You see, a lot of people, the Australian Prime Minister for one, believe Mr Henson’s work is pornography, that it’s “disgusting” and Mr Henson should be in goal.
But his work is not pornography. This is pornography (not safe for work, not safe for the mild mannered – really, it’s not nice – although I’m reliably informed it’s pretty mild compared with what you can get out there. The world is a frightening place).
Here is some art – to clean your brain.*
Pornography is objectifying, it’s dehumanising, it’s debased, and it’s produced solely for sexual titillation or gratification. It’s generally designed to masturbate to or to help working yourself up for a bonk (or whatever). It is all about sex.
Mr Henson’s work is clearly not pornography. There’s no splaying, there’s no displaying, there’s nothing sexual about his work at all.
Is it my cup of tea? Not really.
Is it art? Very probably.
Should he be using underage models? Look, I don’t think so. Despite what you read about the parents and models consenting, a 12 or 13 year old can’t really give consent. I do ask what on earth the parents were thinking?
But is it porn? No.
* I can't say where I snaffled any of these from, I took them out of my 'puter wallpaper file. Any objections from the artists or owners, I'll remove, pr0mise.
Edited to add: 6 June, not porn, no charges.
Posts
7 comments:
Miss Mouse, I understand the point you make about "art", but here's the problem...
If Mr Brown was to go out and take a series of photographs of a naked 12 year old girl, irrespective of how fabulously artistic those photographs were, and irrespective of any consent he received from her parents, he'd be charged with a long list of offences relating to child pornography.
"But Mr Brown isn't a world renowned artist", I hear you say. Well he might want to be. After all, Mr Brown won't just "become" an "artist". He'll want to experiment. He'll want to try different styles until he finds his "formula". So at what point do the pictures Mr Brown might take (hypothetically, of course... sorry Mr Brown) make the transition from child porn to "art"?
And what if the parental consent came from Mr Brown? What if he was taking photographs of his own 12 year old daughter? Don't you see that this is starting to get murky?
If the "art" defence is upheld, it steps our society into very unchartered waters.
Let's stay on theme and say Mr Brown did start to get recognition in the "art" world, and so he decides to push a few more boundaries by taking photographs of eviscerated cats as they take their last, painful, dying breaths. By the standards of the "art" world, such unspeakable animal cruelty is a fair subject, and by this new definition, it's no longer cruelty... it's "art".
Or let's say he doesn't ever really attain the accolades heaped on Mr Henson, but realises there's a buck to be made in selling pictures of his naked 12 year daughter. He starts selling them through an on-line "art" gallery that specialises in this type of work. Who's to say the work isn't "art"?
Sorry, but irrespective of the undoubted talent of Mr Henson, there are some lines that shouldn't be blurred.
And there's the other side of the coin too...
Just for the sake of argument, let's accept that Mr Henson's photographs of naked 12 year olds are "art". He sells those photographs at a gallery. There are plenty of men out there who would "love" to have a photograph of a naked 12 year old girl hanging on the wall, and the availability of Mr Hensons's work simply feeds the predilection.
Finally, there is the issue of "informed consent". Can a 12 year old possibly understand the ramifications of posing for such a photograph. It closes a whole corridor full of doors in terms of her future, and opens very few.
What if she decided to run for public office?
What if she became a judge, and found herself presiding over a child pornography case?
What if she wanted to become a teacher at an up market girls' school?
What if she wants to... you add to the list... it will get very long.
The photo series could have severe implications, and to pretend it wouldn't is naive.
You can tell a 12 year old he or she has an opportunity to be a "model", and they do not have sufficient brain development to fully understand both the short term and long term consequences of the action.
At 12, there can be no "informed consent". At 12, the law recognises that this person is not fully aware of their actions. You can't, in the name of "art", suddenly say they are, because by that definition, you start trying criminal children as adults.
Sorry. But on this issue, I can't agree with you.
Mr Bear, that's fine, we can agree to disagree.
Seems to me we agree on the inappropriateness of using a 12 year old anyway - I did point out a 12 year old can't really give consent.
My argument is if it's PORN, the intent, the motive behind the photographs. Porn is designed for one thing along. Mr H's photos just aren't Porn. Inappropriate, very probably, but not porn.
Lucky for me I've never seen any child porn, but I strongly suspect it looks nothing like one of Mr Henson's photos.
Hi DMM -
Thanks for posting about this and linking to Mr. Bear's post. I tend to agree more with Mr. Bear. I appreciate your argument about the intent on the part of the artist. But it can't address the intent or use or "repurposing" of the photographs in the hands of the owners/collectors. It also seems that anyone under the age of 18 (21?) just shouldn't be involved in this sort of thing at all - ever. And really, what WERE those parents thinking???
I like art. I like the concept of art as a continuum. I don't have to like every single point on that continuum. And just because I don't like something, doesn't mean it's not art. But kids and animals - innocents, unable to give informed consent - should not be used in the ways described by Mr. Bear.
There have even been concerns raised by digital and paper scrapbookers about posting photos of nude children in on-line forums where folks share their layouts. These are generally the baby in the bath, baby on the bear rug, toddlers at the ocean sort of thing that many of us have tucked away in family photo albums. They are perfectly innocent and only embarrassing when our Moms trot them out to show to others! But even those innocently intended, O.K. as part of a family album, photos were deemed desirable by pedophiles.
Lastly, while I realize that pornography has legal definitions, I'm not sure it matters here. Using underage models for nude photographs as part of a commercial enterprise (however neutral or innocent) is inappropriate.
- Lee
Just curious - would all those paintings and sculptures of naked baby Jesus be porn? What about the picture of your kid in the bath? Should you go to jail? I have a picture of my little brother on the training toilet - my purpose, blackmail as an older sister...should I go to jail?
Just wondering...
Willsie, I'm guessing some people would think those bebe jeebers picture are porn - I think some folk see porn in everything. But me, no, I'd say not porn.
Photos by parents, no, not porn (unless they are very sick individuals indeed and in that case one would hope the children would be taken away from them).
I, too, have some pics of siblings that I could use against them, but then they have similar pics of me! But I don't think that makes any of us, nor our parents (who took the photos afterall) purveyors of kiddy porn.
Willsie, I'm guessing some people would think those bebe jeebers picture are porn - I think some folk see porn in everything. But me, no, I'd say not porn.
Photos by parents, no, not porn (unless they are very sick individuals indeed and in that case one would hope the children would be taken away from them).
I, too, have some pics of siblings that I could use against them, but then they have similar pics of me! But I don't think that makes any of us, nor our parents (who took the photos afterall) purveyors of kiddy porn.
And I was pleased to see in the paper yesterday, the proper authorities don't consider it porn either.
Post a Comment