Marijuana.com

glorious

There is this artist Bill Henson who has recently created controversy in Australia over his type of art. A lot of his photography involves nude photos of underage people. He is running into all sorts of legal matters over his photos. Many are disgusted that he is doing this and think it is blatant child pornography. Ironically, many of his models and their parents are completely content with it and keep referring to it as 'art'. So what do you guys think, art or pornography?

 

Dark

I dono that's kinda crossin the line man. Just because he's a great artist doesn't mean he can take these pictures with no repercussions. If my scary lookin biker neighbor took these shots and submitted them as "art" he would be taken away immediately...

__________________

dedbr

Call me crazy but art is art and garbage is garbage. Nudes have been painted for thousands of years and yet we are still prudish about it if it's a girl or boy of a certain age.

I guess I see sex and age in sort of a different way from most. Sex is a part of life. Living on a farm for awhile kinda takes the mystery out of it........


Some Where In Ded Land...............

__________________
"We have met the enemy, and he is us" .......... Pogo (for Prez...)

Remember to check out our most wonderful Posting Guidelines!

blondie0420

It's art.

The pictures aren't meant to be published in Hustler or Playboy. They weren't taken so that people could get turned on by looking at them.

The point of the pictures was not tits and ass, it was to be artful and to evoke emotion. The point of pornographic pictures is tits and ass, they aren't art in the same sense.

People need to quit being so uptight. If the models and their parents are ok with it, I think that's all that matters. It's not like these girls were taken advantage of. Child pornography laws are meant to protect children from situations where they are abused and sexually exploited. This is not a situation where that happened.

__________________

W o O c H a

Ya but this is not your scary looking biker neighbor, this is an INTERNATIONALLY known photographer that has fucking amazing work. He is not a fucking kiddie porn mogul or anything else of the sort. O ya and if you missed the video it said in it the parents of the children and the children were okay with it and wanted to do it. Get over your "OMG THIS KID IS UNDERAGE AND NAKED THAT MEANS ITS BAD" people do not have clothes, people create clothes for us to wear so what would that mean? Kids walked around for thousands of years naked and no one saw any problem.


Its fucking art' get over your self.

 

shibshib

Anyone who disagrees with these photos better not also be the same people who buy their children fashion magazines.

I see so much border-line-child-pornography in magazines and TV these days that its almost comical to single out something done so artistically

Dark

Well excuse me Woocha, did I hit a sensitive spot? Did I really deserve a groan for THAT?

I don't care if he is an international known photographer. Why does that mean that if the same picture was taken by an artist, or someone who isn't an artist, the picture changes in meaning? Kinda silly if you ask me.
Maybe it is just art. That's fine with me if it is. Maybe it isn't just art. You don't know this man personally, maybe he does get some pleasure out of that
Maybe there are a lot of sick sick people out there that also view it as more than just art.

I don't just have my head up my fucking ass I just know how people are. The simple fact that there are those people that would get off on something like that is enough for me to deem it inappropriate in my eyes. Art is art and garbage is garbage, and nudes of children are nudes of children. It's a fucked up society that we live in but it is a truth that it is a fucked up society.


Groan at me again cause you hold a feud bud .

imFADED

I cannot really judge this because I have seen the Philadelphia Art Museum and there is some crappy/weird looking stuff that I would never price over $0.50. But supposedly, they are highly praised in the art world. As creepy as it is that he has NAKED photographs of a THIRTEEN YEAR OLD GIRL, you'd have to ask someone very connected to the art world.

shibshib

There are also people who get off on pictures of shoes, animals, inanimate objects, strangers walking around at parks, etc. etc.

In the case of "child pornography", people usually are outraged because the child is being either sexually violated, or just exploited.

However, if the photos do not involve the actual sexual violation of the child, and the child does not feel they are being exploited, as do their parents... then where is the argument against it being art?

I can definitely see, from my point of view, how this type of art could be either disgusting or morally wrong... but that is due to *my* point of view. *My* point of view that is mine and mine alone, and that I have no need or want to force upon others. And it is because my point of view that I will not be viewing this art exhibit, nor will I be traveling to africa to marry a 13 year old in some tribe, nor will I be doing anything else that I find morally unappealing, yet understand that cultures vary and just because I don't like something doesn't mean its "wrong". (Keep in mind that "18" is not the universal age-of-consent, and that many countries and cultures drift far below that "standard".)

If anything... if you can't look at the pictures of these nude girls and see any type of art or only see them as being exploited sexually... then perhaps *you* need help. Just because other people may be able to see art where you see sexuality doesn't mean they are horrible people.



side note: I, of course, have not seen the photos... but from what I hear they are done in a completely non sexual way (meaning they do not put emphasis on any sexual parts of the body). As someone already pointed out in this thread... it is the emphasis of sexuality/body parts/actions that defines pornography vs. art.

Dark

I knew someone would say that .

You're right. But where do we cross the line?
A child can do THIS pose but not THAT pose. You can touch HERE but not THERE. Move your hand about 2 inches up so it's not thought to be sexual....

Look for the record, MY opinion is the art is fine. Maybe you guys are misunderstanding me there. I could give two shits whether this picture is up or not, if I was the one viewing it. The problem is I'm not the only one viewing it. I know how others think and I'm sorry but there are a lot of people that would look at a picture of a naked young girl, sexual or not, and fucking DROOL over it. This is no myth, this is no exaggeration of the truth. I feel bad that the culture has come to what it has, but it HAS come to that, and you can't deny it.

To me and you, it's just art. To the guy next door, who knows. I'd be willing to bet a lot more people view it as more than just art as you'd think. As I said, it's sad that the culture has come to that, but it has, and you have to take steps regarding that issue.