My feelings tell me that the question has more to do with the subject of the images than anything else. It is my view as someone who works with victims of trauma that the 12 year old girl at the center of the works is not of a developmental level to have full comprehension about what it is she is engaging in. There is no way she can have complete understanding about the impact and potential use of the images, especially when they are transmitted across the freedoms of digital communication networks.
The freedom of expression argument is thrown around in this case by bloggers and those with vested interest in the arts with all attention focussed on the artist. I have heard very few voices saying taking the photographs may be wrong because of the psychological impact on the subject. No one has discussed her freedom to not be sexualized, to not have her image in the hands of inappropriate users. You cannot tell me that she is of a level of understanding to fully realize the impact of the images.
I have seen many arguments from censorship agenda driven bloggers citing the importance of art and so forth but not one of these posts has looked at the fact at what Henson engaged in with the subject may not be an appropriate interaction for a child of that psychological developmental level. There have been arguments citing works of Caravaggio where the subject is adolescent; I argue that our knowledge of trauma from sexualised interactions at child psychological developmental levels has shown us that there can be lasting effects that are carried through to later stages of life. Citing the activities of artists from past ages does not justify actions that we now know to have the potential to be damaging.
Please do understand that my views are not a simple conservative knee-jerk "won't someone think of the children" argument, they come from my daily work with adult victims of child sexual trauma and from peer-reviewed research in developmental psychology.
A very interesting viewpoint, and one I haven't seen elsewhere so far.
Overall, I'm against censorship, but there must be a line drawn somewhere. It's beyond me just where that line should be, and it varies from person to person and incident to incident anyhow, I suspect.
my views are not a simple conservative knee-jerk "won't someone think of the children" argument
Indeed. They are a nuanced, considered "won't someone think of the children" argument. I'm not sure that makes them correct, however.
I have heard very few voices saying taking the photographs may be wrong because of the psychological impact on the subject.
You can't have read the mainstream press on the issue, then. That seems to be the primary focus of the "pro-censorship" camp.
You cannot tell me that she is of a level of understanding to fully realize the impact of the images.
Indeed, but I expect that society will ensure-by painstakingly defining for her what is good and what is evil, such that it becomes clear to her that evil has indeed been done-that one day, she's fully traumatised by it.
No one has discussed her freedom to not be sexualized, to not have her image in the hands of inappropriate users.
Do you think there aren't paedophiles tossing off to the images in the Target kiddiewear catalogues every day? Where are the hordes of traumatised child underwear models? (Just a revolted Prime Minister away, I'd suggest.)
Any trauma caused to Henson's subjects will come directly from the reaction of the public to the nudity, not from the nudity itself. After all, nudity is the "natural state" of human beings, common amongst "uncivilised" peoples the world over, including everyone's ancestors. In other words, trauma may indeed result when these subjects are exposed to the horror and revulsion with which our society has come to view images of naked children.
That said, it does represent reality-the current state of our culture-so it's something we need to take into account. We're living in an age when we're constantly subject to alarm stories about statistically insignificant risks (such as the risk of being snatched off the streets, raped, murdered and dumped in a shallow grave, or the risk of being sexually enslaved in a basement by your lunatic father for thirty years) which our hunter-gatherer subconscious is simply unable to place in appropriate context. This means we live in constant fear of the vanishingly unlikely, in a state of artificially heightened anxiety that leaves many if not most of us psychologically ill. Unless we're prepared to reconstruct the news to report only "what you actually need to know", we have to accept that we're all going to be slightly crazy most of the time, and to make allowances by not engaging in activity that freaks out our equally crazy neighbours.
Unfortunately, this kind of caution flies in the face of what seems to be one of the most important functions of Art: to challenge society's accepted norms, to make us all a little bit less certain of our worldviews-and thus a little bit crazier. As such, I remain unsure where I stand on the issue. Maybe we're crazy enough as it is.
You cannot tell me that she is of a level of understanding to fully realize the impact of the images.
Surely your studies in developmental psychology indicate that any post-pubescent person has the capacity to engage in adult cognitive reasoning? That is certainly what I have read from Piaget, Kohlberg and Gilligan (et al)
As for people who have been photographed in the past:
any post-pubescent person has the capacity to engage in adult cognitive reasoning
Is that really the issue, though? Would this be any different is the subjects were, say, eight or nine? In any case, how many people are likely to imagine hypothetical scenarios matching what's happened prior to giving consent? ("Hmm. What if one day these photographs were to be at the centre of a nation-wide controversy where the Prime Minister implied that I'd been exploited for paedophilic pornography? How would I feel if that were to happen?")
Would this be any different is the subjects were, say, eight or nine?
Legally, no, there isn't a difference. IANAL, but assumpting that Henson isn't done for kiddie porn (which seems to be where it's heading) parental consent is all that is required.
In terms of cognitive ability, yes there is a significant difference. The difference between a person's cognitive capacity to engage in concrete operations and formal operations and the moral implications that follow is significant.
how many people are likely to imagine hypothetical scenarios matching what's happened prior to giving consent?
Not many, regardless of their adult maturity or lack thereof. Hence my use of the word 'capacity', rather than actuality.
Not many, regardless of their adult maturity or lack thereof. Hence my use of the word 'capacity', rather than actuality.
Indeed. So, surely it matters little whether the subject is capable, if they are vanishingly unlikely to actually comprehend the situation. Still, I guess The Law needs to draw its arbitrary line somewhere, lest its entire basis in individual blame be called into question.
*nods* This is true; the requisite rule of a single age is grossly unrealistic but is very efficient. I am often of the opinion that "age of majority" rights (including voting rights etc) should be a matter of licensing/assessment (like a drivers license).
The freedom of expression argument is thrown around in this case by bloggers and those with vested interest in the arts with all attention focussed on the artist. I have heard very few voices saying taking the photographs may be wrong because of the psychological impact on the subject. No one has discussed her freedom to not be sexualized, to not have her image in the hands of inappropriate users. You cannot tell me that she is of a level of understanding to fully realize the impact of the images.
I have seen many arguments from censorship agenda driven bloggers citing the importance of art and so forth but not one of these posts has looked at the fact at what Henson engaged in with the subject may not be an appropriate interaction for a child of that psychological developmental level. There have been arguments citing works of Caravaggio where the subject is adolescent; I argue that our knowledge of trauma from sexualised interactions at child psychological developmental levels has shown us that there can be lasting effects that are carried through to later stages of life. Citing the activities of artists from past ages does not justify actions that we now know to have the potential to be damaging.
Please do understand that my views are not a simple conservative knee-jerk "won't someone think of the children" argument, they come from my daily work with adult victims of child sexual trauma and from peer-reviewed research in developmental psychology.
Reply
Overall, I'm against censorship, but there must be a line drawn somewhere. It's beyond me just where that line should be, and it varies from person to person and incident to incident anyhow, I suspect.
Reply
Indeed. They are a nuanced, considered "won't someone think of the children" argument. I'm not sure that makes them correct, however.
I have heard very few voices saying taking the photographs may be wrong because of the psychological impact on the subject.
You can't have read the mainstream press on the issue, then. That seems to be the primary focus of the "pro-censorship" camp.
You cannot tell me that she is of a level of understanding to fully realize the impact of the images.
Indeed, but I expect that society will ensure-by painstakingly defining for her what is good and what is evil, such that it becomes clear to her that evil has indeed been done-that one day, she's fully traumatised by it.
No one has discussed her freedom to not be sexualized, to not have her image in the hands of inappropriate users.
Do you think there aren't paedophiles tossing off to the images in the Target kiddiewear catalogues every day? Where are the hordes of traumatised child underwear models? (Just a revolted Prime Minister away, I'd suggest.)
Any trauma caused to Henson's subjects will come directly from the reaction of the public to the nudity, not from the nudity itself. After all, nudity is the "natural state" of human beings, common amongst "uncivilised" peoples the world over, including everyone's ancestors. In other words, trauma may indeed result when these subjects are exposed to the horror and revulsion with which our society has come to view images of naked children.
That said, it does represent reality-the current state of our culture-so it's something we need to take into account. We're living in an age when we're constantly subject to alarm stories about statistically insignificant risks (such as the risk of being snatched off the streets, raped, murdered and dumped in a shallow grave, or the risk of being sexually enslaved in a basement by your lunatic father for thirty years) which our hunter-gatherer subconscious is simply unable to place in appropriate context. This means we live in constant fear of the vanishingly unlikely, in a state of artificially heightened anxiety that leaves many if not most of us psychologically ill. Unless we're prepared to reconstruct the news to report only "what you actually need to know", we have to accept that we're all going to be slightly crazy most of the time, and to make allowances by not engaging in activity that freaks out our equally crazy neighbours.
Unfortunately, this kind of caution flies in the face of what seems to be one of the most important functions of Art: to challenge society's accepted norms, to make us all a little bit less certain of our worldviews-and thus a little bit crazier. As such, I remain unsure where I stand on the issue. Maybe we're crazy enough as it is.
Reply
Surely your studies in developmental psychology indicate that any post-pubescent person has the capacity to engage in adult cognitive reasoning? That is certainly what I have read from Piaget, Kohlberg and Gilligan (et al)
As for people who have been photographed in the past:
"'I never felt uncomfortable. Bill made you feel incredibly safe and calm'"
http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2008/05/25/1211653848660.html
Reply
Elenberg was photographed fully clothed, however.
Reply
Reply
Is that really the issue, though? Would this be any different is the subjects were, say, eight or nine? In any case, how many people are likely to imagine hypothetical scenarios matching what's happened prior to giving consent? ("Hmm. What if one day these photographs were to be at the centre of a nation-wide controversy where the Prime Minister implied that I'd been exploited for paedophilic pornography? How would I feel if that were to happen?")
Reply
Legally, no, there isn't a difference. IANAL, but assumpting that Henson isn't done for kiddie porn (which seems to be where it's heading) parental consent is all that is required.
In terms of cognitive ability, yes there is a significant difference. The difference between a person's cognitive capacity to engage in concrete operations and formal operations and the moral implications that follow is significant.
how many people are likely to imagine hypothetical scenarios matching what's happened prior to giving consent?
Not many, regardless of their adult maturity or lack thereof. Hence my use of the word 'capacity', rather than actuality.
Reply
Indeed. So, surely it matters little whether the subject is capable, if they are vanishingly unlikely to actually comprehend the situation. Still, I guess The Law needs to draw its arbitrary line somewhere, lest its entire basis in individual blame be called into question.
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Leave a comment