It's a slippery slope when we start trying to justify everything as art for art's sake - but it's just as much of a giant slip 'n' slide to censor (or burn as you suggested) art. Where doth we draw the line? Well, wherever you put it, I'd draw it in pencil for now.