Tuesday, June 3, 2008

More child porn?

Protest by Victoria Larielle over Bill Henson seizure.

Arguments about "pushing boundaries", he's been doing it for years, not many people would see it anyway... the relativity argument by other "artists" and supporters...

Huh? Well, I think many people have had enough, the ones who disagree and call these photographs child porn. Perhaps he photographs for a very small clientele.

Why can't the "artists" see that these photographs are wrong? If the model was an adult there would be nothing wrong with the photographs... if the model looked like an adult, there would be nothing wrong with the photographs.

But the fact is that they are photos of pubescent and pre-pubescent children.

Dogfight at Bankstown covers it better than I in his post.

Update: Obsessions: Bill Henson: A Documentary - Wog Blog.

Update II: Lone dissenter in the Arts World, Ivan Durrant.

Update III: From Bolta's, a comment:

My personal view is that this issue should be treated the same way the world treats the elephant ivory trade. It’s illegal to trade new ivory no matter how it was sourced, even a local just happened to pick it up off the ground from an old elephant that died naturally. This policy helps to reduce trade in ivory, and helps protect elephants from being hunted, because ANY trade is illegal.

The same for these so called art photos. As a modern world, we are far more aware of issues surrounding child pornography, and ANY activity that even remotely appears to support it, including artists taking photos, should be banned.

We cannot have one reason for children being photographed or painted naked condemned, and another (just because its called art) condoned. It is too easy for any lines to be blurred, so lets draw the line at NONE.

DigiDave of Sydney (Reply)Wed 04 Jun 08 (02:14pm)

And directly below that comment, a link from Jay Santos to this:

The anointment of artist recognises the bestowing of privilege and positioning of the artist in society. Once labelled an artist, there is an acceptance of responsibility to challenge the ideologies of that society: what it means to be an artist and what is produced in the name of art. Society has to accept that art must be read in this specific context. Beyond the present debate of Henson's photography, the nature and issue of consent and child pornography is the question: what is the status of art in the 21st century?

This drivel includes the relative point that this is not new, Henson's an old hand, same as other artists exploring the beginning of sexuality....

I'm with DigiDave:
As a modern world, we are far more aware of issues surrounding child pornography, and ANY activity that even remotely appears to support it, including artists taking photos, should be banned.

We cannot have one reason for children being photographed or painted naked condemned, and another (just because its called art) condoned. It is too easy for any lines to be blurred, so lets draw the line at NONE.

1 comment:

Minicapt said...

Or add the suffix 'kiddie diddler' to every mention of Mr Henson et al.

Cheers
JMH