The old debate: Art or Pornography?

[M-in-Oz]

Over here at the moment there has been a bit of a media frenzy over the upcoming exhibition of photography by artist Bill Henson.

Even the Prime Minister has weighed into the debate by calling it "revolting" and that the images have "no artistic merit".

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23743217-2,00.html?from=public_rss

What are the views on art & censorship here?

Does it make a difference if the artist, like Henson is, is "internationally renowned"?

 

[nogodsnomasters85]

What are the views on art & censorship here?

Does it make a difference if the artist, like Henson is, is "internationally renowned"?

This is a tough call. There is no line that one can draw in the sand specifically, I'm reminded of a quote, might've been a supreme court judge, "I don't know what it is, but I know it when I see it." This is one of those kinds of things. I'm generally inclined towards the negative, but someone in the video made a good point, if these were images of naked children in some tribe in africa they could've been published in National Geographic without the media spectacle. I would say that the guy's reputation lends it a bit of weight, after all, if he was some unknown who took these pictures in his basement and called it "art", he'd be arrested.

 

[Hellie]

That's nothing.they want to take a visit to your local Japanes newstand and see wht kind of child porn is accepted over there.Unbeleivable.

 

[vicarinatutugal]

def not art. I can not see any situation where you would be taking pics of naked 12 year olds and it being ok.

NO, the "artist" is an old pervert.

 

[Mr Smith]

After much inner searching, endless cups of tea, late night discussions with peers and respected members of the public, I have decided that I like art as much as pornography.

From what I've seen from the video (on the link), the images do not look pornographic, in that they are not portrayed as the objects of titillation. But the coverage of the story does say alot of how the media and society react to the display of flesh. I'm not sure if the artist is trying to highlight the hysteria that normally follows stories on paedophilia / child pornography, and this is an easy way to "shock" - but is that not part of the make-up of art? Manet Olympia was described as immoral and vulgar at its time of exhibition, and is just one of numerous examples where critically acclaimed art has caused outrage.

 

[virtually dead]

Aft Manet Olympia was described as immoral and vulgar at its time of exhibition, and is just one of numerous examples where critically acclaimed art has caused outrage.

Egon Schiele too (whom I adore), is this art?

 

[Mr Smith]

Egon Schiele too (whom I adore), is this art?

Time plays an important part. What is considered pornographic / indecent at the time, becomes merely a footnote in art history. Besides, art in theory should bear no responsibilities in being moral guardians etc. The artist in question (Bill Henson) may be prosecuted for creating this particular exhibition, and the images may be censored for a period of time, but the essential question is after the whole outrage, what does the images say about the era we live in, the notion of childhood in the 21st century, and the representation of flesh / the naked human body.

As for the painting, I can imagine more people would be inclined to think this would be closer to art due to it being slight more abstract than a photograph, which is a complete representation of the object (not including photoshop / modification etc)

 

[Sir Alec]

Art can be immoral, pornography can be immoral. Art can contain pornography, pornography can be artistic. Essentially, I see no difference between the two, and both should be held to the same standards of decency against abuse of children, animals, and adults.

Also, I visited Egon Schiele's house in the CZ once. It was amazing.

 

[iamkali62]

I believe it's a pedophiles wet dream. Not art, I don't think so. Exploiting kids, YES.

 

[Coiffeur_En_Flame]

I believe it's a pedophiles wet dream. Not art, I don't think so. Exploiting kids, YES.

Both the parents and the kids agreed to be a part of it, the guy wasn't lying in park hedges with a giant zoom lens. How is it exploitation?

It's fair game. Artists have been portraying nudity, including 'underage' nudity, for centuries. This is no different. Unless the photographs have been taken without the permission of the subject and the subject's parents, which isn't the case here, I see no problem whatsoever. Surely the Australian police have better things to do than persecute artists?


Coiff.

 

[5am]

Egon Schiele too (whom I adore), is this art?

I love Egon Schiele. I was lucky to catch an exhibition of his work a few years ago. It was beautiful. I remember being surprised by the actual size of the paintings- they are much smaller than I thought. I used to have a poster of one of his paintings on my wall years ago. I saw the actual painting (which made me quite emotional…) and it was 3 times smaller than that poster.

 

[iamkali62]

Both the parents and the kids agreed to be a part of it, the guy wasn't lying in park hedges with a giant zoom lens. How is it exploitation?

It's fair game. Artists have been portraying nudity, including 'underage' nudity, for centuries. This is no different. Unless the photographs have been taken without the permission of the subject and the subject's parents, which isn't the case here, I see no problem whatsoever. Surely the Australian police have better things to do than persecute artists?


Coiff.

Coiff, you do make a good valid point. Nudity HAS been around for centuries. I guess I just answered so quickly because I don't understand why this artist would take pics of children. You're right though. If the subject agrees and the parents agree, well, that's what matters.

 

[Coiffeur_En_Flame]

Coiff, you do make a good valid point.

Music to my ears


Coiff.

 

[Renia]

This is practically the same exact situation like the whole stupid Miley Cyrus thing.

If their parents were there, and both the parents and the children consented, it shouldn't BE a big thing.
I mean, jeez, what about nudist camps? Are there children there? Would that be considered pedophilia?


and I say this as a 14-year old girl, btw! Am I pedophile?

My point is, unless the guy was caught like, jacking off to the pictures, or the kids were held at knifepoint to do the damn pictures, it shouldn't BE a big deal.

Maybe it's just me though, *shrugs*

 

[xLonelyPlanetBoyx]

What about this? It's from Guy Bourdin...

 

[chica]

Maybe this prompted Alternet to publish this article.

If those photos are illegal, shouldn't these clothes be made illegal too?

Some of the many other examples include a push-up bra for preteens, thongs for 10-year-olds bearing slogans like "eye candy," and underwear geared toward teens with "Who needs credit cards ... ?" written across the crotch.

 

[Coiffeur_En_Flame]

Maybe this prompted Alternet to publish this article.

If those photos are illegal, shouldn't these clothes be made illegal too?

What's the harm in teaching kids about the lighter side of the sex industry?



Coiff.

 

[virtually dead]

I love Egon Schiele. I was lucky to catch an exhibition of his work a few years ago. It was beautiful. I remember being surprised by the actual size of the paintings- they are much smaller than I thought. I used to have a poster of one of his paintings on my wall years ago. I saw the actual painting (which made me quite emotional…) and it was 3 times smaller than that poster.

I'm jealous, that sounds amazing. I only 'got into' him this year and I am amazed by his work and his personality. I would love to see his work up close, I saw a Van Gogh painting for the first time this year and was amazed that such a genius had touched the canvas that was just infront of me.

 

[5am]

I'm jealous, that sounds amazing. I only 'got into' him this year and I am amazed by his work and his personality. I would love to see his work up close, I saw a Van Gogh painting for the first time this year and was amazed that such a genius had touched the canvas that was just infront of me.

Yes, and the little things you can never see through a photo- all the shades, the brush marks, the weak pencil lines.

(Funny you mentioned Van Gogh, the Schiele exhibition I saw was in the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam )

 

[virtually dead]

Yes, and the little things you can never see through a photo- all the shades, the brush marks, the weak pencil lines.

(Funny you mentioned Van Gogh, the Schiele exhibition I saw was in the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam )

I'm almost green with envy
This is one of my favourite Schiele works

I love the way he phyically distorts his own image, I read in a biography of him something interesting about how he represent the 'self' in his work, particularly when he paints his double image.