Also - a follow up...
How is it that Bill Henson was cleared of all charges and it went by without my notice? It pisses me off that someone can so easily be defamed and then the pieces not be picked up again and proper apologies made.
I still have things to say, most primary of all, is to those who say it was an issue of consent not the content of the images - this has no legal grounding. We can't just go about changing the law because people don't like what one person does. The way the law works - whether we support what parents give their children consent to do or not - is that parents make decissions for their children up to the arbitrary age of 18. If we suggest that these people cannot make decisions for their children, then that makes all sorts of uncomfortable juristiction around things like surgery and the like, where we expect a 12 year old to understand the way their body works.
The issues surrounding this case are exceptionally close to my heart for a number of reasons. However, I do think issues such as paedophelia and terrorism (for example) are things where people are puppeted about to give the impression of doing 'something' to fight a battle that sadly, probably will never be won... and as a society we are all too willing to attack the innocent person in order to send a message to the 'bad guys'.
As for exploitation of the child, if parents are involved in the shoot, and in deciding what proofs are acceptable and what are not, then what's the issue? Having seen the way that Henson manufactures and controls the image he is looking for - that is, he is not a happy snaps man - the art is highly controlled and gently worked upon until the angles, the expression and the light works in the favour of the final shot - this is hardly 'be a lemur for me' photography - which does change the intent of the photograph. In this way, the print is more like a painting than a modeling shoot. If the image was a painting, would people have the same reaction?
Henson's work has often toed the line on much more risque fronts, but because it is unabashed nakedness we are witness to in these pieces, we are more critical. How is it that Henson has got away with children essentially in bondage before and no one turned a head, and these images for showing skin are criticised and torn to public pieces? This surely proves that the debate is about nakedness versus covered bodies. Art, in my opinion, works best when it forces us to ask questions of ourselves, society and/or politics. Henson's work certainly did that - there's no denying that - but the question still remains - are we so prudish that we cannot view a naked body (of any age) and not see it without making it sexualised? Can we not define our emotions, our needs and our identities without the need for clothing - to see the body in its whole ability to reflect thought in different ways? What is so inherantly evil about showing vulnerability through our bodies and our faces?
And (controversial as this is) Hetty Johnston should be ashamed of herself - she cannot continue to systematically ruin people's lives and careers because of the atrocities that happened to her as a child. And as a society, we should be more vocal about such systematic take downs I believe.
I still have things to say, most primary of all, is to those who say it was an issue of consent not the content of the images - this has no legal grounding. We can't just go about changing the law because people don't like what one person does. The way the law works - whether we support what parents give their children consent to do or not - is that parents make decissions for their children up to the arbitrary age of 18. If we suggest that these people cannot make decisions for their children, then that makes all sorts of uncomfortable juristiction around things like surgery and the like, where we expect a 12 year old to understand the way their body works.
The issues surrounding this case are exceptionally close to my heart for a number of reasons. However, I do think issues such as paedophelia and terrorism (for example) are things where people are puppeted about to give the impression of doing 'something' to fight a battle that sadly, probably will never be won... and as a society we are all too willing to attack the innocent person in order to send a message to the 'bad guys'.
As for exploitation of the child, if parents are involved in the shoot, and in deciding what proofs are acceptable and what are not, then what's the issue? Having seen the way that Henson manufactures and controls the image he is looking for - that is, he is not a happy snaps man - the art is highly controlled and gently worked upon until the angles, the expression and the light works in the favour of the final shot - this is hardly 'be a lemur for me' photography - which does change the intent of the photograph. In this way, the print is more like a painting than a modeling shoot. If the image was a painting, would people have the same reaction?
Henson's work has often toed the line on much more risque fronts, but because it is unabashed nakedness we are witness to in these pieces, we are more critical. How is it that Henson has got away with children essentially in bondage before and no one turned a head, and these images for showing skin are criticised and torn to public pieces? This surely proves that the debate is about nakedness versus covered bodies. Art, in my opinion, works best when it forces us to ask questions of ourselves, society and/or politics. Henson's work certainly did that - there's no denying that - but the question still remains - are we so prudish that we cannot view a naked body (of any age) and not see it without making it sexualised? Can we not define our emotions, our needs and our identities without the need for clothing - to see the body in its whole ability to reflect thought in different ways? What is so inherantly evil about showing vulnerability through our bodies and our faces?
And (controversial as this is) Hetty Johnston should be ashamed of herself - she cannot continue to systematically ruin people's lives and careers because of the atrocities that happened to her as a child. And as a society, we should be more vocal about such systematic take downs I believe.