Sexualisation Of Children

[Lexxi[ke35]]

After all that garbage about the sexualisation of children in Bill Hensen's art and all that jazz I decided to use it as a topic for my Aus Studies Issues Study Assignment. It also made me wonder...

 

How far is too far?? When does art become pornographic?

 

I personally think art is art and it only becomes dangerous to the kids if you can see their privates. Just because I wouldn't like my stuff shown to the world, its private. But their back? or legs?

 

If the naked back of a little girl turns some guy on, what's the problem with it to the rest of the world? Obviously he has problems, but how would that hurt the child?? I'm sure many people look at artistic nudes of older people and get revved up over it, its just so different because their kids. I understand that they're too young to make decisions and understand the consequences of the world seeing them naked, but as I said, as long as you can't see anything private I think it should be allowed.

 

And if little girls aren't allowed to look sexual in art, why are they allowed to play with Bratz dolls in their mini-skirts and hooker boots, and tatts and piercings? I was in Toys r Us the other day and saw a Barbie spin the bottle game aimed at little girls with truth or dare questions about kissing boys and stuff. And a few months ago there were Mary Kate and Ashley g-strings for five year olds!

 

Its all good to influence the kids as much as you like with toys and games and clothes, but as soon as you involve them in art it perverse and inapropriate.

 

A huge part of art is about pushing boundries and making a statement. Hensen and many other artist use young kids in their art to symbolise vulnerability and innocence in such a messed up world.

 

What are your opinions on the issue??

[white_sandshoe]

After all that garbage about the sexualisation of children in Bill Hensen's art and all that jazz I decided to use it as a topic for my Aus Studies Issues Study Assignment. It also made me wonder...

 

How far is too far?? When does art become pornographic?

 

I personally think art is art and it only becomes dangerous to the kids if you can see their privates. Just because I wouldn't like my stuff shown to the world, its private. But their back? or legs?

 

If the naked back of a little girl turns some guy on, what's the problem with it to the rest of the world? Obviously he has problems, but how would that hurt the child?? I'm sure many people look at artistic nudes of older people and get revved up over it, its just so different because their kids. I understand that they're too young to make decisions and understand the consequences of the world seeing them naked, but as I said, as long as you can't see anything private I think it should be allowed.

 

And if little girls aren't allowed to look sexual in art, why are they allowed to play with Bratz dolls in their mini-skirts and hooker boots, and tatts and piercings? I was in Toys r Us the other day and saw a Barbie spin the bottle game aimed at little girls with truth or dare questions about kissing boys and stuff. And a few months ago there were Mary Kate and Ashley g-strings for five year olds!

 

Its all good to influence the kids as much as you like with toys and games and clothes, but as soon as you involve them in art it perverse and inapropriate.

 

A huge part of art is about pushing boundries and making a statement. Hensen and many other artist use young kids in their art to symbolise vulnerability and innocence in such a messed up world.

 

What are your opinions on the issue??

 

The question I would pose is this...

 

If you're against instilling a sexual awareness from a young age from pop culture, what's the difference with instilling a sexual awareness through more contempory art forms? And if you're really up in arms against influencing kids in such a way, then damn well get up in arms about it...

 

For me, Childhood is a sacred thing, and anyone who perverts that in any way, be it mini skirts for 10 year olds, or posing nude for an old man with a camera, should be hung from the nearest oak tree...

 

As far as the comments on art needing to push boundaries to make a statement, then I suggest they are pretty poor artists indeed. I recently heard about a performance art piece that took my interest.

 

Two men (one of which is a professor at the university that my wife studies at) secured a government grant to perform on stage for a small audience. In the performance, both men stood naked, while one man drew blood from the other with a syringe, used the blood to cook with, then consumed the food, and offered it to members of the audience.

 

This took my interest for a number of reasons.

 

1. What possible 'statement' were they trying to make?

2. Why would a government body pay to subject people to such things?

3. What self respecting human being would subject themselves to such things in the name of art?

4. What sort of influence would a man, who performs such acts, have on the next generation through his attitudes in teaching?

 

Art used to be a source of outcry, criticism and rebellion against injustices, a representation of the social and economic climate of the era the artist was immersed in, as well as an outpouring of emotion to the beauty, depth and even ugliness of the world.

 

I'm not sure how taking photographs of naked children can appropriately claim to be a symbol of vulnerability and innocence in such a messed up world, when it does little but perpetuate the loss of innocence of children everywhere.

 

 

As far as I, and many wise men who came before, are considered, Just because popular culture is encouraging it, doesn't mean it's right... In fact, quite the opposite. And i'd be hugely disappointed to see free thinking artists stooping to the same level as the pop culture industry, and using the "well they are doing it, so why can't we?" excuse is actually quite disturbing to me.

 

The question you asked... "how would it hurt the child?" is a good question... and I'm going to try and answer it...

 

Sure, it might not hurt that child... so you take a couple of pictures, no big deal, right? So some dirty old man jerks off over them, and he's considered a sicko, but it's not so bad, because it's not porn, merely art, so it's actually ok for him to display them in his home, or even workplace. Then say he as some friends, one of which has a hankering as an artist. And he sees the pics hanging in his friends home, and likes them. He can appreciate their artisic value, but, considering that his 10 year old daughter is now wearing pushup bra and a miniskirt to school, he decides his friends piece of art isn't quite up with the times. So he decides to takle the same subject, but, as an artist, he realises he has to push the boundaries to make a statement.

 

So he gives those boundaries a big old shove, and takes a pic of a bunch of girls with a little frontal nudity, and the community has a bit of a cry about it, but it ends up ok, because he's an artist, so that's what he's supposed to do, and any good artist worth their salt has to upset a few people. A little media attention, his photos reach a nice big audience, which is great for his career, and he becomes famous.

 

And say he becomes so famous that he starts getting requests for pieces. Maybe someone out there wants something a little more gritty, and that's fine. It's making a statement after all. It's not hurting anyone really is it?

 

Then this 10 year old girl, the same age as his daughter, poses for a shoot, and someone suggests they try something a bit grittier . Let's introduce an antagonist to the works. Let's put a naked man into the background of the pic.

 

What a great idea! someone to simbolise the evil and nastiness the innocence of the girl has to face. Great! And they do a show of their new works, and there is the usual media outcry, but it's ok, he's making a statement. He's doing what any good artist does... pushes boundaries...

 

But someone at the show likes the style, he likes the approach the artist has used, but still... he thinks it could be a bit grittier. It could show more accurately how close the evil of the world really is to the innocent young girl, because it's not standing in the background... it's right on top of her...

 

Hey! what a great idea! Let's push that boundary...

[KE ping it real]

Well this is gonna be a can of worms

[Falken_KE30]

I find it wrong how parents let 10yo girls actually buy slutty clothes...

 

I mean its not as if the 10yo works or earns money, so obviously the parents either are there to buy the clothing, or the the girl is given money to buy such clothes..

 

Meh, seems sluttyness is starting way early.

 

I know it seems offtopic to what Lex was on about, but still the same in a way

[corolla_nut]

I see nothing wrong with what Bill Henson did. If this was a painting or a drawing of a naked girl then it would be totally different, there would never had been so much uproar about it.

 

The only reason why people are viewing it as pornographic and wrong is because it is in a photographic format. Because it is a naked photo it is perceived as pornographic due to it being in the same format as pornography. Porno = photo/video. Bill Henson's work: photo.

 

 

An artist does not look at the nude figure in a sexual way. We look at the mechanics of the body, the way the light hits certain areas, and the possible artistic fragments within it.

 

Of course there may have been some people going along to see it for not-so wholesome purposes, but this would have been exacerbated if the media had not taken it and turned it into a hurricane.

Plus, these people will surely see near naked children anyway, at the pool, at the beach etc.

 

Catalogues advertising children's clothes and underwear are dropped to almost every person's mailbox. Instant free porn for those who are that way inclined.

 

There was nothing sexual about the way these kids were portrayed, they were not staring you straight in the face, they were not in any rude or crude positions. There was no air of sexuality and elusiveness around them.

They are there, portrayed at their most vulnerable, attempting to act out a motion of life that all of us have gone through. The long and dangerous path into adulthood.

 

All that I see in these photos are apprehension, vulnerability and teenage angst. This art was in no way intended to be pornographic, they were, as with all other art, created to convey a message and an emotion.

 

If you would like to really see that pornographic images are check out these...

Pablo Picasso - Demoiselles d'Avignon

type 'John Currin' into google images

Agnolo Bronzino "An Allegory of Venus and Cupid"

Edgar Degas went from painting young ballerinas ("The Rehearsal") to prostitutes (http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/Degas-Seatedbatherdryingherself1895.jpg), what does that make you think. History has it he visited the ballet girls everyday to paint them...

 

 

Edouard Manet "Olympia" Notice how she is defiantly staring straight at you. This woman is proven a prostitute.

Paula Rego "The Family"

 

I rest my case

[Lexxi[ke35]]

Two men (one of which is a professor at the university that my wife studies at) secured a government grant to perform on stage for a small audience. In the performance, both men stood naked, while one man drew blood from the other with a syringe, used the blood to cook with, then consumed the food, and offered it to members of the audience.

 

This took my interest for a number of reasons.

 

1. What possible 'statement' were they trying to make?

2. Why would a government body pay to subject people to such things?

3. What self respecting human being would subject themselves to such things in the name of art?

4. What sort of influence would a man, who performs such acts, have on the next generation through his attitudes in teaching?

 

I understand your point of view, and I agree that it would not be easy to appreciate art like this if you're not an artistic person, but I'm sure there was some point to it. Did you see the actual performance? Maybe there was more to it that whoever told forgot to add, maybe there was a specific reason for it. I understand that a person like that would affect a younger generation negatively, but maybe he only allows himself to be like that for art? Maybe its his personal release? I get it if your repulsed and I can see why, but maybe there is another side to it that we cannot see, or maybe you are explaining it with bias. Who knows?

 

But you do make a very valid point.

 

Sure, it might not hurt <you>that</you> child... so you take a couple of pictures, no big deal, right? So some dirty old man jerks off over them, and he's considered a sicko, but it's not so bad, because it's not porn, merely art, so it's actually ok for him to display them in his home, or even workplace. Then say he as some friends, one of which has a hankering as an artist. And he sees the pics hanging in his friends home, and likes them. He can appreciate their artisic value, but, considering that his 10 year old daughter is now wearing pushup bra and a miniskirt to school, he decides his friends piece of art isn't quite up with the times. So he decides to takle the same subject, but, as an artist, he realises he has to push the boundaries to make a statement.

 

So he gives those boundaries a big old shove, and takes a pic of a bunch of girls with a little frontal nudity, and the community has a bit of a cry about it, but it ends up ok, because he's an artist, so that's what he's supposed to do, and any good artist worth their salt has to upset a few people. A little media attention, his photos reach a nice big audience, which is great for his career, and he becomes famous.

 

And say he becomes so famous that he starts getting requests for pieces. Maybe someone out there wants something a little more gritty, and that's fine. It's making a statement after all. It's not hurting anyone really is it?

 

Then this 10 year old girl, the same age as his daughter, poses for a shoot, and someone suggests they try something a bit grittier . Let's introduce an antagonist to the works. Let's put a naked man into the background of the pic.

 

What a great idea! someone to simbolise the evil and nastiness the innocence of the girl has to face. Great! And they do a show of their new works, and there is the usual media outcry, but it's ok, he's making a statement. He's doing what any good artist does... pushes boundaries...

 

But someone at the show likes the style, he likes the approach the artist has used, but still... he thinks it could be a bit grittier. It could show more accurately how close the evil of the world really is to the innocent young girl, because it's not standing in the background... it's right on top of her...

 

Hey! what a great idea! Let's push that boundary...

 

You make a very valid point, and I agree with that. I never thought of it that way, and now I understand how it could be pushed further and further. But at a stage where it got that bad that it would be dangerous and pornographic someone would intervene, and that wouldn't be so unreasonable because people could see that it was wrong.

[Lexxi[ke35]]

I see nothing wrong with what Bill Henson did. If this was a painting or a drawing of a naked girl then it would be totally different, there would never had been so much uproar about it.

 

The only reason why people are viewing it as pornographic and wrong is because it is in a photographic format. Because it is a naked photo it is perceived as pornographic due to it being in the same format as pornography. Porno = photo/video. Bill Henson's work: photo.

 

 

An artist does not look at the nude figure in a sexual way. We look at the mechanics of the body, the way the light hits certain areas, and the possible artistic fragments within it.

 

Of course there may have been some people going along to see it for not-so wholesome purposes, but this would have been exacerbated if the media had not taken it and turned it into a hurricane.

Plus, these people will surely see near naked children anyway, at the pool, at the beach etc.

 

Catalogues advertising children's clothes and underwear are dropped to almost every person's mailbox. Instant free porn for those who are that way inclined.

 

There was nothing sexual about the way these kids were portrayed, they were not staring you straight in the face, they were not in any rude or crude positions. There was no air of sexuality and elusiveness around them.

They are there, portrayed at their most vulnerable, attempting to act out a motion of life that all of us have gone through. The long and dangerous path into adulthood.

 

All that I see in these photos are apprehension, vulnerability and teenage angst. This art was in no way intended to be pornographic, they were, as with all other art, created to convey a message and an emotion.

 

If you would like to really see that pornographic images are check out these...

Pablo Picasso - Demoiselles d'Avignon

type 'John Currin' into google images

Agnolo Bronzino "An Allegory of Venus and Cupid"

Edgar Degas went from painting young ballerinas ("The Rehearsal") to prostitutes (http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/Degas-Seatedbatherdryingherself1895.jpg), what does that make you think. History has it he visited the ballet girls everyday to paint them...

 

 

Edouard Manet "Olympia" Notice how she is defiantly staring straight at you. This woman is proven a prostitute.

Paula Rego "The Family"

 

I rest my case

 

This is exactly what I was trying to say.

 

There's little more for me to say right now.

 

And Falken_ke30, that's what I hate as well. Its so ridiculous how parents can allow their kids to wear those clothes, yet the very same parents are outraged by art such as Bill Hensen's and stuff.

Edited November 9, 2008 by Lexxi[ke35]

[white_sandshoe]

You make a very valid point, and I agree with that. I never thought of it that way, and now I understand how it could be pushed further and further. But at a stage where it got that bad that it would be dangerous and pornographic someone would intervene, and that wouldn't be so unreasonable because people could see that it was wrong.

 

 

May i suggest it to be a little naive to assume that 'someone' would interviene? That responsibility must be taken on by every individual...

 

I was fortunate enough to be in a position where I was able to foil a criminal attempt about a week ago. The call i made to police was what got two thieves arrested. There was only one other person other than myself, out of the hundred or so who were witness to the braisen act committed by these two men, who also called the police.

 

If i'd decided that 'someone' would interviene, these two men would have made off with over $120,000. but I chose to be that 'someone'. So 2% of the world must be 'someones' while the rest go about being 'nobodys'???

[Lexxi[ke35]]

May i suggest it to be a little naive to assume that 'someone' would interviene? That responsibility must be taken on by every individual...

 

I was fortunate enough to be in a position where I was able to foil a criminal attempt about a week ago. The call i made to police was what got two thieves arrested. There was only one other person other than myself, out of the hundred or so who were witness to the braisen act committed by these two men, who also called the police.

 

If i'd decided that 'someone' would interviene, these two men would have made off with over $120,000. but I chose to be that 'someone'. So 2% of the world must be 'someones' while the rest go about being 'nobodys'???

 

Well considering "someone" reported Bill Hensen's art and got him in trouble wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that someone would report the photos that were extremely inappropriate? Today's society seems to place a whole lot more emphasis on kiddy porn than theft so it would be reasonable to say that it would get stopped, yes.

[white_sandshoe]

Well considering "someone" reported Bill Hensen's art and got him in trouble wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that someone would report the photos that were extremely inappropriate? Today's society seems to place a whole lot more emphasis on kiddy porn than theft so it would be reasonable to say that it would get stopped, yes.

 

 

I believe those "someone"s have done all they can to remove this inappropriate material produced by Bill Hensen from the public domain. And my congratulations go to them... However I share in their bitterness at their loss.

 

You see, unfortuantely, those "someones" have been yet again thwarted by the "nobodys", who insist that "it's not that bad" and "well, it could be worse" and "oh, but everyone else is doing much worse" and my favourite, "Oh, but it's ART... so we must be allowed to push boundaries... in the name of ART..."

 

I'm under the impression there are a few nobodys in this forum, that feel some duty to proclaim that Bill Hensen's art "Is not that bad", while I will continue to remain a "someone" who will take any opportunity to remind the "nobodys" what isn't appropriate, and having taken that charge on, I'll not wait until that dam of filth is burst before speaking up about it.

 

Two people have had more atrocities committed in their name than any other... God and Art...

[towe001]

I find it wrong how parents let 10yo girls actually buy slutty clothes...

 

I mean its not as if the 10yo works or earns money, so obviously the parents either are there to buy the clothing, or the the girl is given money to buy such clothes..

 

Meh, seems sluttyness is starting way early.

 

I know it seems offtopic to what Lex was on about, but still the same in a way

Ditto on that.

At times find it in a way abuse - sit back and think about that, even knowing that you, the average guy, wouldn't touch (or maybe you would) a chick (18+) dressed like it but you still enjoy the perv and think to yourself "She's asking/wanting it". Now put that onto the body of an underage girl and you've got abuse.

 

I won't even let my step-daughter wear that trash. Whereas her father does, wonders why people look at her and complains that when he was a kid it was safe to walk the streets, so to speak, without the parents watching. Maybe just maybe if these parents dressed their kids better.......

[flat out]

hehe I'm underage!

 

can't say i perve on any one under 2 years younger (14 yes young i know but I'm 16 and my Gf is 14 lol)

 

and in launceston your better off finding one older as most of the ones your age are pretty abused.

 

nothing better than perving on a 18+ year old doing avenue laps in summer :bash:

[smeetsy1]

I personally do not enjoy looking at some of Bill Henson's work. But i feel his intensions for the images were to show us the beauty of growth. The stage where we are vulnerable and transfering into adulthood. Bill Henson, like a large number of other artists focus on nudes because of fall of light, because of the curves and unseen shades and tones of normal life because of the beauty and individuallity of each body and the history of nudes. As corolla nut mentioned, there are numerous other artists who have ultimately done the same thing but in a different medium.

 

Something that you don't like isn't autimatically not art. Just because it may make you or i feel uncomfortable doesn't mean he should be prosecuted. After all, art is here to evoke emotions no matter what they are. I believe that Bill Henson should not be prosecuted, I feel his intentions were to show the transition from child to adult. I dislike the images but some may respect them for what they are. I feel they are not pornographic but real. None of this covered up bullshit that happens so much these days. Where infomation is limited because it may harm. Thats all i am going to say for now. Someone keep this debate going, haven't had one in a while...

Edited November 10, 2008 by smeetsy1

[Lexxi[ke35]]

Something that you don't like isn't autimatically not art. Just because it may make you or i feel uncomfortable doesn't mean he should be prosecuted. After all, art is here to evoke emotions no matter what they are. I believe that Bill Henson should not be prosecuted, I feel his intentions were to show the transition from child to adult. I dislike the images but some may respect them for what they are. I feel they are not pornographic but real. None of this covered up bullshit that happens so much these days. Where infomation is limited because it may harm. Thats all i am going to say for now. Someone keep this debate going, haven't had one in a while...

 

I agree with that, that just because people don't like a piece of art doesn't mean its not art. Some people are just too narrow minded to understand this, and some are just scared to feel a little bit uncomfortable.

[machg]

I have a nine year old daughter. I would rather she looked at Bill Henson's art (and learn/experience emotions from looking at them) than seeing some PR seeking Disney actressess latest nude photo/sex tape done to "advance" their career. Its not "art" that's screwing up our kids folks...