Tags:
  1. Eoz Eanj
    Offline

    Eoz Eanj Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2006
    Messages:
    2,208
    Likes Received:
    41

    Bill Henson

    Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Eoz Eanj, Jun 9, 2008.

    Okay, for those who don't know, Bill Henson is a famous (now infamous) Australian artist, whom recently has been in a shiz load of hot water regarding a collection of photographs featuring a naked but obscured adolescent girl and boy. Basically the entire of Australia have freaked out about the matter, with Police raiding the Sydney's Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery last month, seizing 20 of his photographs. Up till now it was more than certain that Bill Henson would be charged over the photographs, however after seeking advice from the Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP), New South Wales (NSW) police on Friday said no charges would be laid- and this has lead to a greater uproar, especially from child sexual assault advocacy group Bravehearts, describing Friday's "disgusting" decision as a win for pedophiles which "puts Australia in the dark ages".

    The full article can be read here http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=575939&rss=yes

    This situation has now yeilded some pretty interesting debates as to what can be considered art and what is and is not acceptable by western standards. Especially in reference to Bill Henson himself and other, similar situations/artists, like the case with Miley Cyrus who posed naked (although the latter of her was obscured by a bedsheet and in my opinion the photograph is extremely tasteful) for a photograph in Vanity Fair.

    Basically I ask in this thread, where is the line in art/does the line exist in the first place and can such photographs, like that by Bill Henson and of Miley Cyrus be justifed in terms of art?
     
  2. lessa
    Offline

    lessa Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1,917
    Likes Received:
    27
    Location:
    Fantasy land
    I know I have a few pictures of my sons in the tub and on a huge pillow when they were babies and about 4 and 7 years old.
    nothing pornographic about them but I would not post them on the internet.
    they are just cute pictures of my babies.
    When strangers have pictures of nude children that is crossing the line.
    But people do get carried away with trying to do the right thing.
    I think the coppertone little girl had to be pulled because it showed her butt. She was a cartoon.
     
  3. Bluemouth
    Offline

    Bluemouth Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Messages:
    976
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    I had no problem with it. The guy is an artist, not a pedophile, and the human body is well-known by now, so where exists the problem? If I recall, there are two full-frontal pictures of a 13-year-old male and female in the Melbourne musuem, albeit in the Human Body section, but why is it any different?

    I guess the cops don't want to seem hypocritical after the recent child pornography bust ...
     
  4. ValianceInEnd
    Offline

    ValianceInEnd Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,670
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Phoenix, Arizona.
    I agree with everything you said full-heartedly!!
     

Share This Page