Henson show charges - Arts - Entertainment - smh.com.au

This photography Bill Henson has recently gotten in trouble for having photos that featured nudity of underage people. These images were then classified as child pornography and the police seized them.

I think that a model in a photo being nude does not necessarily make something pornographic. I can't make a 100% opinion without seeing the actual pictures in question. But judging by Henson's other work I would probably like it and that it would probably have artistic value.

What do you think about this case or the issue in general?

No. Pornography contains some form of nudity with the purpose of making people horny, usually for a monthly fee. It's the type of thing you stay away from because it's also loaded with viruses and has little or no artistic value.

Art, on the other hand, can include nudity. The Greeks did it. You just have to be able to see the human body as a thing of beauty and not sex-waiting-to-happen. So...what? There's a magical line that's drawn when you turn 18 that makes you suddenly mature and able to make your own decisions without restraint? Before then you are just being controlled, and if you are photographed naked it means you are being used for sexual purposes?

There's no reason to charge this man with any crime. Actually, of course, it is illegal, I think, due to child pornography laws (and nudity=sex and sex=pornography) he could be put in jail, but it's a stupid law, all in all.

Maybe or Maybe Not!. It all depends on the nature of the photographs taken, if they depict such scenes that could make someone horny and think lustfully at that moment, then it sure is pornography. But if it's otherwise, where the nudity depicts some emotion that is different from sexual arousal it can't be categorized in Pornography at all.

However a detail looked can complex the situation, like the sexual arousal differs from person to person!. Maybe you are aroused by some sort of BDSM, someone else by Foot Fetish, some other by bikinis. So you see it becomes a bit complex on where to draw the thin red line!

Anyway, i seriously don't think that man had anything to do with pornography, he is an artist! and as always, the world hardly or never understands Art!

Well I don't think we should ban any form of art that was not specifically made as pornography. Pornography as I see it is just a bunch of people with high paying but degrading jobs having sex or posing nude just to arouse people.

Art can include nudity and still mean something.

Pornography involves 1 or more naked individuals in various positions that arouse the watcher, they can be having sex or not.

So can nudity be art anyway? Do we have to censor it? The Greeks didn't, and we look at that and think "art" no matter what the age of the person involved is. Nowadays, have we "progressed" so that everything we see and hear has to be checked by our government to make sure it is appropriate by their standards?

Also, what's with Likuid Fire's makeover? You got a new sig, new avatar, and even a new username. I still think you're beautiful, though.

Im sure there are people out there who would be aroused by pictures of me as a child. It doesn't make it pornography.

Although Im not sure what Mr. Henson's intentions were, I really dont think he would put something he felt was child pornography in an art show on public display.

Human beings were once very proud of their form, naked and unashamed, and its perfectly fine and normal for someone to admire a beautiful child or baby, especially as an art form.

And furthermore our civilization just breeds insecurity and sexual pervertedness because of repression and these...misperceptions.

And the photos where people are clothed but still arouse the viewer?

Uh, then it's not porn?

Then there's a lot of porn that's not porn according to this.