naked 12 year old's as art.

This is just all over the news here at the moment.

I'm in two minds. I don't think that artists should be censored - to a degree - but things like this (and starving that dog to death and that other exhibition) cross lines that I don't necessarily think should be crossed.

I don't actually think it's appropriate to picture a naked 13 year old girl - not in the poses that she's in and I've seen some of them and I'm pretty disgusted - whether it's for art's sake or not. It's my feeling that there are people out there who will know what the subject matter is and go and see the exhibition to satisfy their paedophilic little minds, which is just wrong.

On the other hand, if the media hadn't gone crazy over it I'd think that most people wouldn't have even heard of it - so in that sense all they've done is to fuel people's curiosity.

I don't think the artist should be charged, though. I think that's taking things too far. He's very well respected and he does a lot of nudes and I really think he's not a paedophile or engaging in child porn. It is possible to do this kind of art and not be a pervert.

And on that note, if you want to email photos of your baby to your friends and family you should be able to, too.

I posted a picture of my niece on here once, though, and my brother asked me to remove it. In his line of work he just sees too much and he said you just never know who's looking. I hadn't thought of it like that before but of course I respect his wishes and I'll be quite reluctant to post pictures of my little one on an open site bearing in mind what he said.

But back to the topic - no, I don't think this exhibition is appropriate and I'm glad it was shut down. She's a little girl and little girls shouldn't be posing nude in black and white photos to be put up on walls of museums. That's really the bottom line for me.

Naked baby pictures are a tradition! Mom has some of me and my sister. I don't see anything wrong with them.

Pictures of naked 12 or 13year olds are another matter altogether. I think that it is completely wrong.

I wouldn't need to see the pictures, because at that age it's wrong IMO.

Wheres this "Artist" been with all the paedophile rings that's at large?!.

I won't post pictures of my great neice apart from in the Premier Lounge, because weve said it so many times here that you don't know who's lurking on the site.

I guess the first question is, why aren't the pics widely available? The answer, of course, is that the artist and anyone who would display them realize that they are unacceptable.

That seems to just about make it clear what they really think.

I refuse to say anything about this being horrible or awful unless I see the pictures.

They won't show them in full on the news or anything - the child's eyes, breasts and genitals are either pixillated or barred out. But what you can see around them was enough for me. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Here is one that I could get my hands on from an article - not great but you get an idea:

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2008/..._470x406,0.jpg

Okay, that looks like soft core porn to me. My mind is made up.

Yeah I'm failing to see the art in it, and I have tried.

I consider myself pretty au fait with this kind of thing, too, but it still fails me.

Yes definitely - consent was given, by the child and family. I think that's part of the reason there's been so much controversy. But no interviews as yet.

It came out today, too, that one of the models in the photographs (it wasn't just one child) is 40 years old now! Her pictures were taken when she was a teenager - but there's been no interview with her or anything that I've heard. I'm not sure how she feels now about all the furore surrounding this.

I'm still very (VERY) vaguely in two minds about it. But mostly I really think it's in very poor taste. I do believe that he's not a paedophile or child pornographer, but I think it's pretty bad judgement.

I just can't understand where the art is in showing pictures of young children like that?. And shame on the parents for letting them go through it.

I am an artist who has painted nudes, drawn them and photographed them in art school. I can tell you that there is absolutely nothing sexual about it. When you are using your mind concentrating on the subject you just see light and dark. Shapes and colors. Definitely not sex. Nudes can be very beautiful as we can see from art from hundreds of years ago from artists like Michaelangelo and Botticelli.
HOWEVER and it is a big however, I would have never in a million years used minors. I don't equate nudity with sex but children at that age are too young to really consent to it. I would slap someone silly if they asked to do that with my daughter. My thought would be 'no way pervert'.
I understand wanting to be provocative and I understand shock value but there is something called taste and that should trump everything.
It is possible that 30 years ago when some of these photos were taken that people didn't think about pedophiles or were less aware of it. It could be the artist is just some dude wanting some attention. I can't believe that the people who exhibited this didn't see this coming down the pipe. Come on. They wanted the attention. Now the world knows about this artist and he will become richer because of the controversy.

I am curious to know more about the circumstances surrounding this.

Agreed 100%.

From what I could see of the picture, it was very artistically taken (as in shadows, lighting, etc). I'm not an "art" expert, but the human body is beautiful, and if some of the pictures were taken 30 years ago I do think they were taken for art only, and not perverted reasons. And, 30 years ago, usually the only pedophiles most people knew about were the "funny uncles" that maybe got a little to close to the teenagers after a few too many rum punches at the family Christmas party.

But, I do agree it was in VERY poor taste (and basically stupid) to have an exibit of this in this day and age. But, it got him exposure (so to speak) so that is probably why he did it now. He HAD to have known there would be a reaction.

Personally, I have no problems with nudes...there is a big difference between nudes and pornography. And, the one picture I could see shows a girl in the process of crossing over into womanhood...leaving childhood behind. A transition. I actually think the artist captured the feeling well, but I can also see where people would freak out. This should be in a private collection, not on public display.

And, if taking pictures of naked babies is now wrong, well...I think everyone's parents would be considered pedophiles!

Bill Henson is already a very, very well known artist and very well respected and famous in art circles, so he wouldn't have been doing it for the media exposure. His work has been exhibited all over the world.

He has laid incredibly low since all this happened and nobody can contact him at all, so he's certainly not using the attention to his advantage.

He does nudes - its what he does. Especially, he is interested in the interval between teenagers and adults. This exhibition reflects his interest in this as a subject. But still, regardless, I feel it was a mistake given the current climate of the world in terms of child sex, pornography and paedophilia.

It's a shame - because as I've said before, I don't think he's a pervert at ALL, and I don't think art should attract blanket censorship. But he didn't use discretion in this and it's really come back to bite him.

Well if taking baby pictures naked in the bathtub is porn - then almost all of us are guilty of that. Almost every grad party has a display of pictures of the grad from baby up - and almost all have that "bathtub" naked picture!

I know nothing about this artist, but I did go to exhibitions of "The Century Project" which is a bunch of nude pictures of women from birth (there is a nice one of a babies' head in the process of birth) to quite old.

So there are certainly 12 and 13 year olds in that exhibition, and I must say it was quite a wonderful experience. The Century Project has an FAQ, and one of its pages is about the effect being photographed nude has on young girls. Here is the link, and you can get to the rest of the FAQ and the rest of the website through that.

I don't believe that the prevalence of pedophilia has changed in last 100 years, so I have no idea why pictures of nude teenagers now are any worse than pictures of nude teenagers from 30, 60, or 90 years ago.

So, again, I haven't seen the photographs in question, but I categorically disagree with the statement that it is always wrong to photograph children (of any age) in the nude.

I wouldn't need to see them because 1. Its not right 2. The Internet crimes against children task force can track that and come knocking on your door one day

take a look at the examples from the history of criminology. in the majority of cases relatives and close ones of maniacs and pedophiles even did not suspect of it. therefore NO ONE of us can be sure that this artist didnt have any "other" thoughts while taking these photographs. of course maybe the only thing he was thinking of was art...but only God knows his intentions.
not only healthy people will look at these photos but perverts too. and none of them has a note on their forehead saying "im a pervert".
and generally speaking...that artist is interested mostly in naked teenagers, right? that's just sick and smells like fetish.
anyways i dont understand it and i vote for healthy old school art, you know, just like the grandma used to make

I've got to say, I'm as much for Freedom of Expression as the next, probably moreso than many, but I am really getting sick to death of these so-called "artists" doing disgusting things under the grand facade of "ART". Starving dogs, brutalling killing animals, taking photos of naked children in a sexual light (sure, the lighting may be nice, but it also lends an air of sensuality), inducing self-imposed "abortions" and smearing the results on plastic with a film reel of the "abortion in a bathtub" playing over the "exhibit"...THIS ISN'T ART! Frankly, I don't even see it as political expression. It's self-indulgent. It's flaunting that they "can" do something that would otherwise be illegal and as long as they label it as "art" and find someplace willing to accept that moniker and show it as such, they can get away with murder - in some cases literally.

What happened to painting, sculpture, acting, writing, photography of legitimate subjects? Oh wait...that's still happening, they just don't get the headlines for making real art that takes time and talent and can be appreciated on many levels besides disgust.

The artist may (or may not) have had the purest of intentions, but whether or not it is art, displaying photos of nude children is not allowed in our society. IMO, he had to know that.

Sometimes artists seek to change society; that's certainly true with The Century Project, and for all I know might also be true for this artist.

That's probably my favourite post I've read in this forum this year. A big YES to all of that.

I'd just like to say this. I work for a company that has a HUGE modern art collection. It's fantastic, and I love working there because of it. There are artists that are making political points with out using horrible tactics. For example, one of the insulation pieces is a pair of shoes cut into a wall with a translucent film covering it. When I asked about it, our art director said that it's by a Colombian artist. She took the shoes (with permission) from a family because her daughter had been kidnapped and sold into slavery. The artist then decided to recreate a womb with her shoes and the film, so that she can show every single women how important it is to keep her daughter safe.

Political? Yes.
Nasty? Not in the slightest.

Exactly. THAT is art. It makes you think using visual and spacial forms in a different way to make a point about the world. Wow.

There are ways to make the news without being disgusting. I remember something about an art installation in New York where the artist made an image of a chimpanzee out of photos of Bush. It made the news. Whether or not you agree with the idea behind the piece, it made a point and took time, ingenuity and creativity to make it.

I've actually really been getting into watching a channel on our satellite programming called Ovation. They do highlight various forms of art, from painting, photography, sculpture to performance art and film. Most of the artists are living, meaning they focus on the more modern art rather than classical, but they do have shows on Impressionists and the like too. I love watching it and being able to get the artists' perspective as well as appreciating their work. I highly recommend that channel, and I hope it has high enough viewership that it sticks around.

Just because you can make great political art without being "icky" doesn't mean that there isn't great political or social message art that does directly challenge social norms and expectations. Both can, and do, exist.

When I was in high school, I went to an art show with my mother. I chose to do the required report for my art class on a charcoal image of an emancipated, very unhappy looking guy. My mother physically uncomfortable standing next to it. I loved the powerful emotions coming from the piece.

Different art is meaningful to different people. Just because something breaks conventions and norms doesn't mean that it has damaged the subjects of the art or is not artistically valuable. You have to ask the actual subjects of the art about the impact of it on their lives, and as far as I've heard in this thread, that hasn't happened, even though there are adults who are in images as adolescents in this show.

This is a controversial subject...obviously.

I've seen the image in question, and it's not sexual. In fact it's very tastefully done.

Nudity does not equal pornography. Some of the greatest masters of art have nude infants/children in them. I'd hate to see the police go and raid the Louve , or tear down the Sistine Chapel ceiling.

I'm all for protecting children from sexual abuse and exploitation. However as I said above, non sexualized nudity does not equal exploitation and pornography.

I think more people need to spend time at a nude beach. I've been to nude beaches. There are children and adults of all ages and shapes, all comfortable running around in their birthday suit. We came into the world nude and there is nothing wrong with nudity.... even the nudity of a child.