Bill Henson ... again

[ElectricImages]

It may turn out that modelling naked, for Hensen or anyone else, at age 12 has no lasting repercussions, but are you willing to gamble the future and innocence of these children on that belief for the sake of one person's Art? I'm not, sorry, but then that's just me. If there are enough people in our society that share your opinion rather than mine then society will decide in your favour ... at least for now. I'd personally prefer not to risk the innocence and welfare of children in pursuit of any art form.

Frankly, modelling for Bill Henson is less likely to cause harm to a child model than telling that child that they have been exploited and arresting their parents for not protecting their child's welfare (as was demanded by Hetty Johnson, in addition to the arrests of Henson and the gallery owners after a previous exhibition). I'd suggest that Hetty Johnson and her ilk are so busy pursuing their personal political agendas, they may completely overlook the actual welfare of the children involved.

[ElectricImages]

Just google...

http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-fa...mmits-suicide/
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/l...cle6925853.ece
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runnin...gly_side_o.php
http://fashionista.com/2011/01/mothe...mmits-suicide/
http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2010/..._suicides.html

And lots more.

But those are all irrelevant. Correlation does not equal causation.

[WhoDo]

Life is full of risks, to try and protect children from them all is not only a failed endeavour in the first place, but most likely a dangerous pursuit, as children who are protected so intently, often break free and rebel, and then take things to extremes, which defeats and inihalates all the 'good' work the parent(s) were intending to achieve.

So what you're saying, Rick, is that instead of trying to "protect children from them all", meaning the risks in life, that instead we shouldn't protect them from any? Sorry, but that's just terrible logic! We must still protect them ... us ... from UNNECESSARY risks! What on earth is so NECESSARY about allowing one so-called "artist" to express himself using, yes USING, the innocence of our children?

This isn't about feeling shame over the naked image, or even sex and sexual exploitation. Instead it's about giving up, without their informed consent, the rights of our children in order to serve the desire of a single "artist" to exploit their innocence for his own "artistic" purposes.

If it was just about the beauty of the naked human form then Hensen surely wouldn't need to use 12 year old girls! He wants to show their particular naked form as an expression of youth blossoming into maturity, or so he says. Allowing that may well be taking something from those children, without their informed consent, that they would NOT be willing to give up if they were old enough and wise enough to understand and make the choice for themselves. Furthermore, once taken it can never be given back! Saying sorry later, as did our government over the stolen generation, can never be enough.

Everything in Life is a balancing act; Yin vs Yang. To give Hensen his artistic freedom you must be willing to take away the freedom of the child to choose. Handing it to the parents is no substitute, as many children and parents have lived to attest. Innocence is just not something many of us are willing to sacrifice on the alter of Art.

On that note I will again withdraw from the "debate"; I've said my piece and in saying it I doubt I have further endeared myself to the more rabid proponents of artistic freedom, nor will I ever convince them that their rights as artists should NEVER supersede the rights of their subjects, whether human or otherwise. It's a waste of effort if the "artist" cannot see beyond himself and his or her personal need for artistic expression.

[soulman]

To categorically state that "(sic) Modelling for Henson .. does not cause demonstrable harm" is something that none of us can know with any certainty right now.

He has been doing this for nearly 4 decades. Given the intense media scrutiny in recent years and the fact that the only comments made by the people who have worked with him have been positive, I am quite comfortable with my statement.

As for Hensen's concern for his under age model's welfare, to the best of my knowledge he has never publicly expressed that. If you can establish that in fact he has then I will most certainly stand corrected. Anecdotal evidence, however, is not sufficient in this case.

Well, I did say that I had heard him speak about it at length and mentioned other audience members, so I thought that would have given you a clue that these were public events. I would be happy to take you at your word that it happened if you were telling me this WhoDo and I would like to think you would show me the same courtesy and respect if we were in the same room. You can consider that as having been established in fact or not, but I am not going to write a statutory declaration for you.

I have heard him speak in public twice, spoken with him directly, informally studied his work and read a number of interviews with him. I know he is fair dinkum about the welfare of his models and that he has sought feedback from them about how his work affects them. I have heard him say that he cares very much about this, has looked for evidence of harm amongst his current and former models and has found none. I have absolutely no reason to doubt what he says.

The first time I heard him speak, in 2006 at the Wangaratta Art Gallery, I witnessed him field a barrage of at times aggressive questions from nearly everyone in the audience, including me, and watched him calmly and respectfully address every single point that was raised. He answered his critics and we were all silenced; It was quite remarkable.

Henson is not only an important Australian artist who will be remembered long after these debates are forgotten, but he is quite a decent bloke from what I can tell.

[ElectricImages]

To give Hensen his artistic freedom you must be willing to take away the freedom of the child to choose. Handing it to the parents is no substitute, as many children and parents have lived to attest. Innocence is just not something many of us are willing to sacrifice on the alter of Art.

No, if you ban Henson's work you take away the freedom of the child to choose. I think "children" are capable of choice, and the whole notion that taking a photo of someone somehow "removes" or "destroys" their "innocence" about as rational as the Aboriginal superstition that the same act will take away your soul.

Just sayin'...

[ricktas]

So what you're saying, Rick, is that instead of trying to "protect children from them all", meaning the risks in life, that instead we shouldn't protect them from any?

Exactly! Rather than protecting them from everything, how about educating them, teaching them that there are risks in life, and how to recognise them and deal with them. I would argue that over-protection creates a young adult that has no idea how the real world works. The world is full of dangers, teach childen about them, at the appropriate age, but at the very least make them aware of the implications and dangers present, rather than wrap them in cotton-wool and protect them from the big nasty world. There is a very big gap between protecting a child from a real and valid danger (boiling water, the backyard pool, drug use, etc) than protecting them from life! In the end all any of us can do, is our best, but by trying to protect them from dangers that may not exist, is taking away time and effort on the real things that can and will affect a child, on an individual level.

Some people don't own dogs when they have small children, and won't let their child come into contact with dogs, cause dogs can bite, kill and are dangerous. Other people incorporate dogs into their families, cause they see the benefits a dog can bring to a child. who is right? who is wrong? but both have made decisions for them, just the same with Bill Henson's work, I am sure some parents have said No, but others have said Yes, and who are we to dictate to them what they can or cannot decide for their child, when they are not breaking the law. Each to their own and respect to for them for their decision.

Everything in Life is a balancing act; Yin vs Yang. To give Hensen his artistic freedom you must be willing to take away the freedom of the child to choose. Handing it to the parents is no substitute, as many children and parents have lived to attest. Innocence is just not something many of us are willing to sacrifice on the alter of Art.

But where is your proof? Where has it be shown that having your photo taken by Bill Henson has taken away anything? Not one child (as far as I am aware), currently or in the past, has come out and said any such thing. The children he photographed in the last 10-30 years, where are they when these controversies are given media attention? I haven''t heard them yelling 'my freedom was taken away: I was damaged by letting Bill take my photos: etc". There is ZERO evidence out there that modelling for Bill Henson has any adverse side effects on his models.

I respect your opinion, but I cannot find a single fact (on the net) reporting that a child's freedom, well-being or life has been adversly affected by being photographed naked by Bill Henson, and he has been doing this type of photography for decades. I would think at least one person would step forward if they felt that way, especially with the media carrot of 'here is a heap of money, tell us your story' journalistic modality we see so commonly. Where are these children who had their freedom taken away from them?

[ElectricImages]

(2) I am not offended, yes my post is strident, as an adult over the age of 18 I take strong exception to you posting what amount to untruths.

I've provided citations and references for my claims. You've told me to do the research for you, while simply repeating and perpetuating some commonly held misconceptions. If you want to prove your case, I'm sorry , but you need to demonstrate it, not tell me "You go and research the facts..." - I already have. Citations and references have been provided. It is up to you to prove your own case, not up to me to prove yours.

I also take exception to being told I'm telling "untruths" - especially since you haven't bothered to post anything to back up your own claims. However, I haven't resorted to terseness or disrespect in my posts to you, so I'd appreciate the same courtesy in return, please.

[I @ M]

You've told me to do the research for you, while simply repeating and perpetuating some commonly held misconceptions.

No, I don't want you to do any research for me, rather educate yourself about that which you refer to as commonly held misconceptions.

As for the latter part, I stand by what I said, your statement --- Modeling hardly has that kind of consequences! --- is simply not true.

[ElectricImages]

No, I don't want you to do any research for me, rather educate yourself about that which you refer to as commonly held misconceptions.
As for the latter part, I stand by what I said, your statement --- Modeling hardly has that kind of consequences! --- is simply not true.

"Rational" debate doesn't work that way. If you want to challenge the references I've provided, the onus is on on you to provide your own evidence.

As for the "consequences" of modelling - I've provided a reference to academic, peer-reviewed research that found that the rate of full-blown eating disorders (anorexia and bulimia) in models was no worse than in the general population, and that models have higher self-esteem and were more likely to have a positive self-image. There's simply no evidence that models have a higher rate of fully-blown/fatal eating disorders or suicide than any other demographic. If you want to refute the research I've provided, you need to show me the research please, not just repeat common hearsay over and over. Repetition doesn't make it true.

Here's some of the outcomes of existing academic research for you to have a look at: http://www.belleiq.com/2008/11/22/th...models-health/
And also the findings of the largest academic research project on the subject to date, here: http://www.belleiq.com/2008/11/07/th...models-health/. I quote:

"CONCLUSIONS
Results from this study suggest that, despite being significantly taller and weighing significantly less, fashion models do not have higher rates of disordered eating behaviour than their non-model peers; they do, however have higher general self-esteem. Contrary to popular stereotypes the findings suggest that the modelling population is not a high-risk group for eating disorders."

[ving]

bill henson... isnt he that muppet guy?

[Kym]

@ving - that would be Jim Henson. BTW Kermit was usually nekked !!

[ving]

true that! nekked frogs do nothing for me. miss piggy tho! what a babe.

[ricktas]

I liked the two old farts in the theatre...now they would be interesting to photograph nude. Though maybe old people have to be protected as well, after all they could be suffering slight dementia and not in a position to consent or understand and it could be detrimental to them in future

[ElectricImages]

I liked the two old farts in the theatre...now they would be interesting to photograph nude. Though maybe old people have to be protected as well, after all they could be suffering slight dementia and not in a position to consent or understand and it could be detrimental to them in future

Bwaahahaha! XD

Kermit gets hit around by Miss Piggy a fair bit, he may suffer from shock, stress and amnesia and also be unable to give informed consent. And Miss Piggy's consent would mean nothing, 'cause if she wanted to take it back, you better not stop her. )

[Kym]

http://southern-courier.whereilive.c...o-end-dieting/

Eating disorders, including Anorexia Nervosa, Bulimia Nervosa and Binge Eating Disorder are not a lifestyle choice but are serious mental and physical illnesses that have very high suicide risk. Anorexia has a suicide rate 32 times higher than average

We know that the fashion / modelling industry has huge pressures re: body image and significantly higher numbers of people with eating disorders.

It's interesting that the article starts with

Australia’s fashion industry is being urged to say no to dieting and be more socially responsible in its promotion of models and fashion during Australian Fashion Week as part of International No Diet Day.

[ElectricImages]

http://southern-courier.whereilive.c...o-end-dieting/
We know that the fashion / modelling industry has huge pressures re: body image and significantly higher numbers of people with eating disorders.
It's interesting that the article starts with

Please refer to the academic research links provided above. What "we know" is not always the truth. Particularly since the media loves to perpetuate misconceptions, and ideally hype them so that they're even more sensational. There are multiple, independent, double-blind, peer-reviewed studies which have shown that models are just "unusually attractive, not unusually disordered".

Apparently, some people are just born thin and beautiful. *sigh*

[ving]

Statler and Waldorf appeared nakid in an episode once i am sure... it scared me for life!

[Kym]

One paper is not enough. Newsflash - not all academics have a clue or get it right.

There are counter views and research.
http://www.diet-blog.com/11/anorexic...try_get_it.php
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news...0211-nto2.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...n-models_x.htm

[ElectricImages]

One paper is not enough. Newsflash - not all academics have a clue or get it right.

If you follow the first link, you'll find a number of separate, independent academic works cited. To save you the trouble, here is that link again: http://www.belleiq.com/2008/11/22/th...models-health/. The second link was to the largest study of the frequency of eating disorders in models. Here's the methodology of that study:

METHODOLOGY
A total of 339 female models (professional fashion models) and female non-models (university students) participated in an anonymous online survey. Measures used in the online survey included the Eating Attitudes Test, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, Appearance Self-Esteem Scale, Physical Appearance Comparison Scale, and the Sociocultural Attitudes Towards Appearance Questionnaire. All of these tests are frequently used, validated, and sound psychological assessment tools. Upon completion of the data collection, statistical analyses were performed. Using SPSS 15.0, t tests, chi square tests, analyses of covariance, and correlation analyses were conducted.

Looks statistically valid to me.

There are counter views and research.
http://www.diet-blog.com/11/anorexic...try_get_it.php
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news...0211-nto2.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...n-models_x.htm

But none of those are research. And the last two articles aren't about models at all, they're about women in general being unhappy because they don't look like models.

Guess which demographic DOES have research showing a higher prevalence of eating disorders? Athletes. Pretty conclusively.

[WhoDo]

As for the "consequences" of modelling - I've provided a reference to academic, peer-reviewed research that found that the rate of full-blown eating disorders (anorexia and bulimia) in models was no worse than in the general population, and that models have higher self-esteem and were more likely to have a positive self-image. There's simply no evidence that models have a higher rate of fully-blown/fatal eating disorders or suicide than any other demographic.

Again I am drawn back into this debate by half-truths and skewed "facts".

The Hensen debate isn't about FASHION MODELS or EATING DISORDERS per se. It is about the potential consequences, largely emotional, of using under-age photographic models for nude studies when they are not sufficiently experienced to make an informed decision about their own involvement. Slipping in the word "suicide" as an afterthought to your own unrelated research is disingenuous in my opinion.

A better analogy might be to the consequences of juvenile females being exposed by the sharing of naked images over mobile phones! The issue is one of the mental trauma that results when the subject realises what has happened. True, Hensen doesn't take poor quality, semi-pornographic images and publish them via the telecommunications system. That said, the consequences for his under-aged models may well be analogous. As far as I'm aware no-one has actually done any research on that aspect of his work. Just because no-one has complained doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. For example, systematic abuse in the work place often goes unreported for years before one brave soul speaks out and starts an avalanche of "me too" reports! Just ask the Catholic Church about that if you need confirmation (no pun intended).

Victims of emotional trauma and abuse may take a lifetime to finally admit the consequences for them, and some NEVER will! That doesn't mean it didn't happen! it also doesn't mean we shouldn't exercise some care about foreseeable risks to prevent it from happening!