the discussion is about exploiting naked children in photos
so far no one has come up with a non selfish sensible answer as to why it is a good idea
i fear art is being used as the cop out

You’re right, nobody is defending the exploitation of children. That’s not an issue that is being debated here – I think everybody agrees that child exploitation is a BadThing(tm). The issue is whether the photos in question are (1) pornographic or (2) exploitation.

Henson’s models (including those photographed as minors and who are now parents themselves) don’t feel exploited, their guardians don’t feel the models were exploited, so how are they being exploited? And the photographs are now legally NotPornographic(tm) therefore it’s a bit of a moot point now

Point of fact : people are free to decide what they like and what they do not like, I am not going to force them, I myself am not a big fan of Henson’s works but that does not mean that I cannot appreciate the Art involved in their creation or in his and the models right to do so. People do have a right to criticize the work but they do not have the right to get it banned, outlawed or discriminated against.

Boiled down with out the rantiness my main points where:
1. That the models do not feel they where exploited. Neither the ones from the works seized last week or from the ones from the last 20 or so years of his career. Only they (plus other models who have done similar jobs whilst young) have they right to claim if it is exploitation or not as they have the experience to decide.

2. that these people who are narrowing their focus to just one aspect of the works, the fact that the subjects are naked young people, are completely ignoring the intent, mood, feeling and context conveyed by the work.

People keep trotting out the argument of “they are kids”, that they cannot possibly make these decisions, correct! That is why they have parents, family members, friends, agents or publicists to help guide and INFORM them of any possible negative aspects of their decisions. This is the same of ADULTS, when faced tough decisions you will ask for advice from parents, family members, friends, agents or publicists and you choose from there.

There will always be more to say on this subject and this post is already much longer than intended (at least it is not as long as the last one=p)

Liam

Welcome back to the debate, thank you for your response.

“There seems to be no agent more effective than another person in bringing a world for oneself alive, or, by a glance, a gesture, or remark, shrivelling up the reality in which one is lodged.”

(Erving Goffman; Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1961) Page 41.)

“The physical environment unremittingly offers us possibilities of experience, or curtails them. The fundamental human significance of architecture stems from this. The glory of Athens, as Pericles so lucidly stated, and the horror of so many features of the modern megalopolis is that the former enhanced and the latter constricts humankind’s consciousness.”

(R.D. Laing, “The Politics of Experience”.)

Within these two quotations, there are some beautiful points that enable us, if we open our minds to the richness of their meaning, to understand the Henson issue beyond the bounds of a simplistic, moralistic stance. My use of the word “myopia” is not a personal attack; it describes a physical condition (Wikipedia: those with myopia see nearby objects clearly but distant objects appear blurred), which can merely be used as an example for those who do not see the true depth and complexity of issues.

By arguing the point from a moralistic “wrong” perspective, and by not backing up his personal moralistic beliefs with any factual evidence from any other source, sources that could link Henson’s work with any untoward effects, JD is clearly demonstrating his moralistic myopia. This simplistic moralistic approach is what our politicians want, it is what the media wants, and it’s what business wants, because it sells.

I have attempted to open up this debate to a deeper complexity, by using passages from some of the world’s greatest thinkers. To dismiss these people, as JD did, as individuals with their own personal agenda, is to show nothing but contempt. This issue is not about simple “right or wrong” it is about complexity and the use of an open mind to discuss that complexity.

Where is the Psychological evidence linking Henson’s actions with pedophilia or any other outcome? Please JD put it forward and lets debate it! They are the facts I want to see.

Eric Fromm’s book is about embracing that complexity, understanding that there is much more to life than simplistic moralism. If you want simplistic moralsim, go find yourself a Klu Klux Clan meeting. I am sure they will oblige.

If not, here are some passages from R.D. Laing’s book “The Politics of Experience”, which hold further gems of thought if we are willing to open our minds to them regarding the Henson issue and the insanity of our society:

“In order to rationalize our industrial-military complex, we have to destroy our capacity to see clearly any more what is in front of, and to imagine what is beyond our noses. Long before a nuclear war can come about, we have had to lay waste our own sanity. We begin with the children. It is imperative to catch them in time. Without the most thorough and rapid brain-washing their dirty minds would see through our dirty tricks. Children are not yet fools, but we shall turn them into imbeciles like ourselves, with high IQ’s if possible.”

If you need to read and re-read that, do so and then think about how sane our world really is.

He Goes on:

“From the moment of birth, when this stone-age baby confronts the twentieth-century mother, the baby is subjected to these forces of violence, called love, as it’s mother and father have been, and their parents and their parents before them. These forces are mainly concerned with destroying most of its (the babies) potentialities. This enterprise is on the whole successful. By the time the new human being is fifteen or so, we are left with a being like ourselves. A half-crazed creature, more or less adjusted to a mad world. This is normality in our present age.”

Could it possibly be (shock horror) that this is what Henson is trying to depict? Their inner conflict with their pureness and the insane torment we place on them in order to adapt them to the insanity? Why is it that we are not questioning the cause of that torment and insanity? Why is it that we persist with simplistic moralism? What are we afraid of?

He goes further:

“Love and violence, properly speaking, are polar opposites. Love lets the other be, but without affection and concern. Violence attempts to constrain the other’s freedom, to force him / her to act in the way we desire, but with ultimate lack of concern, with indifference to the other’s own existence of destiny.”

I could go on. But if the picture isn’t well and truly forming by now, I fear that there is little hope!

Regards

Andrew

So far everyone, no matter which side of the issue, has kept it pretty above-board.

I did not appreciate the ‘small minded morons’ comment by Liam or the ‘myopic’ comment by Andrew. Those are personal attacks on people who you disagree with.

I certainly know how strongly we all feel about this just from the replies I have read but personal attacks are not necessary. We are not 12 year olds but adults trying to have a healthy debate.

I notice no one comments on the women’s replies so good luck with your debate gentlemen. – Angie

Now, is there any chance we can move this discussion to a higher level than name-calling and insults? It may be news to you, but people are entitled to their own opinions and by calling commentors ‘morons’ because they disagree with you degrades your arguemant.

The idea that a twelve-year-old, regardless of ‘parental approval’, can give any kind of informed consent is ludicrous. Just look at the 5-year-old beauty pageants with babies tarted up like whores.

Many people are of the belief that ‘art’ is largely overblown in importance. For instance, when schools are feeling a money crunch they tend to cut the art programs, then sports, rather than subjects like math, language, science, etc. That’s because, well, art is considered expendable. Art is dessert, not the main course.

Funding for social services goes to essential needs for survival, not pretty things for the wealthy to hang on their walls. It’s nice to see a work of public art on the Square, but not if you’re homeless.

The first recorded art we have is scratched in rock or drawn with local pigments. These works were done by someone who had the LIESURE to spend that time, not because the cave community required it.

‘Art’ survives because of societal support. And society certainly deserves to express an opinion as to that which it considers art. The artist offers, society decides. – Steve

Art is needed!
Art is a visual representation that has made the human race dream of subjects like walking upright, reaching for the stars, contemplating the nature of divinity and of the darkness in humanity.

Too say that art is not needed (albeit in another post on this blog) shows how small minded your being.

Your focus here is also the focus of the few yes FEW who are raising a ruckus over this issue, the issue of them being children.

Ok to cover some points, yes Hensons models are backing him and saying how great and fulfilling the shoots were. This are not comments made by children (although they said as much at the time too) these are made by the models who are now in their 30′s and have children of their own, so I would think that even you would say they have a certain perspective on their side and that as someone arguing “for the sake of the children” that their opinion carries more weight than yours as they have had the relevant experience to judge.

Next point, what is your definition of exploitation, Henson hires his models just like any other photographer some are even volunteers
dictionary definition (the negative one that you seem to be referring to):an act that exploits or victimizes someone (treats them unfairly).
How where they treated unfairly? If they have no problems with it now or later in life as proven by his countless models before where is the exploitation?

Another point is that they are ..ssshh nude. Ok this is a touchy subject agreed, not going to deny it. But by your arguments ANY nude shot/artwork throughout history would be classed as exploitation whether they be of children, men, women, animals or deities! OMG did you now Adam is naked on the most famous paintings of all time n the roof of the Sistine Chapel in the VATICAN city! You can almost guarantee that the model for that was a teenager. Ahh but here comes the silly “no that is a painting not a photograph” coddswallop there is no difference! Would you deny that the “Creation of Man” is Art even though it depicts a naked boy/man for that is what he is and I’ll bet the model was too! Children in Nude art is not Kiddie Porn but there is a line. Intelligent people can look at these images and they will automatically know the difference.

Next point, why use children at all. do you really think you could get the feeling and depiction of change, worry, uncertainty, innocence, bravado, ungainly and disconnected feelings of a boy/girl morphing into a Man/Woman by taking a photo of 40 year old? No it cannot be done because there is no way an adult with an adults experience can physically convey those emotions in a believable way. So it has to be these children/adults, and to convey the full spectrum of this journey from child to adolescent to adult one must be free to show that full spectrum.
Oh and the reasons to show this? To remind Adults what it was like, because we all to soon forget. To show kids that here is another person like you, going through what you are going through and that it is ok to feel that way.

You comments seem to indicate that you are under the impression that this is Henson’s first show of this kind but he has been showing and producing works like this (and of other subjects to) for over 20 years now to great acclaim throughout the world.

Trust me I would beone of the first in line with a flaming torch if any harm psychological or physical can been put upon these kids.

Small minded morons are whom are making these kids feel like they may have done something wrong. If these kids have any regrets now or later it is because of the media and political over reaction being driven by the aforementioned small minded moronic group.

I wonder if your complaints are also being made to the phys Ed books showing Johnny and Janes naughty parts to the kids for their necessary education (much to the giggles of the kids) or are you one of those people who believes if you shut your eyes your children will stay innocent virgins and never have confusing times about their own bodies.

food for thought
Sorry to other readers for the rant/essay and any grammatical errors contained within.

you can not tell me that you know what is inside anybodys head but your own, if you can i would like to see you prove it

because i choose not to read a book that you recommend doesnt make me myopic and i take offense that you a stranger who has never met me except in this blog can come up with that remark, sorry but that is a fact, i would especially not read it if it supported using children in naked photos (why else would you recommend it as that is the point of this discussion)

the discussion is about exploiting naked children in photos
so far no one has come up with a non selfish sensible answer as to why it is a good idea
i fear art is being used as the cop out

I am extremely disappointed. Debate means debate. Entering into a discussion of this nature means following through with facts and information to back up your perspective. The handful of emotional statements you made in your last post, when combined with your attempt to bring the debate to an end by postulating your apparent happiness with your own life, represent nothing more than a cop out.

The simple fact that you won’t even entertain the idea of reading Eric Fromm’s classic, simply confirms the highly blinkered approach you have to anything even remotely challenging.

Congratulations, you have succeeded in confirming your own myopia.

Regards

Andrew

We have had some, ah, interesting discussions around the house on this topic since we don’t completely agree (to put it mildly) but, so far, I don’t feel our marriage is in danger. And luckily, the couch is very comfortable to sleep on…

Angie says I was rude to you so, uurrrggg, I aplogize. I hate it when she’s right and I’m wrong.