Fri, May 23, 08 - 6:42 pm

http://www.theage.com.au/news/arts/nude-show--charges-loom/2008/05/23/1211183065535.html


Matthew Burgess and Les Kennedy
May 23, 2008 - 2:55PM

The controversial Sydney art exhibition by photographer Bill Henson is set to open to the public, despite looming criminal charges and the withdrawal of several works featuring naked young adolescents.

NSW police have seized 20 of 41 photographs from the exhibition and plan to launch criminal proceedings under the Child Protection Act.

Police say charges will be laid under both the NSW and Commonwealth Crimes acts for publishing an indecent article.

The alleged Commonwealth offence relates to publishing some of the photographs on the internet.

Police raid

The Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery released a statement today saying it would remove several of the works that prompted a police raid on the premises last night to investigate claims of child pornography.

The exhibition had been due to open at the Paddington gallery last night.
It includes large photographic prints of topless children, one of which was included on the opening night invitation.

The images angered a child protection group, which labelled the photos child pornography, but artists and gallery patrons viewed the shut-down as "censorship" of genuine art.

Today's statement, released on behalf of the gallery and Henson, announced the works would be withdrawn from the exhibition, which would open within days.

Photos withdrawn

"After much consideration we have decided to withdraw a number of works from the current Bill Henson exhibition that have attracted controversy,'' the statement said.

"The current show, without the said works, will be re-opened for viewing in coming days.''

The statement also cited Henson's reputation.

"Bill Henson is one of Australia's leading contemporary artists and is internationally respected,'' the statement said.

"His works are held in every leading art institution in Australia and are included in the collections of a number of the world's most prestigious art museums.

"The Art Gallery of NSW and the National Gallery of Victoria have both recently held a retrospective of 30 years of the artist's work.''

The gallery would remain closed while the current exhibition was hung, the statement said.

Prosecution launched

The decision to launch a prosecution was made public by Rose Bay police commander, Superintendent Allan Sicard outside the gallery while detectives carried out a search.

Superintendent Sicard said police had taken possession of the Henson photographs that were due to go on public exhibition on Thursday night.

"Police at 3.30pm yesterday received a report from a concerned member of the public that an exhibition was occuring at this gallery,'' said Superintendent Sicard.

"Police attended the gallery yesterday and it was the agreed position between the gallery owners and police that the exhibition not go ahead last night.

"This morning police have attended the gallery and executed a search warrant and seized some items depicting child under the age of 16 years in a sexual context.

Police investigation

"Police are investigating this matter and it is likely we will proceed to prosecution on the offence of publish and indecent article, under the crimes act.

"It is likely that a future court attendence notice will be issued for the offence upon the completion of the investigation.

"The child depicted in the image is female. We believe that the child is 13 years of age. The information is that the child... is not a resident of New South Wales and we have referred liason through our child sex crime unit to liase with the state where the child is believed to live.''

Police would not say if they had interviewed Mr Henson, or where the child lives.

Fri, May 23, 08 - 6:57 pm

This is fucked up.

Fri, May 23, 08 - 8:44 pm

THE FUCKED THING IS THEY"RE ALL HIGH AND MIGHT YABOUT IT,

sorryy , then on the Australian website they have a link 'SEE THE PHOTOS'

like they fucking care about children, or art.

FUCKERS

one of the shots is a boy from the mid waist up without a shirt on. OHHH SHHEEEETTT

Fri, May 23, 08 - 9:03 pm

I find the padded playboy bras and g-strings available for sale in target and kmart for six year old girls unquantifiably more "sexualised" and distressing than Henson's images of a "topless child".

And as for claims paedophiles would litter the gallery - they don't need to when there's catalogues in the letterbox. The sexualisation, as with philia, is in the eye of the beholder.

Fri, May 23, 08 - 9:04 pm

man, if I hadn't been drinking all night I'd so be in my car right now on my way to Anne Geddes house to fuck her shit up!

Fri, May 23, 08 - 9:08 pm

Rudd's "let kids be kids" line is amusing. He's not too keen to let kids be kids if being a "kid" (his peculiar term for a teenager) involves underage binge drinking.

Fri, May 23, 08 - 9:41 pm

I read a headline that used the phrase "child porn", this offends me even though the telly showed me a picture of a full frontal nude 12yo which i find to be inappropriate but do not chaallenge the fact it is 'art'.

Fri, May 23, 08 - 9:47 pm

I also like the way that 'adolescent' (and even 'teenager') hasbeen completely removed as developmental stages. These days we only have adults and children, there's most certainly no in between.

Fri, May 23, 08 - 10:02 pm

I think the claim that a photo, by an artist, being displayed in an art gallery, as part of an art exhibition, is being displayed in a "sexual context" is a bit tenuous. There's about five other contexts that you have to wade through before you get to sexual (unless you yourself perceive children as a primarily sexual object of course, but that's a cheap shot), and even then, that doesn't necessarily mean pornographic.

Also child pornography is generally defined as a form of child abuse. There's no evidence of abuse. Not even a mention, in fact.

Fri, May 23, 08 - 10:45 pm

Yeah, didn't you know. Paeodophiles go and hang out at fine art galleries, look at the pictures, get their evil jollies over it and then go on about their sick twisted paedophile ways. All that stuff about the internet, catholic churches and boarding schools is all hooey, it's the modern art galleries that are at the very heart of the paedophile "rings".

Fri, May 23, 08 - 11:32 pm

Fri, May 23, 08 - 11:37 pm

I've got a lot more time for that position than I do for Rudd deciding that if something offends him it isn't art (which is basically right out of the Howard copybook)

I think there's a very valid debate to be had about the question of informed consent - whether models who appear in this stuff at 12-13 might later wish they hadn't (for whatever reason) and to what extent they should be protected from their own folly (or from any pressuring into it) if so. However, the "this legitimises kiddie porn" angle is just another morals panic.

Sat, May 24, 08 - 12:24 am

Well the law states that a person under 16 I think, doesn't have the ability to make choices like this.
There is a well known saying that The Law is an Ass.

Maybe when these people who make these laws were teens, they were really kids, and didn't have the same sense of maturity that some younger people do, does that mean that a more mature person (who happens to be adolescent) and who actively thinks things through is less able to because the lawmakers were not?

Really, there isn't much of a basis for a call for sexual abuse here, there isn't anything sexual about nude necessarily, its more about action, behaviour than it is about a bit of skin, don't you think?

The one pic I saw was a younger teen who was covering up her genitals in a rather venus type fashion. To me thats more about innocence than sexuality.

Sat, May 24, 08 - 12:44 am

That's what I mean about transference...the insidiousness and discomfort is coming from the viewer. And probably half the point.

I think DogsArse and Fallon raise really salient points too: we're not acknowledging pre/pubescence/adolescence. That budding sexuality is a taboo to acknowledge (even though the shots I saw seemed far from 'budding'). When I read about Henson talking about the tackiness of one subject's nail polish I immediately thought of the Lolita comparison - the actual text of Lolita implies that Humbert is REPULSED by Lolita and Lolita's attempts at 'adult behaviour'. It's seen as a crass imitator. He becomes obsessed with how utterly vulgar she is, not attractive, nymphlike or sexual at all.

And I can't imagine someone of Henson's experience and calibre not having full parental consent for the shoots?

Sat, May 24, 08 - 12:48 am

I find this thread more about a bunch of people on their high horses, oops scratch that there some dippy around that doesnt like that phrase. Anyway what I meant to say is that you all seem to be spouting the same crap.

If this guy is a great an artist he they make out, he should have some idea of the relevent laws, yes? As such if he thought there might be some grey area he should of researched better. Its not about weather this done as kiddie porn or a catalouge shoot or to hang in the bloody louve, its about the legality of it. There is no ignorance or flouting the law just because its art (as a general rule). eg do we allow a certified race driver to do 200km on our streets be cause he has experience in the matter? No they must abide by the law for saftey etc, other wise everybody would end up doing those speeds.

The day we start having laws for them and laws for us is the day the world gets alot shittier*. So If in Australia the law says no X because its deemed by the people (or the people in power elected by the majority**) because they majority says so then, it no kiddie porn or art. If he really feels the need for this AND he's so world accalimed then why doesnt he go to japan or scandinavia when it would be more widely accpeted.

* nb - Ok I'll admit that to some degree law is defined by the cost of your lawyer not the system.

** nb ok disagrements over just what is elected by majority etc for elsewhere (no I dont agree with our system either)


about me, do i like art, yes (though some things being alled art is debatable). Do I find porn filth and disgusting, no I have enjoyed it (I'm sorry at no time did I or have very enjoyed bear porn). Do I as a general rule see a line between the two, no (thats not to say they i find all art erotic or all 'porn' art). One mans treasure is anothers junk etc. We all have our points of view. Basically I see this a case flouting the law not a case of art vs porn.

my 2c

Andrew

Sat, May 24, 08 - 1:07 am

That doesn't follow.



That's correct. And the legal definition of pornography makes specific provisions for artistic merit and bona fide artistic intentions. That's the whole fucking point you complete ********.



Do you think he's actually flouting the law though? Does it not seem more likely to you that the artist believed he was acting within the boundaries of the law? Does it not also seem ************ obvious to you that the "art vs porn" debate that you oh-so-tediously simplify this discussion to is fundamentally linked to the legal definition of pornography and the legal limits of artistic expression, to the point where saying "oh it's the law, he should obey it" adds so little to the discussion that you might have made the same "point" by fucking a baby and posting about that instead?



That's the single most inept comparison in the history of all the internet.



That doesn't follow either, and it's actually even less relevant than your previous sentence.



THAT'S THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT YOU ********

The law says "No child porn". Everyone is saying "This doesn't satisfy the legal definition of child porn" and "This seems a stupid thing for the law to target given the multitude of other, more accessible media out there which presents children in far more upsetting contexts". That's what the debate is about.

******************************

Sat, May 24, 08 - 1:28 am

You made the point far better than I did. "CHILD PORN", in all honesty, is not the first thought that races through most (sensible) peoples' heads when they see a photo of a child without clothes on.

Also personal maturity has always been a difficult grey area in consent cases. We've all met kids who seem intelligent beyond their years, and we've all met adults who we suspect still crap into nappies.

Whether or not his work was designed to be confronting (and to be honest, from what I know about Henson I'd characterise his work as having an aloof "rawness" rather than an explicit confrontational element - that in itself is a fine line of course), it's worth pointing out that Henson's work has ALWAYS been about the twilight zone between childhood and adulthood we call adolescence, and one need only have a look at his work to realise that it would completely undermine his explorations of this theme if he were to achieve these images through abuse of any kind.

Sat, May 24, 08 - 2:26 am

Me neither. But consent of a parent is not always the same as informed consent of their offspring.



As Fallon pointed out, this is a non sequitur.



That rather depends on whether he was willing to consider legal action against him as a part of his work. He may have been well aware of the risk he was taking and willing to take it. That doesn't necessarily mean that any law he is prosecuted under is "right". Alternatively, he may simply not have been aware that he was doing anything illegal (and since he has not yet been found guilty in a court of law of such anyway, let's not jump to conclusions that he is.)



Your argument's inconsistent. At several points you say it's all about the law. At others (like the above), you talk about the reasons for a law. If the reasons for the law matter you should be able to say why the laws that might affect these artworks are good laws. If the reasons for the law do not matter and you just think all laws should be followed whatever the reasons for them, then there is no need for you to mention them to back up the driving case. (And you exaggerate more than a little when you say "everybody" would end up doing those speeds. A small and dangerous minority, most surely.)



Another weak argument. This controversy exists precisely because our legal system is already saturated with "laws for them and laws for us". In this case us = over the defined age of consent (for whatever) and them = those under that age.

Furthermore many laws for them/laws for us pairs are clearly beneficial and uncontentious. To take your speeding argument, emergency services are allowed to disobey certain road rules. This is as it should be, and does not create a case for allowing everybody else to do the same.



Something lost in translation from your native dialect here.



Possibly because when exhibited in the context of a society more at ease with the fact that some adolescents actually know what sex is, his work might lose a significant portion of its context?

(I'm assuming your claim that his work would be accepted in those countries for the sake of argument only.)



*sigh*

If you think it was worth that much then you have some serious tickets on yourself!

Sat, May 24, 08 - 1:56 pm

Realistically, models get head hunted when they are 14/15 and sexualised. I dont see much difference between a 12yo and a 14yo.

Kate Moss at 15:


Angie at 16:

Sat, May 24, 08 - 3:14 pm

hey man self-censorship

Sat, May 24, 08 - 5:44 pm

I don't find anything in what Apisto said to be pedaphilic at all. I believe you are getting a bit personally insulting about it for no reason. So what if he as a different opinion about the legality of it rather than the law being problematic, as so many people don't abide the law anyways....

Sat, May 24, 08 - 5:49 pm

sc - you too. I think many people on here love to flame people, very rigidly and don't allow for different points of view. That is what I find most limiting on the Dwarf, not everyone is afflicted, but I think an argument/discussion benefits from multiple POV

Of course I'm not saying you cannot disagree, I am simply stating that if one doesn't agree with another does that get you people hot to be able to get in there and flame and get so opinionated? No, its just an excuse to have an anonymous go at someone.

in Fallon's case it seems personal insults are there instead of some of the better arguments he could have used.

Sat, May 24, 08 - 6:21 pm

If people stopped using personal insults in their arguments on the dwarf, everyone would stop visiting the site. It's basically the best bit.

(retard)

Sat, May 24, 08 - 6:41 pm

kids that fuck other kids.

Sat, May 24, 08 - 7:15 pm

this whole kiddie porn hysteria is only adding to the problem, it attaches a dangerous mystique which only makes it more appealing.
any half-way aware pervert knows that the excitement is in the getting not the having.
fuck lets blow the whole roof off this shit and expose it for what it really is, boney, awkward looking unsexual waifs, if you like that shit without all the added baggage, GTFO