Macquarie Network ::: 2GB | 2CH | LIVENEWS | STREET CORNER | RUGBYLEAGUELIVE | WHAT CAREER | AMAZING AUSTRALIANS :::
Thursday, 04 December 2008

Henson speaks on controversial art show

3/10/2008 7:02:00 AM.  | AAP

Photographer Bill Henson has broken his silence to launch a defence of his controversial art, which was decried earlier this year as verging on child pornography.

An exhibition by Henson was pulled from the walls of a Sydney art gallery in May, when police considered but did not lay charges over the show which included images of a naked 12-year-old girl.

Henson says the girl, and her family, remain strong supporters of the photographic work and he also only regretted the public furore it had caused.

"(The girl's parents) are fine because they believe in what they believe in," the Melbourne-based world-renowned photographer has told Fairfax.

"They see their involvement in the work as a good thing, a positive thing.

"(And) unlike everyone else, I do have first-hand experience of working with these people (child models) - working with them for years and seeing them grow up.

"I see their work with me only giving them a sense of pride and pleasure in later life."

Henson said he had been doing similar work for 30 years, and he was often in a position of asking parents whether they would allow their children to be photographed.

Some said no, it was not for them, he said, while others leapt at the opportunity.

"All you can do is give them a card and say `look just Google me, and I'd be very interested in photographing your daughter or son'," he said.

The mother of the 12-year-old girl at the centre of the Henson controversy said the photographs had captured a "beautiful" moment.

"I was absolutely in awe of those first proof images and the detail that was captured," she said.

"He then showed us one blown-up picture ... it was so beautiful, it brought tears to my eyes."

Henson conceded his choice of image for the flyer to advertise the Sydney exhibition - an full-length almost nude image - was a mistake, but to him it remained the image that was the "most alive".

"It strikes me that beneath the panic and nonsense there was the basic commonsense and decency of the vast majority of people," he also says.

"There were people who said to me this sort of thing is peculiar to Australia and I tell them of course it is not.

"These things can happen in any society, in any part of the world at anytime - and they have.

"Perhaps we are a little more prone to it as far as the arts are concerned. At times I think Western culture has a tenuous grasp on this continent. It's like the topsoil, very easily blown away."

COMMENTS

Friday, 03 October 2008

Can someone please explain me how does a naked photograph of another human constitutes as art. To my knowledge once painting and photograph of nature, folwers,animal, waterfalls,sunrise & sunset, ocean,mountains and such were classified as art? Only in our civilised world. Should'nt we be protecting our boby from strangers . It seems sex is everything in this generation.

Posted by: Ramesh Prasad, Liverpool

Friday, 03 October 2008

Ramesh Prasad: "Can someone please explain me how does a naked photograph of another human constitutes as art." Get a history book out, quickly! You might be shocked though. Oh, and can you explain to me how a naked photograph by default constitutes pornography? I think your answer will likey answer your own question as to why some people consider this art.

Posted by: Michael Meloni, Brisbane

 

Friday, 03 October 2008

Any person who takes and displays photos of minors naked is nothing less than a Pervert and a Paedophile. There is too much ebing muted under the banner of "ART" these days. By opening this door; this will be opening the flood gates because a Precedent has now been set. The world will never stamp out child abuse whilst scum like this continue to work against the authorities by calling it "ART" Any person who does not see the wrong in this is also a pervert and a Paedophile. End of Story.

Posted by: James H, United Socialist States of Australia

Friday, 03 October 2008

James H, any person that has an attitude like yours has proved that their head is jammed up their own bum so far, all we can see of you is the soles of your feet. I'll make my own decisions on what's art and what's not and will not put up with a pea brain like you trying to shove your idiotic, panic stricken opinions down my throat.

Posted by: Peter C, Sydney

Friday, 03 October 2008

Like I said: Any person who takes and displays photos of minors naked is nothing less than a Pervert and a Paedophile. If the cap fits; wear it. Obviously the cap fits you perfectly; Freak!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! As for my head being jambed up my bum; atleast it is my head up my arse; the likes of those who perve on naked minors don't use their head, and it is not their own bum either. Think about the implications before you give your approval to child porn; that is unless you approve of child porn.

Posted by: James H, United Socialist States of Australia

Friday, 03 October 2008

James H, you are truly an imbecile. Perhaps what we have here with you is a case of, "me think she doth protest too much". You have missed the main point of my post, which is censorship, but that is to be expected from myopic plonkers like you. As for your implied assertions that you aren't a rump raider well, we only have your word for that and your word isn't worth two bob! Now go poke your head back up your own bum again and be quiet, there's a good half wit.

Posted by: Peter C, Sydney

Friday, 03 October 2008

James H, you appear to be the socialist; policing the way other people should think and the way people should look at things. My only concern here is not what is considered art, but how can a child consent, as art constitutes different things to different people? If you see dirty pornography in pictures of children, perhaps you are the one with the problem?

Posted by: Morgan Gibson, Strathpine, Brisbane

Friday, 03 October 2008

Peter: in your moronic way; you may think you have the slightest morcel of intelligence by calling me a half wit: well; as totally incorrect as you are; atleast I am not a supporter of Rock Spiders like yourself. I can live with the thoughts of a half baked flea like yourself; atleast I am trying to my bit to protect minors from preditors like yourself. Wake up to yourself; boundaries have to stay in place when it comes to Children; your limp wristed attitude erodes these boundaries.

Posted by: James H, United Socialist States of Australia

Friday, 03 October 2008

James H, once again you are an imbo!! Who (apart from a neurotic turd like you) said I support rock spiders? Who (apart from a dingleberry encrusted oaf like you) said I support preditors (sic)? Censorship is what gets up my nose, I'll be buggered if I'll let anyone tell me what I should or shouldn't see, least of all a knob head like you. James old bean, I think you have a problem containing your own urges, when it comes to the type of art/porn we are discussing here. So there, NYYAAAAAAHHHHH!!

Posted by: Peter C, Sydney

Friday, 03 October 2008

Peter.C. Follow this link; you no doubt will call this art too and make personal attacks on those who are disgusted by this sort of behaviour; which is spurred on by the very form of art you are defending. Once again; the boundaries have been crossed. These scum get their rocks off looking at young kids and then they strike. I hope you are happy. http://www.livenews.com.au/Articles/2008/10/02/Girl_destroyed_after_parents_worst_nightmare

Posted by: James H, United Socialist States of Australia

Friday, 03 October 2008

James H, you are truly deranged. Your ability to make a berk out of yourself is only exceeded by your capacity to leap from one bizarre conclusion to another. Of course I'm not happy with the horrific plight of that young girl, what normal person could be. However, if the same thing happened to you James, I'd be overjoyed.

Posted by: Peter C, Sydney

Friday, 03 October 2008

Peter.C,Words can not discribe the distain I have for bottom feeders like yourself. Only a deranged lunatic would feel overjoyed at a fellow human being getting raped.You have kicked an own goal as to why the Henson photos have crossed the line. They are not just happy snaps; they are alluring and provocative;this puts all minors at risk. By reading your rantings; you are the very sort of animal that this style of photo needs to be kept away from.By your own admission; you get overjoyed by rape!

Posted by: James H, United Socialist States of Australia

Saturday, 04 October 2008

Not overjoyed at everyone's carnal misfortune James, just yours. He might Cormorant some sense into you, though I doubt it. Please leave that comment in this time Mr. Moderator. However I'd feel immensely sorry for the poor bugger who snuck into your bedroom to carry out his evil deed, imagine having to listen to your twaddle in person!! And James, it's disdain, not distain.

Posted by: Peter C, Sydney

Sunday, 05 October 2008

Peter.C. I go back to my original point: Any person who takes or displays photos of pre pubescent minors naked is nothing less than a Pervert and a Paedophile. You seem to be in favour of this; you also said you would be overjoyed if I was raped. Peter; you are the very reason why these photos should not be displayed. You may not realise it; but by your own admission; you have the very characteristics we are trying to protect our children against. Get help before you take the next step.

Posted by: James H, United Socialist States of Australia

Sunday, 05 October 2008

James, you wouldn't know if your arse was on fire, and can't be taken seriously. Your opinions blinkered, simplistic, go and peddle your empty headed guff to someone who cares. Try your own street, knock on the doors of your neighbours and ask them if they've any pictures of little Johnny naked on his bunny rug and decry them as perverts. Please video them bashing you for me. You have become a bore James and matter not a jot, enjoy the fantasy socialistic world you live in, comrade Boofhead!!

Posted by: Peter C, Sydney

Sunday, 05 October 2008

Peter C: You are really showing your true side with such a comment that you would be "overjoyed" if it happened to James - you really are speaking from the gutter and living in your own socialistic pattern of thinking trying to convince others that they do not have a right to an opinion - in that case take your own advice because the hateful dispersions you make are not to be reckoned with because of their baseless content and can only be acquainted to vomit. Take a reality check first before you speak so unkindly and make deliberate hurtful comment as that is what is considered a personal attack.

Posted by: RS ****, Sydney

Sunday, 05 October 2008

Peter.C. You seem seem to have a fettish for the male rear region; you have mentioned mine on more than one occasion; adding this to the fact that you see nothing wrong with looking at pictures of naked pre-pubescent children and your fascination with rape; this makes you a very sick, deranged and dangerous unit. You require a label "KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN". I say this again GO AND GET SOME HELP before you cross the line; if not for your sake; do it for children's sake. Face your illness.

Posted by: James H, United Socialist States of Australia

Sunday, 05 October 2008

James H, RS, UP YOURS!! You two need to get a room together.

Posted by: Peter C, Sydney

 

Friday, 03 October 2008

I took pictures of each of my daughters in the bathtub when they were babies. Am I a pervert pedophile? Maybe a nude body is subjective and artists and moms (me) see beautiful pictures while perverts see pornography.

Posted by: Kelly Winterspring, Beverly Hills

Friday, 03 October 2008

So you would like naked photos of your teenage children displayed in "ART" galleries for perverts to druel over under the banner of "art" If you as a parent do not see the wrong in this you are a sick demented person who does not deserve the Honour of parenthood. ALL parents have a responsibility to protect our children; exposing naked pictures of teenage children in sexual poses for strangers to see is one of the most irresponsible things a parent could ever do. This is Paris Hilton stuff!

Posted by: James H, United Socialist States of Australia

Friday, 03 October 2008

Did you post them on the internet?? get real - mum's and dad's do it all the time it makes them nothing but very proud parents and are taken in private for home use only - if exposed to others who are sick and think it is normal to have sex with children and who will lear at them because they are easily accessible on the internet then it makes it dirty and not art and takes away the innocence of having taken the pictures in the first place.The law should be changed to protect the children!

Posted by: RS ****, Sydney

 

Friday, 03 October 2008

These arty farty types like Henson always see the world a bit differently to the average person, but come on, the guy's not an idiot, he would have known the furore this was going to cause and I am sure he is enjoying the publicity. There may be nothing illegal however the pictures of children are obviously of a sexual nature and given the problems we have in society with sexual abuse, child pornography etc..you would think he could take "beautiful pictures" that aren't sexually oriented.

Posted by: Craig Sc ott, Baulkham Hills

 

Friday, 03 October 2008

James H. What about Anne Geddes calenders? They are sold at every newsagent around Australia and they have naked babies in them.

Posted by: Brian Henderson, The way it is

Friday, 03 October 2008

Brian, I think Anne Geddes should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Anyone who inflicts those sickeningly cutesy pootsey pictures of babies in hollowed out pumpkins, in little tiger suits, with big chubby faced smiles and dressed like a widdle bunny wabbit, on the public needs to be punished!! >:(

Posted by: Peter C, Sydney

Friday, 03 October 2008

peter c#ck, well said. throw malcom turnbull in jail as well, he has TWO hensons. pedo-supporting filthy rich filthy man

Posted by: dead zemanak, redfern

Friday, 03 October 2008

Hey dead zamanek is that what Peter C is referred to as one of those? Well done! LOL!!!

Posted by: RS ****, Sydney

Friday, 03 October 2008

Dead, I was just foolin' I think her calanders are OK, I wouldn't buy one though, they are too sickly for me!!

Posted by: Peter C#ck, Sydney

Friday, 03 October 2008

RS, I'll take the filthy rich part of that description, it would make a pleasant change. Contrary to popular belief, you can't have too much money.

Posted by: Peter C, Sydney

 

Friday, 03 October 2008

Craig Scott has said it well. Sure the're artistic (only just), but it's a pity some people value sexually oriented photos of minors in some sort of dark and sinister setting (which is sickening to me), over another setting that displays their non sexual beauty and what we really like our kids to be.

Posted by: A P, Caringbah

 

Friday, 03 October 2008

As it stands, it's art because an Internationally "acclaimed" person is presenting it to the Public for viewing as ART. The fact that if an Unrecognised person is caught with Similar Photographs in their possession will be tried as a pedophile is where the waters are Muddied. As far as this particular person is concerned, The POLICE considered him to be over the Line. As usual a "Judge" decided the police to have ERRED in judgement. I still reckon he has issues and is in need of a wake up call.

Posted by: Nick Again, Maryborough

 

Friday, 03 October 2008

just remember malcom turnbull supports pedo porn - he has TWO hensons... a dangerous person heads this once high class bastion of neo-conservatism!

Posted by: dead zemanak, antwerp

Friday, 03 October 2008

Everyone here needs to go and the read the peodaphile article on here. Naked pictures of children belong in the family album, not on the net or an art gallery wall, or in stores on cards etc. You want naked, there are plenty of consenting adults who would pose willingly. Stay away from children !!!

Posted by: susan lawe, gippsland

Friday, 03 October 2008

Again, Susan Lawe, Anne Geddes has calenders of naked children on sale in newsagents all round the country.

Posted by: Brian Henderson, The way it is

Friday, 03 October 2008

I didn't know that Anne Geddes took pictures of their genitalia? NEXT!

Posted by: RS ****, Sydney

Friday, 03 October 2008

what a bunch of WOWSERS in this forum ! What a bore !

Posted by: Traci Fawcett, Melbourne

 

Friday, 03 October 2008

do you even have a family album susan? now we kknow you were a bad mother, giving up your child, its inhumane

Posted by: dead zemanak, redfern

Friday, 03 October 2008

Dead a moronic statement like that shows me exactly who you really are. The moderator would be well advised to moderate on dead dirt bags such as yourself. Brian, you will note i said " or in stores on cards etc". I have been under the false illusion that this site encouraged opinion, on the premise that in a free country we are entitled to our beliefs and opinions. Mine doesnt agree with yours, but at least have the courtesy of reading it in its entirity before singling me out for your rantings

Posted by: susan lawe, gippsland

 

Friday, 03 October 2008

The do-gooders are out in force once again - have a great day - you need it! Art my Fart!

Posted by: RS ****, Sydney

 

Friday, 03 October 2008

If all of you so called supporters of free expression are either too stupid or ignorant to acknowlege that the line of what is Art and what is Child Porn has been crossed; society is in trouble. What then happens when some pervert under the banner of Art releases photos of children getting raped; there has now been a precedent of acceptance set by you. We set boundaries to make society a safer place; not for "artists" to extend.

Posted by: James H, United Socialist States of Australia

 

Friday, 03 October 2008

nudity in art has been there for generations. norman lindsay loved to paint nudes. photos are different though, the show everything. paintings were such that they disguised bits. th