I believe the real issue here are the parents. It is a parent’s obligation to guide their children to a right and safe path. I am not saying that these pictures are wrong, but I am suggesting that the parents have full control of their children’s perceptions, and mostly at that age of adolescence, and that it is wrong to place their child on the spot like these parents have.

The real question here is whether the parents have the right to showcase their children to the public, in a manner that may cause harm to them in present or future. Or whether it is us, as a community’s choice, to determine whether what is right and wrong without afflicting the rights of others, as should a democratic community.

If they have agency, then a group of 13 girls can sack their pimp, be it Bill Henson or whoever, and go into business themselves. What’s a gallery web-site, how’s it different to Bebo or whatever? That’s just posing for the Oz rustics!

I’m from a history of heroin chic, manufactured gender, the latter, means surgery, or even suicide as art, which in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, was as diverse as one needed to go. But, Bill in using kids in his corpse photos, or child erotica, it is too much. But don’t call me a conservative.

The main prob for Bill or NAVA, is that, hick thing, they’re not good enough for New York, and too strange to stay in cow-town.

Tazia Doll

As for the suggestion of portraying adolescent fragility and vulnerability by taking photos of naked parents/grandparents/etc with clothed children … how would this be less “pornographic” or “paedophilic”? In some ways it seems worse. If you take the point of view that the kids don’t know any better and the adults do, then isn’t it worse that there is the charade of keeping the kids “pure” by them remaining clothed whilst all the adults are waggling their rude bits at these minors? In some ways, this might be considered far worse as the parents/grandparents/whatever are taking a very active role in this, rather than just allowing permission.

The statement that art is not needed and other animals survive without it … is that what you want from humanity? Mere survival, without taking into account any of the psychological aspects that make us different from any other life form on Earth? Being married isn’t needed for survival, yet married men live longer than single or divorced men. Having a pet isn’t needed for survival, but the general health and wellbeing of pet owners is measurably superior to that of those who have no animal interactions. Keeping an active mind helps to fend of dementia, the colour of your bedroom walls affects how you sleep at night, yet crossword puzzles and blue paint aren’t needed to survive either. And these are just some scientifically studied, measurable differences that aren’t based on “needs” (if you don’t believe me, go search PubMed).

There are a few other things to add, but I’ll do that later. Right now I need to have another coffee before I go to work, not for my own wellbeing and survival but for the wellbeing and survival of anyone I encounter while by caffeine levels are sub-optimal.

(a) defamation

(b) misogynistic

In London we kind of started with Bill Henson’s kind of photos. That kind of works out as a good way of keeping things nailed down. Which is why Bill can’t exhibit his little girl photos there.

Gregory

In London they would go through every single little bit of data on every computer and data device they could find.