the debate continues - art or pornography - Bill Henson

[Norma Desmond]

Yes, artists have responsibilities.

 

So does the state, both to protect the innocent and to protect personal liberty,

including freedom of expression.

 

What this thread seems to be about is the balance between the rights of artists and

protection of the young.

 

It's also about overzealousness and the disintegration of the balancing act of justice

by trying to make it black and white.

[Norma Desmond]

"An artist has only one responsibility, and that is to create."

 

I don't know if even artists who consider it a need or obsession to create would also

consider it a responsibility. I can imagine that some might. Seeing artistic creation

in itself as a responsibility seems awkward even though doing it with a sense of

responsibility seems not unreasonable.

 

As artist, true, one creates. But no artist is JUST an artist. Artists are mere mortals

who also must play by society's rules called "laws." If "creation" involves provable

harm to others, then the artist has failed in the responsibility which s/he does owe to

society as a member of that society and should be punished accordingly. Many

artists do their creating with a great sense of political and/or social responsibility,

and that doesn't seem to stifle their creativity. In fact it fosters it.

 

Of course, in the case we're discussing, the only harm seems to be to some

policeman's

sensibility and not to anyone's rights, thus it seems the case will be tossed out, as

most of these witch-hunt type cases should be.

[cooltpmd]

<i>"An artist has only one responsibility, and that is to create".</i> <br><br>

 

<b>Does anyone really buy this argument?</b> <br><br>

 

Isn't it this inability to police oneself that will force society to act? <br><br>

 

I'm not judging Henson here, just the slippery slope that artists allow themselves to travel down. To many, the whole debate about this exhibit is absurd ... a bunch of moralists or zealots making needless noise. I applaud society for having this discussion. <br><br>

 

Make no mistake, there are some people who put absolutely no limit on any activity, if its mission is Art. To some, Henson's work is art. To some, purposeful porn is Art. I'm guessing that to some, child porn is Art. If you keep using the word "Art" to justify any and all activities, then YOU are responsible for giving Art a bad name.<br><br>

 

Fred hits the nail on the head. Society must balance, in this case, the right of creative freedom and the right of innocence to be protected. The <i>"I have no resposibility other than to create"</i> argument is the quickest way to get all such rights quickly removed with the applause of the populus.

[don_e]

""An artist has only one responsibility, and that is to create".

 

Does anyone really buy this argument?"

 

I don't.

[jtk]

I agree with Don E for two reasons:

 

1) the usually meaningless "artist" label doesn't buy anybody isolation from social responsibility. But it's often used that way...just as it's used to excuse poor work.

 

2) "artists," to the extent that real examples exist, have no "responsibility to create."

[don_e]

"The result of the creative process has no intrinsic morality. However, whether the result is viewed as socially responsible by others is another issue. The artist cannot be responsible for another's actions, good or bad, only his own."

 

However, the rest of Glenn's statement should be considered. A work of art is imbued with the "morality" of the artist. How others 'read' it is another matter.

[chris_waller]

Look at the photographs of Baron von Gloden, or the paintings of Count Balthazar Klossowski de Rola (a.k.a. Balthus) - art or pornography?

[jtk]

Again, "art" and "pornography" are only words.

 

You can assign an incredibly wide range of meanings to each word, so ultimately they mean almost nothing in practice.

 

Laws don't care about either term for that specific reason..instead they deal with more meaningful concepts such as child abuse and even "redeeming social merit." The latter may be vague, but courts have found it more credible than "art.'

 

Incidentally, this is directly related to sex tourism because Australians are reported to be heavily engaged in it (travelling to SE Asia)...and children are reported to be the primary interest of what may be the majority of sex tourists, both in SE Asia and Eastern Europe/Russia.

[hank_skinner]

I'd just like to say that I find it quite disturbing when I read in the news folks being arrested and spending tens of thousands of dollars proving their innocence of child pornography for taking pictures of their kids in the bathtub.<p/>Regards to whether a photo is pornography if it is considered to be arousing ...considering what many folks and their particular tastes or fetishes are, any body part could be considered "obscene". Would a photo of a child showing a bare foot be considered child pornography if someone with a foot fetish were looking at it?<p/>Just pointing these things out because what constitutes pornography is not as cut and dry as many folks would have it.<p/>A great film about art, Girl with a Pearl, deals with this very thing. The painting of the girl with a pearl earing was consider obscene; at least in the movie. I don't know enough about art history to know if that was historically accurate.

[mrraz]

I see the world through the eyes of an existential atheist. What is true for me may not be true for anyone else.

 

The label "artist" is largely applied to individuals who consider themselves painters, writers, sculptors or photographers. It is a external application which may have little to do with an individual's work or creative process.

 

My original comment made sense at the time to me, but I can now see that I did not express it as well as I'd thought. Maybe it should have been phrased, the painter, sculptor, writer or photographer's responsibility is to create. It's not the only responsibility, but it is the main one. As part of that responsibility goes accepting the consequences of the slippery slope.

 

The pendulum of morality swings from one extreme to another. The creative individual has no social responsibility to adhere to what is currently in fashion and pushes the boundaries of morality many times for no other reason then it is not relevant to their creative purpose.

[._._z]

" Again, "art" and "pornography" are only words. "

 

Then you're doing both wrong.

[jtk]

.[.Z ... perhaps YOU can tell us what "art" and "pornography" mean...if you can't you've proven that you agree with me.

[._._z]

Really? If I don't jump through hoops to define terms to your satisfaction I agree with you? What color is the sky on your world, John?

[syd]

 

Great to see this being discussed here at Photo net - at the outset I must say that this is clearly a hot potato for society as a whole but the discussion is an important one regardless.

 

<br>

 

One of the biggest issues for me in all of this is the determination of intent ... intent is really everything here but it is also extremely difficult to define an individuals intent with regard to anything that is not obvious out and out child pornography or a representation thereof. This is where the whole issue becomes dangerous and potentially Orwellian, dare we suggest thought crime?

 

<br>

 

I totally support and defend Bill Henson's work and think it fairly puritanical and unrealistic of any Government body who would find his work exploitative. You only have to look at 2000 years history of art works in ancient cultures right through to the Renaissance to find countless representations of naked children in both sculpture and painting - cherubs, nymphs, fairies etc - to see that this is perfectly legitimate as a work of art and also perfectly acceptable within a well adjusted society.

 

<br>

 

When I was 7 years old and living in the UK my family took a trip to the Continent. One of the first places we visited upon arriving at Calais was Brussels and one of the most famous statues in Brussels is the statue of the peeing boy fountain. Shock horror ... a statue of a peeing boy right there in the middle of a city with thousands of people walking past each day. Now nobody even batted and eye but there were certainly many people amused by it and taking photographs. I don't recall anybody reeling in disgust, calling the local constabulary or suggesting that was a sexualised representation of a 5 year old child; oh no!

 

<br>

 

I wasn't scarred for life as a 7 year old and the art work had absolutely no impact on me other than an artistic one. It didn't seem wrong to see a naked boy peeing as a fountain at all and all of the boys appendages were present and well accounted for. The intent of the artist was whimsy and nothing more and it seems that all of European society seemed to understand that as well as tourists allover the world visiting Brussels. What blows my mind is a modern culture where representations of killing and death are rife in film, TV and magazines but the F word is what stops traffic. This signifies a maladjusted society to my way of thinking and shows a selective policing in regard to moral standards and values that is totally skewed beyond all recognition.

 

<br>

 

We see constant representations of sex and young sex culture in every aspect of film and television and music. The suggestion of sex in culture for young people is wall to wall but the moment an artist like Bill Henson actually portrays something quite pure and bereft of all the visual hyperbole and cultural symbolism it is viewed with suspicion? Britney Spears is free to prance about in a school girls uniform singing "Oops I did it again" backed by huge agencies and record labels but Bill Henson is called into question for a series of beautiful photographs of young people posed artistically. This is where I think elements of society really need to wake up to themselves.

 

<br>

 

I totally concur with the comments of another poster above regarding the norms of society 150 years ago, it was even 50 years ago in many places. In those times when a boy turned 13 years old he was considered a man and once he could work he was considered a responsible member of his society who could make his own decisions. Girls of 13 were getting married and soon after having families and had at that stage likely been working already for nearly 7 years of their lives! Boys who were now men went to war as is evidenced by reading anything in regard to the British Navy during the 1800's ... I would urge people to read about the average ages of a Midshipman on any Ship of the Line. These 13 year old boys were often commanding grown adult men well into their 30's and 40's in many cases, were these boys incapable of doing their duty due to their age? Were they only able to make decisions of life and death and not about their own bodies and sexuality?

 

<br>

 

This entire debate comes down to issues of intent and the arbitrary nature of the decisions made in society which determine when a child is a child and at what point they are allowed to be considered thinking, cogent, self aware and able to make informed responsible decisions. I can cite countless instances in modern life where grown adults consistently display poor judgment, make irresponsible decisions and generally manage to make a mess of their own lives. Up to a certain point does anybody really think that increased age has any greater benefit with regard to certain basic life decisions? Michael Apted stated in the making of his TV series 7UP ... "give me the boy at 7 and I will show you the man". It seems society needs to be reminded of this but currently we live in murky times for social justice and morals and it's my hope that through further debate we can elevate ourselves rather than sink backwards.

 

<br>

 

We could get into the issue of random images appearing within search engines of a sexually explicit nature due to various key word searches. How do we determine the intent of the person searching when there is a Russian roulette wheel of random results? What about a private researcher or somebody writing a book or article that touches on naked representations of young people or even the sexualising of same in imagery? This is a very slippery slope and particularly in regard to the naked representation of young people I think cool heads need to prevail.

 

<br>

 

In many parts of Europe Naturism and Nudism as a family activity is common place and a regular event. Many studies have shown that the ritualized absence of clothing within communities serves to have the effect of de-sexualising people. It has been found that with the adding of clothing and garments human beings attribute sexual power and potency to the human body absent among naked cultures. So it seems to be Western Societies big issue ... the naked skeleton in the closet. I say deal with it and get over it.

 

<br>

 

In closing I have to say that intent is impossible to determine and it's entirely personal. What one person finds salacious another will find to be perfectly acceptable but as with most things in this world it's not the thing itself that is at fault but rather the response to the thing. Here's hoping sanity prevails.

 

 

 

 

[jtk]

Simon White's long and careful discussion makes a great deal of sense, of course.

 

However he's missing leverage, the most crucial piece of the story. The incredible leverage of certain activities, delivered through media that didn't exist or had no impact until "modern times", does increase their potential impact on larger society...for good or ill. Regulation is a logical response to the perceived negative aspects, and humanity has invented government specifically in order to regulate.

 

Global population is larger by orders of magnitude than it was only a few decades ago. And the impact of media, particularly this medium, is literally changing our fundamental nature as animals. Media are now literal components of our nervous systems: that's having global effects that were impossible only a few decades ago.

 

If you don't want government to worry about media (television, Internet, photography..such as Henson), does that mean you want it to ignore the people who invented the government, many of whom do worry about the media?

[Allen Herbert]

medium, is literally changing our fundamental nature as animals. Media are now literal components of our nervous systems: that's having global effects that were impossible only a few decades ago.

 

Totally agree. Those who control the media control minds.

 

The fundamental values of society are decided in such ways.

[Norma Desmond]

That's why knowing and talking to people...local activists...local artists...is vital and

revitalizing. Community groups...creating identity...for ourselves...and reaching beyond

even what we create. Personal perspectives can become global. To whatever extent

we can, we need not buy into the government's or the media's system. The

government should be protecting us, not directing us. In this case, it got confused,

which it often does. It's our responsibility to set it straight. That's a meaningful

responsibility, unlike some supposed amorphous responsibility for an artist to create,

as if in a vacuum.

[bobtodrick]

Again however I wish to point out how time/$$ can change values, as well as how we are able to hypocritally label something pornography.

 

I would far rather my children look at Hensons work (my boys are 5 and 7) and explain what the artist was trying to do...than try to explain to them why, in whatever is the latest popular video game so many people get violently killed and half the 'girls' have the biggest boobs I've ever seen exploding out of their spagetti strap tops.

 

Why??

 

Oh, that's rigth...because there are millions to me made from the video game, much of which is revenue that in one way or another leads its way into city/state/country coffers.

 

Face it folks...if Henson (or Jock Sturgess) was raking in multi millions of dollars in sales, and the subsequent taxes being collected...though the material may get some sort of an R rating it wouldn't be eliciting the response from the authorites it has.

 

That's where I take issues with your asking if we want the gov't to ignore these issues John. I think the gov't should investigate this stuff...fairly...not just when they feel they'll get some good publicity (Aurthorities Shut Down Pron Art)...but also when it means that some media giant is going to be hit where it hurts...the bank account.

 

But of course it so much easier to tackle the little guy.

[Norma Desmond]

Bob, I agree with you but think it's not just about money. It's also about screwed up

values. We are shocked by nudity but not by images of an unnecessary war. In

America, at least, we associate morality with nudity and sex and nothing else. We

don't consider bilking millions out of their pensions immoral, but gay marriages are.

We must face the fact that, morally speaking, America is about as backwards as it

gets. We don't know the difference between "nude" and "erotic" or between "nude"

and "sexual." We think attending church on Sunday morning makes a man moral

even while he starts an unnecessary war using lies as justification. Seeing

homeless people on our city streets has become the norm and totally acceptable but

women still have to advocate to breast feed in public. Examples of our moral idiocy

abound.

[pnital]

"An artist has only one responsibility, and that is to create."

 

Reading that long interesting thread, I think that there has to be a BALANCE between artistic freedom and the law.An artist don't live in an empty environement, he IS part of society, and society is legislating laws in order to prevent chaos ,and protect the young, vulnerable, weak links ( at least that is the aim of the laws in western parts of the globe).

 

In our western society, and the mass media technology, using children for nude photography " innocent" porno, or erotic,( all semantics...) is exactly the responsibility of the artist to find the equilibrium, as children are not able to asses the implications for the present, let alone the future ,of accepting to be "models" for nude photography.

 

There will always be customers for that kind of photography,pedophils is only one example, money is another, but society needs to protect childrens from being abused and exploit for artistic intentions as well as industry

Children as "soldiers" in other parts of the world were kidnapped from their childhood.

Nude art done 2000( and even less) years ago is not the right analogy of what are the implications in our era.

[vic_.]

Saw this on Drudge:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/10/AR2008061002449_pf.html

[andre_grobler]

I was uncomfortable with a lot of the nudes in the galleries, some still make me

uncomfortable - but that is me, it has no bearing on those involved in creating

those images - as they seemed perfectly happy doing so and the intent behind

them seems to be the beauty of form and a vision of circumstances - I may not

consider it art, but I don't think it is pornography either.

 

Recently I wanted to explore what it was that made me uncomfortable with the

nudes in the gallery, because I don't think they area wrong in the sense of

right and wrong (which has no bearing on how good they are). The process of

consciously thinking about these images showed me that my discomfort sprouted

mostly from my social upbringing. My spirituality has very little issues with

the images that my sociality have issues with... weird feeling. I tend to trust

my spirituality more for right and wrong, because it lies deeper and I think it

is more important.

 

So I have formulated this view - which you are welcome to tear to pieces.

 

I think one aspect is our predilection with what is right and wrong and my

social background focused heavily on this (so it may not be universal - and for

those unaffected people I am sorry for the wasted cyberspace) and as a result

the need to make rules to allow us to know which is which. I have come to the

conclusion that once one has to make rules to distinguish between the two you

are in trouble - rules are great for managing, not base decisions of right and

wrong. And I think the moderators and site-owner sums this up neatly "if they

think its pornographic, they take the image off"

 

I personally believe right and wrong hinges upon love, and from this flows that

the intent of the artist and the impact on the subjects/principal contributors

of the images, are probably paramount to know what is right or wrong in terms of

the image.

Of lesser importance to right or wrong of the image, is the effect on the viewer

and the suitability of the viewer, that is the responsibility (right or wrong)

of the viewer and the distributor - their social acceptability part - this is

the responsibility of the society to say we don't like it, we don't support you.

Not bad boy go to jail.

 

I think the intent is an important personal reality check for an artist, it is

mostly quite clear if you care to look at the image from the outside as well,

without prior prejudice - the without prejudice is a bit difficult - for me in

any case.

 

I think as an artist it would be wrong to make an image solely to hook a buyer

because of the viewers need for something. not saying you may not do it, just

saying it's not art, it's craft, or sales. An artist has to make an image from

his viewpoint / relationship of / with the world or subject and respect for this

relationship is at the core. After image is made they can be business person.

The same applies to nudes, wildlife, landscapes etc...

It is unfortunately difficult, but no less important to see what the impact on

those involved in the art is. Damaging the subject is wrong. So if

socio-economic circumstances forces, say a model, to do something that otherwise

he/she might not want to do (however deep that is buried) it is wrong, but the

same image will be perfectly fine for another model. If laws exist to prevent

this exploitation this is great - but I hope they rather try to deal with the

socio-economic issues rather than images.

[charlesheckel]

The issue of sexual activity or nudity, whether adult, child, animal, vegetable, or mineral, does not interest me greatly, but the issue of consistency does. According to Katie Couric of CBS News, recent surveys report that 50% of American girls between 14 and 18 are sexually active, and 40% (whether of the sexually active or the whole population was not specified) had had an STD. I've seen a couple of other surveys stating that about 30% of girls and 70% of boys became sexually active before the age of 14. Most kids surveyed report that the activity would take place in the youngsters' bedrooms while Mom and Dad were watching TV.<p>People are blind about this--Katie Couric was greatly surprised and said she was planning to have a talk with her own daughters--as they are to the well-documented fact that most sexual offenses by adults against children are committed by relatives or other persons the parent knows and trusts.<p>It's a good idea to keep children from being exploited sexually. This should extend to an effective proscription of sexual behavior until they are of years and discretion to keep themselves from being exploited by their peers and refrain from exploiting others. It's not happening, largely because as a society we are in denial. It should be possible to represent what's actually going on in a responsible fashion to overcome this denial, but it is not. So much the worse.

[Norma Desmond]

Charles, that a woman in Katie Couric's position was greatly surprised by such

things and is just now going to have a talk with her daughters is one of the reasons I

don't rely on her for my news.

 

You move seamlessly from teen sexual activity to sexual offenses by adults against

them. Why?

 

There's a difference between sex and sex abuse.

 

"Effective proscription of sexual behavior" of teens is likely an oxymoron. The more

we recognize the futility of stopping a great deal of teen sex, the more enlightened

an approach we can take to prevent the spread of STDs and pregnancies.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_reduction

[charlesheckel]

Fred, whether Katie Couric is or is not reliable has no bearing on the validity of the survey she reported on, which is supported by other surveys, in regard to an activity you yourself characterize as unstoppable.<p>You appear to distinguish between abusive and non-abusive sexual activity on the basis of the age of the participants. Why?<p>It's normal for women to search for mates with the maturity and resources to support their families. This hardly describes the typical adolescent male. If a teen-age girl prefers partners in their twenties, is she committing some form of self-abuse? If these males are fathering children with these girls, how does it help to define the activity as abusive, destroy the young families, and deprive these children of their fathers by carting them off to prison?<p>You're perfectly right to argue that such problems will be solved by preventing such pregnancies. It's a great relief to contemplate a world in which you, rather than the mothers-to-be, make the decision about terminating those pregnancies.<p>My point in issuing these challenges is not to make you wrong, but to point out that your position is personal, and probably in some way cultural, and won't necessarily work with persons of other positions and cultures. My own position is that many cultures are able to curtail sexual activity among their young people, and do. This does involve parents who are aware and in control, and don't propose to dismiss their responsibilities as oxymoronic. Social systems are slippery systems, however, and I don't pretend that my position is "better" than yours.