CraigHChild Porn Is Not Art
May 26th 2008 13:52
Bill Henson’s claim that his pictures of naked preteens are art is not to be taken seriously - it is child porn, nothing less, and a pathetic attempt to use established art galleries as a false veneer for respectability. The fact that the web site showing the children’s photos was based off shore shows clearly that those involved were trying to ensure that Australian authorities could not close that down as well.
The photographer appears to have found a loop hole in the law. Such exhibitions are not officially classified, as art is considered exempt from censorship. The photos are then put on the internet, under the guise that they are simply reproductions of an endorsed art exhibition.
However, it should be remembered that no official authority is actually needed to endorse an art exhibition. Anyone can call anything they like “art”, without anybody having any right to challenge it. Art is a very subjective term, and art itself can be a variety of things to different people.
Some supporters of the preteen naked photos have stated that children were often painted naked in the past, and by some of the masters of painting. This is true.
However, in those days gone by, art galleries were the domain of a small minority, and the paintings themselves were the work of talented artists who had spent many years refining their craft. Those viewing were also generally well versed in the ways of the artists, and appreciative of the skills and beauty of the portrayal of such subjects.
Prior to the 1800’s, the legal age of consent in most western countries (including England) was 12 years old, and sometimes less. Such paintings were socially acceptable, and the subject’s participation perfectly legal at the time. In today’s society, the depiction of such subjects is not socially acceptable, and is also illegal.
Additionally, the subjects have not simply been hung in an art gallery, for the perusal of dedicated and probably sincere art admirers. They have been put on the internet, through an overseas location, where no end of perverts all over the world can do whatever perverts do when they look at naked pictures of 12 year old boys and girls.
The changing faces of technology have meant that society has had to take different approaches to such issues. Mr Henson seems to have found a way to peddle his illicit photos, by abusing the assumed morality of a probably respectable art gallery.
However, it should be remembered that he never meant for these photos to be limited to genuine art lovers. He wanted them to be seen on the internet, by all sorts of people who have probably no idea of where to find an art gallery, even if they did know what a gallery was.
His photos on the internet are a child porn site. They can not be viewed as anything else, despite his pathetic attempts to justify them as art.
The photographer appears to have found a loop hole in the law. Such exhibitions are not officially classified, as art is considered exempt from censorship. The photos are then put on the internet, under the guise that they are simply reproductions of an endorsed art exhibition.
However, it should be remembered that no official authority is actually needed to endorse an art exhibition. Anyone can call anything they like “art”, without anybody having any right to challenge it. Art is a very subjective term, and art itself can be a variety of things to different people.
Some supporters of the preteen naked photos have stated that children were often painted naked in the past, and by some of the masters of painting. This is true.
However, in those days gone by, art galleries were the domain of a small minority, and the paintings themselves were the work of talented artists who had spent many years refining their craft. Those viewing were also generally well versed in the ways of the artists, and appreciative of the skills and beauty of the portrayal of such subjects.
Prior to the 1800’s, the legal age of consent in most western countries (including England) was 12 years old, and sometimes less. Such paintings were socially acceptable, and the subject’s participation perfectly legal at the time. In today’s society, the depiction of such subjects is not socially acceptable, and is also illegal.
Additionally, the subjects have not simply been hung in an art gallery, for the perusal of dedicated and probably sincere art admirers. They have been put on the internet, through an overseas location, where no end of perverts all over the world can do whatever perverts do when they look at naked pictures of 12 year old boys and girls.
The changing faces of technology have meant that society has had to take different approaches to such issues. Mr Henson seems to have found a way to peddle his illicit photos, by abusing the assumed morality of a probably respectable art gallery.
However, it should be remembered that he never meant for these photos to be limited to genuine art lovers. He wanted them to be seen on the internet, by all sorts of people who have probably no idea of where to find an art gallery, even if they did know what a gallery was.
His photos on the internet are a child porn site. They can not be viewed as anything else, despite his pathetic attempts to justify them as art.
| 67 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
Health Focus
Poetry Lighthouse
MS Paint Art
You expressed this very well indeed and the information provided was interesting in its own right.
Well done.
Comment by CraigH
Australian Consumer Network
Homelessness Issues
Australian Tales
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
Health Focus
Poetry Lighthouse
MS Paint Art
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
However I have no intention of seeing them.
Even if downloaded the images I would be charged.
Artists are not special people with special needs and special rights above the law.
It is in the hands of the law now.