child porno is now Art!!

when I find in front of me people worthy of intelligence & respect, I'll gladly talk to them from that perspective.

I will also gladly treat dirty people (like you) who only want to resort to name calling & personal attacks, in the (dirty) manner that they deserve.

So next time when you want to answer a question, think before using words like "twat", otherwise I will happily concentrate on your profession with birds & microscopes

Your only defense is to distort my words so they suit you, you must realize by now how much of an imbecile you look surely? Your only other defense is to imply that I am something that I am not as you think it's a smart retort, the truth is they are neither witty nor show that you have an IQ of over 75 my guess would be that you also have a deleted 11 chromosome.

"AIDS has always been around you twat.."

You are THE expert, mis-cat. You are a professional in birds' sizes, microscopes, AIDS, boys coming for the 1st time...etc.

Well it's good to hear the opinion of someone more knowledgeable about photo's, makes me think the artist is a little less of a pervert. :P

Visit www.qatarhappening.com

I'll get back to you in a sec gypsy just have a clean up to do.

Rumpelstiltskin - You ask were was AIDS before the 80's it has always been around you twat. there is more AIDS related cases amongst heterosexual people than gays. But given your brain capacity and lack of intelligence I wouldn't expect you to know this.

Gypsy - I think a lot of people would take that view too. I guess because Hubby is a photographer in most photo's I now find myself looking at the light, exposure and framing before i actually look at the picture, it kind of gives me a different perspective I suppose.

And so ends the rational discussion in this thread. Sigh.

Anyway Miscat, I can see what he wanted to portray and I understand why he used children, I just don't think he managed to cross the line from smut to art.

Visit www.qatarhappening.com

why should you be surprised?

In societies where people accept couples who make illegal children, accept prostitutes, gays & their marriages, allow a certain amount of drugs, punish parents who want to give their kids an orthodox upbringing...etc, then such social diseases will keep coming one after the other!

To answer harsha's "what's happining to the world":

well you tell me! Where was AIDS before the 80's? Is it God's punishment upon us since we are taking the Devil's path? (or is this some "funny philosophy"?)

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying who is right and who is wrong here, I can only state that wich are the reported facts and that of what I know of the artist and therefore I can just appreciate the work for what it is ART. The truth here is people will always make what they want of such paintings and photo's, the truth is there is a long history in the art world of pictures of young children clothed, semi clothed, naked, for an artist there is no better way to portray innocence than a child, as almost everyone can agree there is no better innocence than that of a child.

Who knows. But it's a shame that these children are being exploited in this way. The artist and the gallery should have known better.

Visit www.qatarhappening.com

It wasn't the artist that made it public, the Gallery posted the advert for his exhibit on it's website including some of the pictures of the young girl and boy, a do-gooder came across the site and it was this person that notified the media, notice how i didn't say they notified the police? Thats because they didn't the police only went in after the media got hold of the story. So pretty sad when you think that the first people this person should have called if they thought it was so offensive should have been the cops, the galley removed the pics from it's website after the first day so it makes you wonder, did this person who supposedly was so outraged by the pics actually download them first so to give them to media, how else would the media have gotten hold of them?

my mistake, as I said previously the 6 year old on the mag cover is like animation and not sexual at all, however I do stand by my words that even at 13 this girl is far from being a woman, innocence is lost too early these days, let them be children for as long as the world allows

the photo's we are talking about are the ones by Bill Henson and the young girl in that is 13. The other photo with the girl who is six has only just been published recently and the girl is now 11 the photo was taken by her mother and her father is a very well respected art critic the photo has never been published publicly before this date and to all knowledge has only ever been hung in the families home.

True, but I also think the artist knew this was going to happen and did it to draw attention to the show as well.

Visit www.qatarhappening.com

But again the unfortunate thing here is the media, had the media not gone and splashed the photo's around then for the most part the pictures would have only really been viewed for it's intended audience, The Art World. Thats the trouble with a PC world those who think they a trying to protect are usually the ones doing the most harm.

a very sound analogy of what the photo was meant to do but really?? a six year old, soon to become a woman???

At six, she should be safe, playing with her dolls etc not posing for artists, she shouldn't be even thinking about womanhood for at least another 12 years!!!

That might be so, but I also think this would be great spank material for some pedophiles, and I think that's what we need to protect the girl from.

Visit www.qatarhappening.com

I can see how a lot of people would find it disturbing, but from an arts point of view you can also see what the artist is trying to project. these pictures in the art world are cliloquily known as innocence pictures. the artist here is trying to project the feeling of a soon to be loss of innocence by taking a young girl who for all intense purposes will soon become a women, by stripping her bare and using no backdrop other than lighting it is supposed to give the feeling of disturbance and an uncomfortable unease to anyone viewing it, it should also evoke the viewer to remember a time when they them selves were at that stage the vulnerability before we are considered adults, this is what causes that unease and disturbance as we already know what lies beyond being a child.

MisCat, I see nothing wrong with taking photos of your kids naked at the beach, Lord knows my parents of loads of me in the tub, at the beach, with a KFC bucket on my head, etc. But did you look at the Bill Henson picture? I'm not usually one to scream child porn or anything, but that picture is disturbing.

Visit www.qatarhappening.com

Jesus christ! This is the first time I'm seeing somethin like this and it makes me sick to the stomach!

I dream of a better tomorrow where Chickens can cross the Road without having their motives questioned - Unknown

sick people...

“Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow.”

This is ridiculous..

Its really surprising to see the so called art books with lots of nudity. Whether its matured or an innocent child, why nude??.

Kid is looking terribly innocent. Pathetic !!Both the photographer and the parents should be braught in to justice and punished.

Well, it does depend upon what you see it as.

I could not appreciate anything artistic in the gory, dark photos of Bill Henson that gypsy posted.

Which is the "art" part in it?

Consent does not matter if a crime has been comitted. And by the way its not the first time when people try to do hedious things in the name of Art.

The OZ PM was right to checj this magzine and take action again them...At least the OZ are reforming after all these years on the Land

-----------------

HE WHO DARES WINS

How can the consent of the parent not matter? If it was done by the consent of the "child" alone then I would be very concerned? But the mere fact that the parents of the child gave consent got paid a nice neat monetary figure tells me that maybe the parents of the child warrant looking into? or could it just be a mountain out of a mole hill? I think it does exactly what the artist had intended in the first place, those that see it as porn are the ones that maybe we should keep a closer eye on, and those that see it nothing more than a piece of art can appreciate it

The "consent" of the parent does not matter. Does it matter if the kids consent fro child pornography?

And i still cannot fathom why would one take the naked photo of one's child.

I think there is alot missing from the articles that have been pasted here first of all the girl in the pic is now 11yo and it was her mother that took the photo, her father is a well known art critic in Australia here is a link to how she feels about the whole thing

http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/naked-girl-offended-by-pm/2008/07/07/1215282805312.html

As for the other art that was mentioned By Bill Henson the"children" involved in that were 13yo and did it with there parents consent the trouble is I think people are getting to carried away with it any person in there right mind an tell the diff between art and porn I have photo's of my kids taken by hubby (black and white,sepia tone)naked on the beach, does this mean that we have taken these photo's because we love kiddie porn? or is it just that my hubby happens to be an excellent photographer (esp when it comes to black and white & sepia) and the way he captured the light esp in the sepia tones makes my kids look angelic?

ausis are the fire of life for world

first nudist groups roaming over bicycles

and now child porn photography

i must accept by college mate's invitation and should give him a visit there

hail ausis :D

wats happenin to d world..

I agree that the picture of 6 year old does not have anything sexual in it, but the very idea of asking a child to remove her clothes for a picture, atleast to me, is despicable. Other thing i find disgusting is the support Bill Henson has got from the artists.

I understand the artist was not charged with any offence (as it's too subjective). I'm not sure what happened to the exhibition.

I'm afraid I don't find much artistic about his work, whether with children or adults, I find it quite disturbing. If that's what he's going for, then kudos, he's achieved it, but I don't think he should be using children.

And again, what kind of parents thought those pictures were ok!

Visit www.qatarhappening.com

those dark backgrounds and serious faces need to have adults not children posing, art can be beautiful but these are a long way from that.

as Gypsy said, the pose and the theme clearly illustrate the type of "art" the guy is going for... there are certain aspects that u portray that show clearly there is nothing innocent about it

Zenon.. as a person who has studied law u should know that u gotta study the facts before commenting.. but no worries it happns to all.. this case is very similar to the issue of the pic.. some find it innocent others find it sexually oriented..

I'm glad that the exhibition was banned before opening.. and hopefully the "artist" will find another dimension of "art" to look into...

that things have come this far, pictures of your children in the bath are a long way from those in the photographs, these children don't look carefree and happy, the girl looks scared to death, not a good example of childhood, her parents have a lot to answer for.

Agreed brandylady, I see nothing sexual about the magazine cover, the other ones however strongly hint at rather dark sex.

Visit www.qatarhappening.com

is almost like animation, but the others are way to dark to contain children.

Ok ok... 6 year old from magazine cover:

Bill Henson's stuff (Warning, if you're offended by nudity, don't look):

http://images.theage.com.au/ftage/ffximage/2008/05/24/svHENSON_narrowweb__300x443,0.jpg

Visit www.qatarhappening.com

This doesn't change whether it's right or wrong, I just thought it was interesting - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7492579.stm

Extract:

A child pictured naked on the cover of an Australian arts magazine has said she is "offended" by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's criticism of the photo.

Wait...the girl from this is only 6! http://blixity.wordpress.com/2008/05/25/police-shut-down-exhibition-accuse-artist-of-child-pornography/

Visit www.qatarhappening.com

When I first saw the picture, I saw the same thing. The pose wasn't what you would expect for a six year old..

Having said that, she was still six and I don't think any normal person would regard her as a object of desire.

Your comments regarding parents are orrect. I think the rise of child paegents and plethora of magazines has a lot to anaswer for..

Some people will say there's a fine line between art and smut, however I really don't think it's that fine a line. You can show naked children, but it's how you show them. I don't want to call Anne Geddies art, but I don't think anyone could say there's anything sexual about her naked baby pictures.

The picture displayed by Bill Henson however...I'm sorry but it screams smut to me. The dark lighting, the way she's covering herself and looking down, screams victim. She looks like what a pedophile wants to see, a weak little girl, ripe for the picking. I don't see art there. In fact you can almost feel the girls fear.

My biggest question is what kind of parents would let their child pose for him?

Visit www.qatarhappening.com

just misread what was said - no one likes to think their country is a bastion of kiddie fidlers!

As to the topic at hand - it seems to me that "Art" is can be used as a cover all for just about anything. Where does art end and pornography begin?

It's a tough call to make, isn't it - what's innocent and what's provocative. You can't even get a picture of your kid in the bath developed these days.

maybe next time don't be so quick to judge eh??? :)

zenon, it okay, sorry for taking it too seriously, peace

ok point taken - I just took offence at what I thought was Afaque saying my country has a disproportionately high number of pervets but I see now that he was saying perverts exist everywhere - so my apologies.

what good, normal decent human beings see as an innocent child, others get some weird satisfaction from pictures like those described above.

provocative.

I saw the picture of the ix year old and to me it seems quite innocent.. someone complained about a "nipple showing".. However, we al have children and do we see a six year old topless as a sexual object? I think not!

Having said all that, we have to be very very careful, since there are a lot of perverts around...

we can always stick to the topic and ignore those who want to turn it into something else.

Children are precious, innocent and yes as you said, deserve protection.

Chill out guyz .... already the climate out there is HOT !!

brandylady, thanks for understanding!

We have successfully misdirected a serious topic of child abuse and exploitation to the Religious Argument. Come on guys....

Children are defenceless beings that should be protected at all cost.

in line with the topic Afaque was just expressing his disgust, as any decent person would, because of the perverts lurking everywhere, it doesn't do to have pictures of naked children, however innocent these were meant to be, too many peodophiles ready to prey on innocent children, without putting them on display for their enjoyment.

and you should be concerned about your backyard first

zenon, You want to talk about my country, then it is still better than a lot of others, and every place is full of shit so be careful

"lot of perverts out there!"

have a look in your own backyard first before making stupid comments like that. Has your country got rid of honour killing yet??

i read about the same article last night and what caught my eye was how cute and innocent that little gurl looked like...she's a picture of beauty with her big expressive eyes and dark hair only sickos and perv's will notice other stuff, but if i was a parent I'd really be concerned about the kind of pictures they'd be posting in those exhibitions

some people are just crazy and sick minded..god save our kids from them

There are some very sick people who live in this world.

"I don't think so. Homey don't play dat."

Homey Da Clown

lot of perverts out there!