Art or Pornography - naked photos of 12 -13 yo girls?

Question

Bill Henson's 21 photos of naked 12 - 13 year old girls have been seized by NSW police that were to be displayed at an art gallery.

The photographer and gallery say the photos are not pornographic they are art - and that "this is a dark day for Australian culture"

What do you think - can photos of naked teenage girls be anything but pornographic?

Answer 1

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

It's child pornography. I don't care if the pictures are displaying sexual poses or not. There is no reason to compell young girls to take their clothing off. It's an invasion of a young girl's privacy at a time in her life when she isn't old enough to make that decision for herself. And having those types of pictures taken will shape her future in unchangable ways. Especially if it is deemed "art" because a lot of people will see it. You may call it a dark day for Australian Culture. I call it a right move for what's in the best interest of that child. Here's a question...the "artist" getting paid for these pictures...how much is she paying to exploit her "models". If you can't make a name for yourself by taking pictures that don't involve naked children, I don't consider you a very good photographer.

Go ahead and give me the thumbs down. I will always stand up for the kids. Screw the "artists".

Asker's Rating:

Asker's Comment:

i agree with you wholeheartedly - i dont hink its a dark day for Aussie culture - I think its a dark day for Australia if the art world claims these photos are anything but pornographic.

Answer 2

Artist often use their works to create controversy, to do things that open up opinions about issues that people would otherwise never talk about. This is a prime example.

I dont believe Bill Henson should be charged as such, I do believe he wanted to create 'art', leaning towards the controversial subject of child pornography, to create controversy, which he certainly achieved.

Chances are that the girls parents signed a waver and were present at the time of the photo shoot, if they werent they should be very ashamed, BUT.....having said that, the girl is no way near old enough to predict the consequences of her actions, there fore was exploited by the artist in my view.

In the twisted minds of paedophiles, this would be considered porn and probably circulated for their own disgusting purposes. The girls face is shown, which I think is extremely dangerous and inappropriate as well.

I think the police were right to shut the gallery down, the identiy of the girl should be protected. When people try and say 'this is art not pornography' I think they are seriously misguided. The big issue for me is that the girl is identifyable, which is soooo irresponsible. If the girl was annonomus, I may believe the pics are art, but what one person sees are artistic, another may see as material for thier own sick purposes, this MUST be recognised.

I believe if the pictures were shown as 'art' this girl is in danger, shame on you Bill Henson, and shame shame shame on the girls parents.

Answer 3

Totally depends on how they were posed. Parents taking pics of their kids, a studio doing work for a book, look at all the pictures taken of the generation after the Hiroshima bomb--those were of all ages in the nude, taken doing therapy water classes to get limbs working again.

Yes, they can be art. It depends on the focus of the photographer, what they're trying to say with the camera. Not all nude pictures are exploitative or porno.

Answer 4

The problem is that these girls ARE underage. Neither they or even their parents have the maturity or the right to give permission for this type of activity. Secondly there is no way to regulate who sees these pictures, and what's going on in their heads. Even with the most artistic, pure motives in the artists head at the creation of these images, all it takes is one perv to walk into the gallery and see these images, and you have allowed another pedophile to advance his perversion. And possibly give him the excitement to go out and harm some innocent child. And if the images are somehow reproduced, even if they weren't supposed to be, and distributed in an unregulated manor, there is no way they WON"T end up in a pedophiles hands. The artists motives may have been pure as new fallen snow. His only motivation might have been to capture a unique and special point of several children's development. But artistry IS subjective. An artists pure intent still is child porno to a sick individual. It's sad, and a sorry state of human existence that this is so, but never the less true.

Answer 5

The fact is that they are underage.. it may be art, but I don't know, as much as I do love tasteful nude photography (and trust me, I do, I have been a photographer and a model for some.) I would never want to see an underage person naked.. just the thought feels dirty, even if that is not the intent of the photo, nor would I ever want the subject of my photos to be an underage person.

Answer 6

It is pron dressed up as art. If you wish to photograph persons over 18 yrs of age I say good, that's fine. but if you want to photograph children you should be jailed.
In N.S.W. you can not have sex with a person that is under aged, even if that person is agreeable it makes no difference you being older will be arrested as it should be. So why is it o.k. to make nude photos of persons under the age of 18 years. remember the person taking the photos is doing it to make financial benefit. how will this affect the young girl in years to come when she realises, that there are nude pics of her out there for all to see, I would like to know if the model or her parents made a profit from this photo, if so isn't that akin to child prostitution

Answer 7

Pornography is in the eyes of the beholder.
What wrong with nude pictures when children can go nude on some beaches in the USA?
Pictures are worst than the real thing?
What the different between a person who 18 and one who 17?
The only different are the laws in the USA.

Just don't force are pressure anybody of any age to get nude against their will. Some people will be mess up if force to get nude at any age (more so than some children would be). We do have force nudity for some people in the USA. Example of force nudity in the USA (medical exam for arm forces, body search my law officers).

Source(s):

Part of Miami Beach is open for nudity for people of all ages. It is 10 miles north of Miami Beach.

Answer 8

They are suggestive but this is a society with those sane n insane people together,we should only suggest to the nearest desire nothing can be said or done.whatever will be,will be.I think those two are really stupid because they want to be different so bad and they are really bad at being different,hahaa this is not the way...just lock them up put them away for saving some pride to your people.if its art-that's stupid n if its porn-still its stupid,no excuses,damn they are really good at being stupid,think that's the art.ahhhahhh

Answer 9

The question is not whether it is art or porn. The question is whether it is appropriate to use children as nude models and to me the answer is no. There is no need to exploit children to make an artistic statement. I know he had the permission of the girls parents to do this but if he had asked my permission he would be dead and I would be in jail.

Does calling it art make it o.k. to sell kiddie porn?

Answer 10

I think so. Just because the rest of society is a bit messed up doesn't mean that everyone else's values should change! Unless they have sexual content, it should be considered appropriate, shouldn't it? Especially if the girls gave their consent...if they didn't it's a whole different story. :P

Answer 11

Ok, for all the normal men out there, how would you feel if you looked at nude photographs of a 12yr old girl?? Aren't you going to feel like you're doing something wrong, even if they are considered ''art'' by some? You might even think about your own daughter...what if some guy photographed her nude...how you would feel...if you knew old guys were looking at it...
I think whether the intent is to be dirty and sick or not, it still sounds sick! Think about it.

Answer 12

It depends on how they were posed.

If they were posed in a pornographic nature, then yes, it is. If it's simply nudity, then it's a different story.

Answer 13

If your taking pics of naked 12 year old girls that just sick , how could the parents let him to do that there daughters ,that is something i don't get

Answer 14

Pornography!
Porn "disguised" as art in order to circumvent the law and moral decency.

Answer 15

the issue is in the mind of the observer not the images.

imo Rudd (the pm) has proved he has criminal interest in girls and an american puritanism (redundant I know)

Answer 16

Exploiting children is always porn no matter what name its given.

If you had a daughter that age can you imagine any instance that a nude picture would be appropriate?

I can't.

Answer 17

These are minor girls...It's pornographic

Answer 18

Pornographic.
Now the question is:
What kind of parent lets his teenage daughters pose NUDE for some weird artist?

Answer 19

That's all porn!

Answer 20

omg pornagraphy of course that guy musst be sick

Answer 21

I think it's art but a bit distasteful.