Bill Henson ... again

[ricktas]

I would much rather hear that authorities had banned Justin Beiber, than Bill Henson. Out of the two, I know which one I find more offensive. One is an artist and the other screeches out sounds that are supposed to resemble music

[farmer_rob]

I know it's not rational, but having looked at some of henson's images from the last controversy, I find his work creepy. However I don't subscribe to the "exploitation" argument - I think that is a red herring - and some of the fanatics that pop out of the woodwork looking for another witch burning need to get a sense of perspective.

[terry.langham]

In this area my view is probably tainted, having known victims of sexual abuse and molestation by family members. However I don't agree that a parent can approve naked photos of a minor (regardless of who the artist is) and then when the model is old enough to make their own judgements it is then too late and they have no recourse to have works withdrawn from public viewing. In the end the only answer to that is to not allow the use of minors as models in nude or contraversial works. Draconian? maybe, but I think necessary to protect the minute section of the community that don't have the best intentions.

[ving]

while i have no problem with his work, youth generally wont get it and will just giggle and point... not the right audience for this type of work.

porn is art with a particular audience in mind and while his art is not porn i think a mature audience is best.

[ElectricImages]

...when the model is old enough to make their own judgements it is then too late and they have no recourse to have works withdrawn from public viewing....

If you're interested in protecting minors from their own bad judgement on the capture and use of their images, it would be far better to shut down Facebook/ban under-18s from Facebook, and/or ban minors from owning mobile phones with cameras, than to impose draconian restrictions on Bill Henson or other bona fide photographic artists.

But we all know that's never going to happen...

[Kym]

If you're interested in protecting minors from their own bad judgement on the capture and use of their images, i

I think Terry is saying not allow minors to protect the minor for their parents bad judgement.

[ElectricImages]

Yes - but I believe, in every case, Henson's models themselves are willing parties in the process. Having their parental consent is a legality and a supplement, not a replacement, for the model's own consent.

[soulman]

I know it's not rational, but having looked at some of henson's images from the last controversy, I find his work creepy.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I saw his 30 year retrospective in Melbourne some years ago and there were images there that made me seriously uncomfortable. They're not all like that though and I feel less creeped out by them the more I know about what he's on about. I also think he has a right to pursue his vision if he's not breaking the law or harming anybody. I'm guessing you probably do as well.

...I don't agree that a parent can approve naked photos of a minor [...] In the end the only answer to that is to not allow the use of minors as models in nude or contraversial works.

I think I get where you're coming from Terry; I am the father of a daughter and I have gone and do go to great lengths to protect her from harm. Henson makes an interesting point about this though, which is basically that we cannot and do not protect children from every possible harm that can befall them. Life is inherently risky and there are many decisions that we as parents make for & with our kids that may have negative consequences. As with everything else, we can only do our best. It would appear that modelling for Henson has been an enriching experience for most, if not all of his subjects, so I struggle to see it an unnecessarily risky choice to allow a child to make.

As much as it is a confronting thing to consider, I wonder why we should be so concerned about this when we allow our kids out of the house, or in front of the computer, without constant surveillance. Children regularly suffer major injuries in sporting accidents, as one of many examples, but playing sport is still rightly seen as an important and enriching thing to do.

[Kym]

Yes - but I believe, in every case, Henson's models themselves are willing parties in the process. Having their parental consent is a legality and a supplement, not a replacement, for the model's own consent.

But that is why parents have responsibility for their children - because a 14yo cannot make a rational decision.

They may say yes @14yo, then when 24 say I wish I'd not done that. The parents should have said no anyway.

The parental permission supersedes the child's permission every time!!

[Kym]

As much as it is a confronting thing to consider, I wonder why we should be so concerned about this when we allow our kids out of the house, or in front of the computer, without constant surveillance. Children regularly suffer major injuries in sporting accidents, as one of many examples, but playing sport is still rightly seen as an important and enriching thing to do.

Sports is not a valid comparison, there are risks with sport but we understand those.
My son used to race BMX; that has risks which are mitigated by having proper safety gear like a full face helmet, gloves etc.
He had some big crashes, but no major injuries.

As for 'net supervision ... YES !! It is a must for parents to control their children's access, there are many nasties out their.
We kept a close eye on our son, but eve so he ended up at some quite bad sites, and ran up a dial up bill, that was canned by the TIO because he was under-age at the time.

Bottom line, parents to need to take responsibility and need to put appropriate protections in place.

[ElectricImages]

But that is why parents have responsibility for their children - because a 14yo cannot make a rational decision.

I must respectfully disagree - and so does our legal system. Many/most 14 year olds CAN make rational decisions, and do so all the time. And our legal system stipulates that 14 is, in fact, the age of Legal (and Criminal) Responsibility. From the age of 14, children can be charged with criminal offences, and the law assumes they have the mental capacity to make moral and ethical decisions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_...y_in_Australia

Besides, the arbitrary age of 18 isn't some magic number which somehow grants people the wisdom to make good decisions. Frankly, many children are far more ethical, honest, and rational than some of the adults I've dealt with.

[ElectricImages]

Sports is not a valid comparison, there are risks with sport but we understand those.

And there are some risks with modeling, but we understand those. It isn't like Bill Henson publishes the names and addresses of his models next to his images or online. Which is more than I can say about most teenager's Facebook profiles, alongside their photos, sometimes in various states of inebriation or undress.

...As for 'net supervision ... YES !! It is a must for parents to control their children's access, there are many nasties out their.
We kept a close eye on our son, but eve so he ended up at some quite bad sites, and ran up a dial up bill, that was canned by the TIO because he was under-age at the time.

Bottom line, parents to need to take responsibility and need to put appropriate protections in place.

The eminent and intelligent Cory Doctorow would disagree: see this video of him speaking at TEDx on the subject of digital privacy and what it means for our kids. We should be teaching kids to make good decisions for themselves, but also to value their online privacy and not surrender it too easily to anyone.

[ricktas]

but this discussion is assuming our LAW is right, moral and just, and the perfect way. It isn't.

[soulman]

Sports is not a valid comparison, there are risks with sport but we understand those.

With all due respect, I think it is a valid comparison. What is it that we don't understand about the risks of a child posing for Henson?

Bottom line, parents to need to take responsibility and need to put appropriate protections in place.

Absolutely, but I think you might have some difficulty arguing to the parents of Henson's subjects that they don't or didn't adequately protect their child. There is no evidence anywhere to suggest that's true and saying that you wouldn't do it because you don't think it's a good idea - which is very much your prerogative - doesn't make it irresponsible.

[Kym]

<snip>We should be teaching kids to make good decisions for themselves, but also to value their online privacy and not surrender it too easily to anyone.

And that varies by age. What do you let a 10yo, 12yo, or a 16yo do online? - it varies as their understanding and personal responsibility grows.
I'm glad Doctorow disagrees with me, I'm no fan as he takes © reform too far. I'm no fan of RMS either, even though I do support open source software (off topic).

Children do need parental supervision on the net. A national net filter is also the wrong way to go. The right answer is parental responsibility.

[Kym]

With all due respect, I think it is a valid comparison. What is it that we don't understand about the risks of a child posing for Henson?

Consequences! You can't predict the consequences of public exposure anywhere near as much as that of playing sport.

[ricktas]

In some African societies, ladies are allowed to get married at 12/13 years old. Yet they often have a societal structure and lifestyle that is simpler and some could say better than ours, with less 'modern day crap' in it. Are they wrong to allow marriage at 12/13 years old? We are applying a set of standard here that may be inherently flawed due to societal etiquette, that may mean as a society we need a shift of values. The naked form is not 'disgusting', and im my opinion, should be celebrated as part of what we are as human beings, flaws and all.

[ElectricImages]

Consequences! You can't predict the consequences of public exposure anywhere near as much as that of playing sport.

Well... sport could kill your child (and sometimes does, sadly). Modeling hardly has that kind of consequences!

[Kym]

@Rick ... and in some of those societies women can't vote or be educated, and die by the time they are 35 after having 12 kids.

[I @ M]

Modeling hardly has that kind of consequences!

Gotta disagree strongly with that one, modelling has caused the deaths of young people, the pressures have led to suicide.