Sydney Nude Child Art Exhibit
Offline OK, I'm not sure what to make of this, but here goes:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7439235.stm
From the article:
Sydney nude art inquiry dropped
 Hollywood actress Cate Blanchett had intervened to defend Henson |
Australian police have dropped an obscenity investigation into photos of nude children at an art gallery that sparked a major debate on censorship.
Investigators said no charges would be brought over Bill Henson's portraits, which feature naked 13-year-olds.
The decision appeared to clear the way for reopening his exhibit, shut on 22 May, at Sydney's Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery.
Welcoming the move, Henson, 52, said he had found support extended to him over the past weeks "profoundly humbling".
The Australian photographer said: "It is reassuring to see existing laws, having been rigorously tested, still provide a framework in which debate and expression of ideas can occur."
'Notoriously difficult'
Hollywood actress Cate Blanchett and other leading arts figures had said the investigation risked damaging Australia's cultural reputation.
Police had shut the exhibit hours before it was to open and confiscated dozens of portraits of naked adolescent boys and girls.
New South Wales Police said on Friday they had been advised by the director of public prosecutions there was no reasonable prospect of a successful conviction.
"Matters involving the law and art are notoriously difficult and that is why police sought this advice," their statement said.
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd - who had condemned the exhibit as "revolting" - said on Friday he stood by his views.
"I said what my views are as a parent, I don't budge from that," he told Nine Network television.
Your god's silence speaks loud and clear
- Login to post comments
This has been constantly in the papers for over a week now. I've actually seen the pictures by browsing for them on the web. A lot of art I don't get, I've seen a lot of supposed art that to me was nothing but porn with some fancy description and explanation. Even to me Henson's pictures were art. It was clear as day the purpose of them was not pornographic.
Those who publicly took offense, I guarantee you 99% hadn't seen the work in question at the time they took offense. After seeing it most people very clearly (in my observations) either stop taking offense, or lie because they're too stuck up to admit they jumped the gun.
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/
Hence why I didn't jump to conclusions. I haven't seen the photo's, but I figured someone here might have seen them or would have better insight into what was REALLY going on. The BBC spun it a little, and didn't really even hint to the context of the photos. Child porn is a touchy issue with many, as it should be, but sometimes the "no porn" zealots step in places they shouldn't belong.
What is sad is exactly what you pointed out thingy:
Someone spun it to be "child porn" and it spread like wildfire that is was child porn which, according to thingy, it was not. Even though almost no one had seen it, since it had the label "child porn" everyone wanted it gone sight unseen.
Your god's silence speaks loud and clear
Yeah. These are the sorts of people who would think the picture of a naked boy playing in the surf on Jackson Browne's "The Pretender" (accompanied by a translation of Pablo Neruda's "Brown and Agile Child" ) is pornographic.
We live in a strange world, where any nudity is declared pornographic by a vocal minority, and perfectly wonderful art is trampled by overzealous rule keepers.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Keep in mind there is underage nudity in it, but not in a style of porn. It's easy to see his goals and aims from those few photos that do contain such things as well as the accompanying ones in the series. Some are rather low on taste and questionable, but imho not from a pornographic point of view.
The best thing you can all do is look for yourself, and the easiest way to do that is either a google image search or by looking at this gallery here which contains a few of his shots from one particular series as well as a writeup on him. The latter link I believe is part of the exhebition that was being shown in Sydney at the time. The very first picture at the very least is a cropped version of what was apparently used on the invitation.
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/
Some are questionable, yes, but most are indeed artistic photography.
Fucking fundies. You can't live with them, and you can't shoot them.
Your god's silence speaks loud and clear