Naked Teenagers - Art?

Remove all ads!

Sir Fink, the artist can be expected to anticipate a small variety of reactions. If someone gets turned on by a dirty diaper (no baby in it, just the smelly), it's not only not the artists fault, it isn't even rational for the artist to consider this. If someone gets turned on by a naked girl (even a 13 year old one), the artist should have anticipated that.

 

I can understand some people see it as an art. I myself am (luckily for me) not one of those people, but they probably can't help it. It seems to be a 'gut feeling' they have. You can hide it, but you can hardly fight it.

 

Hmm, actually, this is a very interesting decision. Where does that leave drawn or computer generated child porn? I distinctly remember a case where it fell under the government banhammer. These sorts of images are certain just as 'art' (hell, there's a much better argument for them being art than for photographs of actual children) as the photographs.

 

I admit I used some extreme and silly examples, but there is a blurry line. Michelangelo's David statue, for example, while considered a masterpiece has been censored a few times over the years. An Australian was charged with obsenity for displaying a photograph of the statue (it is a nude, in case you didn't know) and copies of it have been reproduced with an added fig leaf over the genitals.

I've spoken with rather prudish people who refuse to take their children to art museums due to all the nude statues and paintings.

Again I ask: where are the dirty thoughts? In the artist's mind or the viewer's? Physician heal thyself.

 

I feel the need to point out that, naked teenagers or no, our society doesn't lack for sexualized underage girls.

Milley Cyrus? Hannah Montana? The girls at your local junior high/high school?

 

I just looked up some of the pictures online, and I have to say, even though there is an artistic element to the pictures, I'm not altogether comfortable with them. The one that Aik linked to had the girl's hands strategically placed so that the only things exposed were her breasts. Other photos in the gallery show full frontal nudity, which I think is going a bit too far.

Is it legal? Yes. Should the guy be facing legal action for taking these pictures? Probably not. But just because we can, should we be taking pictures of fully nude pubescent girls? Probably not.

 

Aldeth, you pervert.

Of couse, it may just be that I'm a coward -- looking for the pictures at work could get me fired and looking for them at home will get me castrated or killed. Mrs Bruno is 8½ months along and very sensitive about me even looking at another woman on the street who is not bigger than she is.

 

Hell, I FEEL like one. Looking at a 13-year old nude girl is... icky

Obviously, I am not going to link to the pictures, as I too am at work, and I would think that linking would probably violate forum rules - even if it is considered "art".

 

That's exactly why some people don't agree that it is art. I could tolerate (even though I would still dislike it) if the "sensitive" areas like Genitals and breasts were obscured, but full nudity of under age girls is NOT something I can defend.

And what is wrong with the notion that the human body is sacred? Seeing the way most religious things are treated in society, why anyone would subject something as personal as their bodies to such scrutiny? Prohibitions about Nudity are not merely puritanical (but they do make another good point), but rather in preserving the joy of that which is sacred.

 

I'm at work again, so I'm not going to the link now. However, I first saw the pictures a day or two ago when I performed a Google search. "Bill Henson Photo Gallery" should give you the same links I got to, and one of them shows the pictures in question.

Here's another point I'd like to bring up about the legality of the pictures: The only thing we know for sure is they are legal in Australia. While most nations have laws reagarding pornography, and moreso concerning child, or in this case adolescent pornography, the laws are by no means identical or universal. What can be legal in one country could be a crime in another. While there are obvious cases where we can say this is definitely pornography, and this isn't, what about something like this - a gray area between legal and not legal?

The Australian courts ruled it legal. Would the same be true in the US with our over the top Puritanical standards? I don't know. It is sometimes difficult to say exactly what is and what is not porn. If something is specifically designed to cause sexual arousal, then it would probably be porn. While that definition does not apply to these pictures (in that they are not intended to arouse), I agree with Tal that it is a likely result with a pedophile even if that was not intended by the photographer.

I still say it should be legal, and I still say I'm not altogether comfortable with it.

 

Aldeth, I believe possession of a nude picture of a child (i.e., a person under the legal age) is all that is required for charges of child pornography in any state in the US. If the computer saves a copy in your temp file folder, that is considered possession.

I agree with you on this point -- anyone who views these pictures should first ensure they are not criminally liable for doing so.

 

Wiki seems to agree with T2, Aldeth.

 

Uh, yeah - wear your proxycondom while surfing

Anyway, here's what google turned up for me, helpfully captioned for those who are living in backwards countries where naked children aren't art Use your own judgement while clicking (though really, tor wouldn't hurt either).

[NOTE: IF YOU ARE UNDER AGE OR NOT ALLOWED TO VIEW SUCH ADULT MATERIAL IN YOUR COUNTRY, DO NOT CLICK ON THE LINKS BELOW. And yes, the extent of the irony that you need to be an adult in order to be allowed to see nude pictures of children is readily apparent... -Tal]

http://www.vam.ac.uk/images/image/29115-large.jpg (not naked)
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/01/10/billhensonuntitled_wideweb__430x283.jpg (naked, but you can't see anything)
http://www.joannemackellar.com/designjournal/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/henson1.jpg (naked)
http://images.theage.com.au/ftage/ffximage/2008/05/24/svHENSON_narrowweb__300x443,0.jpg (naked, same as the one I linked before but uncensored)
http://www.coolhunting.com/mt/archives/013.jpg (nothing naked about it)
http://www.tolarnogalleries.com/media/client/web_cutscreen2.jpg (erm, this one seems to be depicting full-frontal nudity and anal sex - wtf?)

http://strungcans.com/?p=13 (male nudity, doubt it counts for child porn)
^ This site has some more, and with some context.

 

Hmmm... Those include some I haven't seen before, and excludes others that I have seen.

And damn Tal for his wit. That was the exact thing I was thinking as I read the bolded part of his note.

 

gee, I don't think I'm all that comfortable with them - especially numbers 4 and 6. Having said that, I'd still consider it all artistic more than anything else and I don't think Henson should be charged for it. #4 is kinda stretching it though - just full frontal and doesn't really seem to be all that artistic imho.

Nice Tal

 

Funny thing about #4, from the shoulders up is a good study and I see that section as art. However...the rest seems to me to be excess and should be cropped. Left in says Porn to me. Is it just me?

 

Yep,I am from OZ,and know the topic in my city. The guy did not get jail. But as for the underage children,teenagers,there should be a safety net where the parents give permission for a photo shoot first. Whether for art or nude modelling,there has to be some guidelines. One forgets the Art gallery which allowed the pictures in the first place... Artist have crazy ideas at times for art...we have lots of people strip in the city for naked group pics at one stage for art.

 

Bumping thread for more drama!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/07/2296347.htm?section=australia

 

ffs, the pictures is pretty innocuous really, are they going to start condemning parent's baby snaps next? They really need to stop politicising the whole thing.
I guess we're the only country to ban Fallout III, bloody censorship.