The censorship debate has recently come back to life following the Bill Henson exhibition in which sexually suggestive photographs of naked 12- and 13-year-old children were displayed in Paddington. The Prime Minister, the Premier of NSW and other politicians did not hide their disgust. In an act of defiance, the editors of Art Monthly published an old picture of a naked 6-year-old girl on the cover of the magazine. The outspoken girl, Oylmpia Nelson, who is now 11, fronted the cameras with her father, who is an art critic himself. Click here to watch this exceptional interview. What do you believe? Where do we draw the line between art, pornography or even child abuse?
This dude is hilarious. I feel sorry for the girl though. Must’ve been brainwashed.
He should be a fashion critic…
Why is it that we are so afraid of our nudity? Why are we afraid of our own bodies? Why must we censor something as natural as the human body? It’s not like we don’t know what it looks like…
I actually thought his arguments were pretty convincing.
A thought to consider:
Do we agree that pornography is art or not?
People consider film making art.
Therefore pornography is well…. art.
People we don’t allow children in pornography, but we allow it in photography.
Why is this?
Instead of Playboy or Debbie does Dallas, how about a your 6 year old daughter as a centre fold. Same thing isnt it? ART
We need to know where to draw the line.
Naked 6 year olds is wrong!!!
i think her response gave alot to the the answer, it was very aggressive and in a lot of sense added to the sense of perversion, whether brainwashed or not, no child should be put in seductive poses
I agree with Camb0dia in the sense that the Nelsons’ act of protest clearly backfired. Even people who thought the initial furore over Bill Henson’s exhibition was over the top, could not countenance the overt sexualisation of an even younger girl on the front page of a taxpayer-funded magazine merely to score a point. Stunts tend to backfire when they involve naked six-year-olds.
If anything, the Nelsons’ contribution to the debate harmed their cause.
It is a sad fact of this sinful world that some children cannot even rely on being protected by their own parents. Rather I think that no matter what her parents intentions for publicly displaying those photos where, there is a big difference between keeping naked childhood photos in the family photo album to propagating them world wide.
I feel that as we progress to post-post modernity that art, literature and music is about generating public response from the viewer. Henson’s art is about creating controversy and sparking debate in the newspapers, the media and even on the web. Though what he has done in my view is morally wrong and disgusting, credit must be given for his capacity to define post-post modernity…
if what bill henson did is to be classified as art then i think that the art community has to have a good long ahrd look at themselves and what they have become
I don’t think we can blame the art community, they are doing the best they can to represent the mindsets of society. As this society progresses (or regresses) we seem to be addicted to sex, to lust and pornography. If we are so disgusted by this, then why are 12% of all websites porn websites, and why are there 100,000 websites offering child pornography? I offer my congratulations to Henson and others for putting the internal psychology of society in our faces. In the hope of challenging and changing this atrocious culture.
12% of all websites are porn websites? Why didn’t anybody tell me!?
The Henson argument is still rife in the Seidler family, especially that I happen to have an 11 year old sister who’s just the right kind of age to star in one of The Dark Knight of the Art World’s exhibits.
Essentially, the deal is, as Dispinner mentioned, the parents had the ‘duty of care’ over their young’uns and made the deliberate decision to include them in this exhibition. Moreover, has anybody looked at some of the Medieval Christian artwork hanging on walls all over Europe lately? Naked baby Jesus is running around like it’s Woodstock ‘69 and the Rubenesque archangels are getting in on it too. Nudity is nothing new to the art world. Children also have bodies, and to expect the educated public, under fear of paedophilia paranoia, not to view Henson’s subjects as an extension of modern photography is doing them a great disservice.
I mean, hasn’t anybody heard of the critically acclaimed photographer Helmut Newton? His work is much closer to porn than Henson’s and yet he is considered a hero. Something to chew on…
The media is filled with exploitative and degrading images of womyn, racial stereotypes are encouraged in TV series, xenophobia and insanity spread on radio air waves… and yet suddenly when kids are involved we scream ‘this we do not do!’.
One could well wonder at the hypocrisy society that normalises exploitation in all cases except when it involves the children.
What is it about her age that makes it suddenly perfectly fine for a man to decide that her naked form should be shone to the world at one point in time over another? Consent is a complex and dangerous thing to toy with, and is not always as simple as the word ‘no’.
Also I think there is as much a fetish about these pictures in mainstream society as there is in the art world. Mainstream media simply lapped it up, who do you think profited more off this? Media sources or the man who took them in the first place?
I’m off to dig up my family photo album 
gonna open a ‘nude Will’ gallery and then do a deal with channel nine!
should probably note that in the above I intended to imply pictures of me naked as a child.. not that I was just gonna have some kind of weird self portrait nude thing… I don’t think channel nine would be that interested in something like that
You would be surprised…
Hey guy you misspelt women.
SNIP
This comment had to be removed because it defamed a justice of the High Court. You can be humorous but please do not defame anyone.
Liron
my fiancee is an anarcho-feminist.. its a habit I picked up from her.
100 000 websites offering child pornography??
if you could please provide the statistics proving this statement i would appreciate it, seeing as it seems to be a steaming pile of not true.
Anna,
The link to Mike’s statistics has been fixed.
Drawing the debate back to the issues, I think that it is wrong to exhibit sexually orientated images of children because they are too young to understand the full implications of their (or more often parents’) decisions. Chances are this decision will embarass them later in their lives, and will probably overshadow any of their other achievements. Surely we shouldnt allow such young children to make such significant decisions (or have such significant decisions made for them)!
I feel that before puberty, there is no shame in showing your body to other people (I believe there is no shame showing your body no matter how old you are, but I’m speaking from a societal point of view) since you are not even a sexual being yet! Sure, 12 might be a bit close to it, but I find it ridiculous that the 6yr old is being called abused! I was seen naked by many people when I was 6 and before, but does it really matter? Society is heading towards a new conservatism, one where parents are so fearful of their children they won’t let them out, and will “protect” them from any sort of harm, whether it be disallowing them from skating or whatever.
We are afraid of the paedos.. der!
they are everywhere! EVERYWHERE..
Won’t somebody think of the children!?
Meh, pedos aren’t as bad as everyone says. Child molestors are, of course. But how many child molestors are there? The biggest child rapists I hear about are from the Catholic Church, but can you blame them? Repressed sexual desires, intense relationships with children, salvation from God…at a certain point they make that leap and just go for it.
porn. and it’s lowering our already low standard.
How is it porn? Would you say Michaelangelo’s David is porn?
If it were a nude photograph of a real man called David, I think the overwhelming majority of people would regard it as pornographic. Would the Sydney Morning Herald run a photo of a naked man with his genitalia on display?
I don’t think they would, but I doubt it would be called pornography. Pornography is specifically designed to create arousal. I don’t think the Henson ones were. I also don’t think many artistic nudity photos are too. Is a photo of a naked man used for medical research pornography?
I’m not convinced it’s all so simple. If the photo of naked David appeared in a porn mag, we would call it pornography. If the very same photo is hung on the wall of an art gallery, then presumably it’s art. Still, it’s the same photo.
In my opinion, when it comes to photographic depictions of naked people, the line between art and porn becomes very indistinct. This is especially so when the photo is sexually suggestive. Arguably, that’s why publications like the SMH would not publish such “works of art”. When the subject of the photo is below the legal age of consent, you’ve got all sorts of complications. The same sexually-suggestive photo in the possession of a teacher or priest, together with similar photos, could easily be regarded as child pornography, which is a serious criminal offence. It would be quite difficult for the teacher or priest to argue they were just avid art collectors. My point is that the line, if there is one, is very indistinct.
You may call it a social construct, but a lot of people don’t want young children to be sexualised. Calling it ‘art’ doesn’t really change much. While I do think the reaction to Henson’s exhibition was excessive, I am very sympathetic to these concerns. I don’t think it would be such a blow to art if artists didn’t take pictures of naked children. I’m willing to draw the line there.
Hm, I don’t think a photo of a naked man in a porn magazine would be considered pornography unless it had some sexual intent. If you look at magazines like Vice, where there are pictures of breasts and other sexual organs, it is not viewed as pornography or art. Simply being naked is not being pornography.
This is not going to help Mr Henson (The Australian, 3/10/08):
“REVELATIONS that photographer Bill Henson selected children to pose nude for him by scouring primary school playgrounds at lunchtime have sparked anger and alarm among parents’ groups and principals.”
This is the original story as reported in The Sydney Morning Herald (3/10/08):
“I went in there, had a look around at lunchtime, just wandered around while everyone was having their lunch. I saw this boy, and I saw a girl too, actually, and I thought they would be great and the principal said, ‘Fine, I will give the parents a ring and let you know.’ So the ball is always in their court. The girl’s parents went, ‘Oh no, we don’t think it’s for us’ and the boy’s parents said, ‘Yes, sure.’ So that was that. That is how I started working with him.”
UPDATE: Outrage has predictably ensued.
I disagree with Liron. One picture in different contexts does and should definitely have different implications and consequences. Just as the one drug when used medically is acceptable and when used recreationally and for enjoyment it is not and punishable by law. So too should the one photo when used to create sexual arousal be considered in pornography (in this case potentially child pornography and unacceptable) but in other contexts such as this it is and must be seen as art.
It would be insanity to declare all naked pictures of children illegal in all contexts. I have photos in family albums of myself at a young age and according to your logic as these photos in a different context may be seen as child pornography, they should always be seen as child pornography. Context shapes meaning. These are family photos and Bill’s work IS art!
Skellosmcguie,
Thanks for sharing your views with us. Your response suggests that you misunderstood my post and I urge you to re-read it. I didn’t say what you seek to refute and what I did say, you don’t respond to.
Notwithstanding what I said above, let’s suppose for the purposes of argument that Bill Henson’s photos are pure unadulterated art.
So what?
Here we have issues of consent by people below the age of consent, parental responsibility and control, possible legal inconsistencies as to the possession of photos of naked children, potential misuse of said photos, the improper use of a public school with the consent and encouragement of the principal, the public sexualisation of young children, community standards, the boundaries of freedom of expression, censorship, the intervention of law enforcement agencies, not to mention fears concerning the abuse of children. These concerns don’t just go away because you call something art. So what if it’s art?
It’s not as if art can’t be bad or is immune from criticism. People act as if the moment something is classified as art it’s untouchable and all the critics are but unlettered philistines who need not be heeded.
Artists always take pride in criticising society, “speaking truth to power”. Well, it’s time we speak truth to art and criticise it.
The Daily Telegraph (26/10/08):
“LAWS regulating child nudity and art will be overhauled in the wake of the Bill Henson controversy.
Photographers and film-makers will no longer be able to rely on a defence of “artistic purpose” in court under one of the biggest shake-ups of child protection laws in NSW.
In a move set to trigger intense debate, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal the State Government has given in-principle support to the proposal, which is among a raft of amendments put forward by the NSW Sentencing Council.”
Andrew Bolt (27/10/08) responds brilliantly to the Michelangelo defence raised above.
Perhaps the members of the art community are not the best judges after all (The Australian, 26/11/08):
“A DOCUMENTARY-MAKER [Kerry Negara] has accused the art community of continuing to protect the late Donald Friend against charges of pedophilia, despite the artist himself describing having sex with boys as young as nine.”
He’s an artist. He can do no wrong.
With these standards, no wonder they’re cuddling Henson.
Liron, by prohibiting/censoring images of child nudity - as in the Bill Henson images, the government- the powers that be, are inadvertently sexualising the images. How you may ask? By saying that naked images of children are child porn and therefore there to cause arousal.
But of course! It’s been the fault of “the powers that be” all along… Kevin Rudd and Morris Iemma sexualised children! They should learn how to treat children from the man who scoured primary schools playgrounds for pre or barely pubescent children to strip naked.
My friend, this kind of blame-shifting is like saying that when people point out that a statement is racist these people are really at fault (not those who actually made the statement) because they are “racialising” it.
The people who are sexualising children are those stripping and photographing them in a sexually suggestive manner, not the people pointing it out.
Besides, it’s not as if there is some government conspiracy afoot. In this case, the government’s stance simply reflects the view of most people. So it is a bit selective to specifically blame the government or the mysterious “powers that be”. Maybe most Australians are sexualising children while the only people who aren’t are Bill Henson and his ilk.
Liron,
I exposed the contradiction in the Bill Henson case - that by trying to stop child porn ‘they’ (Kevin Rudd) in fact created it by calling Henson’s photographs of naked children child porn, and therefore placing ‘the nude child’ in the cultural construction of pornography and therefore sexuality.
This isn’t blame shifting. Its not that simple. To use your example, by pointing out something is racist, you are in fact re-affirming that thing as racist. By re-affirming something as racist you are simply reproducing the truth statements of the dominant discourse in which you operate within. Thus something could be racist in one culture and not in another. Moreover, something could be racist in one period of time and not in a another. Racism, like most terms, needs to be created, reaffirmed, reproduced to exist.
Also there are glaring contradictions in your argument. You describe so convincingly what is going through ‘Bill Henson’s mind when he visits primary schools. That he ’scours… for pre or barely pubescent children to strip naked.’ But in fact you don’t really describe what is going through Bill Henson’s mind, you instead describe what is going through your mind, when you imagine his intentions and motives. Thus, as your post shows, it is you that imagines that there are ‘pre or barely pubescent children to strip’ at primary school and project these thoughts onto Bill Henson.
It seems when some people view Henson’s work and find themselves thinking its sexual, they think its the artist’s fault. They panic. They forget it is their own thoughts. Their cry out in defense ‘Child Porn! Get it away! Arrest him!’ Thus not only do they expose what they are thinking but also connect/chain Henson’s photographs of nude children - ‘the child’ to ‘pornography,’ thereby inadvertently creating ‘child’ ‘pornography.’
Sumploke,
Thanks for your lengthy reply. I recognise this line of argument but I must confess that to my less scholarly mind it looks like an exercise in intellectual obfuscation (the second paragraph in particular).
To begin with, if an image is pornographic because of what is going on in my mind and not the image itself (and similarly, a statement is racist because of what is going one’s mind, not the statement itself), then it follows that my argument is “contradictory”, as you claim, because of what is going on in your mind, not my argument. I can rest my case here. Your mind (evidently a relativist bastion) is your business and I need not interfere with what is going on in it:-)
Of course, the mere fact that you have put forward your argument shows that you do not, indeed cannot, truly believe it. If it were true, my argument would not be really wrong; it would only be wrong in your mind – and because of you. I find it hard to believe that you launched your argument believing it only applied to you; and if you did, why should an argument that you believe only concerns you, concern us? In other words, why should it be of any consequence to anyone else?
Also, I’d like to pursue your relativism in a way that is entirely relevant to this debate. Do you believe that a statement like “every woman is stupid” is sexist in itself because it prejudges people on the basis of sex – or is it merely in the eye (or mind) of the beholder (the smokescreen of “the truth statements of the dominant discourse in which you operate”, to cite a learned friend)?
If you believe the latter is true, what gives you licence to excoriate sexism/racism/chauvinism etc or condemn these beliefs in others? Or perhaps you don’t?
As for the “glaring contradictions” in my argument, I don’t know what you are talking about. This is not speculation or imaginings. It’s based entirely on things Henson admittedly did, said or that were attributed to him by his most ardent defender David Marr and not contradicted by Henson. It’s not as if what Henson did needs to be overstated… He wanted to strip young models and he visited a playground to search for them. That’s what he said; that’s what he did; and that’s what I said he did.
As for my views, I’m a simple-minded bloke. The person who sexualises children is the one who strips them and photographs them in a sexually suggestive way. Call me crazy but that’s what I believe.
By the way, I am holidaying with my family in the United States (at the moment I’m in Washington, D.C.) so please forgive the long intervals between responses.
Always a pleasure,
Liron
Hi Liron,
I hope your enjoying holidays in Washington!
To ‘jump’ straight into it…
Would we even be arguing what the term ‘pornographic’ is if there was only one interpretation of it? Would it even be possible? Does the term pornographic that exists in English exist in its exactitude - lets say, in Indian? Did the term pornographic just magically appear one day? Or did the term mean different things in different contexts through different periods in time. I think it did. So too is the case of what you and I think is pornographic. It differs. It seems faulty to maintain that ‘pornographic’ only means one thing, when here you are arguing about the meaning of it being applied to Henson’s work. Thus would this thread even exist if lets say Henson’s nude photographs had only one view? That it was merely pornographic? I doubt it. Thus the ’statement of racism’ or in particular the photograph of Henson’s nude girl shown in this thread means different things to different people.
To take your example ‘every woman is stupid,’ would that statement mean the same thing in all different contexts possible? Could a woman saying it, lets say in sarcasm, mean the same thing as a man saying it? Lets say a man utters it on a stage in a play ‘every woman is stupid,’ is he being sexiest? Is he being sexiest only in the context of the play? Perhaps when he utters the lines ‘every woman is stupid’ he is not really being sexist but is merely performing? Therefore there is no one really being prejudiced cause we all know that its acting. Would a couple talking dirty in bed saying ‘fuck’ mean the same thing as telling someone to ‘fuck’ off? Words, statements operate within certain environments. Thus your example can be sexiest but isn’t necessarily sexiest - if we are to be ‘real’ and acknowledge the different shades of meanings. Would we need footnotes - further clarifications, if meaning was so lucid?
Moreover, am I really excoriating sexism? In my previous post, I argued that by acknowledging something as racist, your are also reaffirming it. I never said it was right or wrong. I’m sure a careful re-read would clarify that. All i said was it takes two to tango. For example if I insult you - first you must know that it was an insult, and only then it becomes an insult for you. What if someone insulted you in a language you didn’t know and smiled doing so? I’m sure you wouldn’t know the meaning of it and therefore not know it was an insult.
Now lets compare a) with b)
a) ‘the man scoured primary schools playgrounds for pre or barely pubescent children to strip naked.’
b) ‘he wanted to strip young models and he visited a playground to search for them’
Surely, your second interpretation differs from your first being that ‘young models’ differs to barely pubescent children. I wonder why? In b) it can be interpret ‘model’s as acknowledging them as subjects to be photographed, in a), it can be interpreted that children were mere fodder for Henson to prey on - which you seem to be arguing in this thread. Moreover, in b), which you claim Henson said, seems to fit the Bill of someone being a photographer - a photographer has models. Thus the first instance seems to run contrary to the second. Also the first instance seems to be the work of an imagination, that has re-described what he has heard and read to fit his argument. Surely, since you wrote a) it is not wrong to assume that it came from your mind? You expressed it and therefore must have thought about it. I use ‘thought about’ loosely.
Were you actually there when Henson ’scoured the playground.’ Or did you read it somewhere - read someone else intepretation? Just because Marr was not ‘contradicted by Henson’ as you say, doesn’t mean it was right. Just because someone didn’t say something - doesn’t mean they agree or disagree.
Do you even have a source that Henson said so and so? Even if you did, why would you re-spin what he said into ‘the man scoured primary schools playgrounds for pre or barely pubescent children to strip naked?’
Also, ‘the person who sexualises children is the one who strip them… in a sexually suggestive way.’ That’s only your definition of it. And since its reasonable to say that it was you who wrote that statement (in your last post), it would also be reasonable to say that you think just because a child is photographed naked that it is a sexual act. Thus it would seem that you think naked children are sexual objects, that you find them sexual, and that their naked bodies should be hidden from view. You wrote it - re-read if you must. Let me re-iterate - if you think Henson’s photographs are child porn, then you acknowledge that his subjects, his models’ are sexual objects, and if they are, surely then it is you who finds children sexual in the first place. It would be safe to say then, those that don’t think Henson’s photographs of nude children is child porn just don’t find nude pictures of children sexual. Think about it.
I’ll leave you to your holiday,
all the best,
sumploke
P.S I should point out I mean sexist - not sexiest in the above post (para2)… even though i wrote sexiest.
Sumploke,
Thanks for your patience. We’ve made it to New York City and I finally have a quiet moment and possession of my dad’s laptop.
In previous posts, you kindly accused me of doing a Henson. You said it was I who sexualised children and created child pornography. You even said that I thought children were “sexual objects” and further that I found them “sexual”. It’s not hard to see how that amounts to an accusation of paedophilia. Ergo, if you condemn the sexualisation of children or child pornography, you’re a paedophile!
I, it should be noted, never accused Henson of paedophilia – and he actually strips children and takes nude photos of them.
I hope you don’t go around saying such things to people’s faces because, unless they are progressive latté-sipping lefties like your good self, they might punch you in the face. Maybe one day relativists will manage to remove the socially-constructed, dominant culture stigma from pederasts (if you think I’m making this up google NAMBLA), but for the time being paedophilia is still “bad”. Some people might actually resent being accused of it.
Humour aside, let me make it abundantly clear that I do not find children sexual and that I do not treat them as sexual objects. Your argument that to see an image as child pornography I have to “find children sexual” is fallacious. I don’t have to be attracted to men or find men sexual to recognise gay porn and call it what it is. What you are arguing is tantamount to accusing every police officer who detects child porn on someone’s hard drive of sexualising children or even being a paedophile himself. What, you can’t identify child porn without being a child pornographer yourself? With respect, this accusation is as offensive as it is preposterous.
But let us go back to what I said in my last post. In it, I considered your argument that an image is pornographic because of what is going on in my mind and not the image itself (and similarly, a statement is racist because of what is going one’s mind, not the statement itself). In response, I asked you a simple question: does not it follow that my argument is wrong because of what’s going on in your mind, not my argument? If so, why are you attacking my argument? (You can find an expanded version of this in my last post.)
In reply, you vigorously repeated your argument but to my dismay I could not find a clear answer to my above question. If truth is really in the eye of the observer, why not the truth of my argument? How is it that relativists only apply relativism when it’s convenient and curiously forget all about it when making statements of their own?
Nietzsche famously (or infamously) stated that “there are no truths, only interpretations” (a maxim to which you seem to subscribe, if your emphasis on interpretations is any indication). But surely, if there are indeed no truths then Nietzsche’s maxim is not true either. In fact, it’s as valid as its exact opposite. So where does this illustrious theory leave us? In the end, Nietzsche’s maxim, from which relativism draws its force and which my dear interlocutor resurrects every second line, has the logical rigour of the hackneyed joke that 90% of all statistics are false.
I also note that I couldn’t find an answer to the second challenge of my previous post, namely (I repeat what I said in my previous post):
“Of course, the mere fact that you have put forward your argument shows that you do not, indeed cannot, truly believe it. If it were true, my argument would not be really wrong; it would only be wrong in your mind – and because of you. I find it hard to believe that you launched your argument believing it only applied to you; and if you did, why should an argument that you believe only concerns you, concern us? In other words, why should it be of any consequence to anyone else?”
You did, however, address my question whether a statement like “every woman is stupid” is sexist in itself because it prejudges people on the basis of sex. Again, you didn’t give me a clear yes or no. (As you can see, it’s almost impossible to pin down a relativist without physically pinning them down. When you think you’ve almost done it, they fall back on the safety net of ‘nothing has meaning’ – apart from what they’re saying.) In this instance, instead of giving a clear answer, you predictably obfuscated the question by raising all sorts of examples when the statement would supposedly be not sexist. I would argue that in all the examples you provided the statement itself is as sexist as ever. It is so by virtue of the simple construction of its words. It’s just that in some situations we know that it may be said in jest or not seriously meant. That knowledge exculpates the maker of the statement but the statement itself is still as sexist as ever. After all, the actor you mentioned would utter the statement to convey the sexism of his character. Doesn’t he do it because the statement is sexist?
As for the point on excoriating sexism, it was generally meant. I didn’t mean to say that you specifically excoriated it in your post. You didn’t even talk about sexism in that post. The point is that I assume that you generally deplore sexism as a view (notwithstanding your prevaricating on the subject e.g. “I never said it was right or wrong”). Given this clarification, I again invite you to answer my question in that regard (“If you believe the latter is true, what gives you licence to excoriate sexism/racism/chauvinism etc or condemn these beliefs in others? Or perhaps you don’t?”).
That’s enough for now. In the next post, due in a few days, I will respond to the points I have not yet dealt with.
Cheers,
Liron
The issue I did not address in my last post is Henson’s scouring incident. In a previous post I said that Henson “scoured primary schools playgrounds for pre or barely pubescent children to strip naked.”
You demand to know my sources. My sources are provided above in the post in which the incident was originally discussed. Links to the newspaper articles are also available. Besides, it was reported by every major newspaper and news channel in the country. Just google “Henson scoured”.
Your list of objections indicates that you may be unacquainted with the incident. If you’re still not satisfied after having read the sources, I’ll be happy to respond. I have taken this opportunity to re-read the sources and I am confident that what I said was accurate.
Let me also allay your concerns about the difference between (a) and (b). There is no material difference. I used the words “pre or barely pubescent children” and “young models” synonymously. The pre or barely pubescent children were the prospective young models. There is nothing more to it. Your analysis and conclusions are therefore based on a false premise and quite wrong.
Cheers,
Liron
It seems the debate here has moved into what is the defenition of pornography as compared to art? And how can we demean children to do such a perverse thing, are they convinced, brainwashed, or just plain abused.
Well people we are in a new age of connectivity, communication, and technology and with these shifts come a new reason to define what is what. And so in saying that here are some of my points.
-Just recently the former US secretary of defense Condoleza Rice visited elementary schools in the US and a elementary child was asking her quite loaded questions about the interrogation techniques used at guantanamo Bay, this to me doesnt seem to be something a 6 year old would have cared about, but he did - this just proves this child has a conscience, a set of beliefs and values, and the ability to make his own choices. So in saying that who can say that these children that were photographed didnt decide that this was an interpretation of themselves that they wanted to share with others in an artistic setting? Ultimately, I believe it must be the childs choice and the parents responsibility to protect their children but also to nuture their creativity.
As for what is art and what is pornography, here is my interpretation of the situation
-Pornography- Is meant to elicit sexual responses, is DISTRIBUTED on a MASS scale, and is overtly sexually suggestive.
-Art- Is meant to challenge societies views and elicit a mental response, Is shown exclusively in specified artistic settings and is not distributed on a large scale, and can be very bluntly sexual as well
So what is see is the simmilarities, yet it is also marked by distinct dissimilarities. If you are going to take a picture of a naked child it is the artists responsibility that it is displayed with respect and integrity and is not distributed online AT ALL, but is only shown at specific galleries or exhibits, and it is meant to drive home a significant point. It is also important to note that these artistic pieces never be distributed or reproduced in any way, shape or form!
So ultimately art and pornography are two different things that are based on similar yet dissimalar defining points, and there is a point were the two must be separated
Awesome work there. signed
Nicely done mate. I agree most of what was written here & this would certainly make me want to return to your blog! Bookmarked! =)
