Comments on: Pornography or Art?: The Controversial Photography of Bill Henson

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:57:55 +0000

Agreed with Damion, i cannot see the wrong doing of this artwork if the artist has the children’s parent’s consent. But perhaps the children are a bit over exposed…

By: Damion98

Damion98 — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 12:24:47 +0000

I’m guessing that Conor is one of those Catholics or Christians that believe you shouldn’t take baths because being naked even in private is a sin. They used to do that you know. If nudity bothers you so much Conor, why aren’t you out there fighting to force animals to wear clothes. We are all born naked, deal with it.

By: Ponting

Ponting — Fri, 26 Nov 2010 20:56:40 +0000

I am fully with Hensen.I am against any form censorship(I do, however,fully support privacy and personal freedom).And these picture do not look even remotely pornographic.And if this what you define as child-pornography then it should be legal and considered as art.

By: Rex

Rex — Sat, 13 Nov 2010 05:21:02 +0000

The matter is in that people need to face the fact that the World finds young people attractive. Refer to Mr. Cullen’s revolutionary report on the issue. Mr Cullen is the World authority on that. Mr. Cullen’s report is found under the Suns Winnipeg thread under the Editorial Beware of Ignatieffs Common Touch. (Click the 2nd or third post) If you want to leave a comment click the Battle for free speech post and put one there. Read only the first 41 pages

By: CounterPoint

CounterPoint — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 02:59:35 +0000

I think that sex is a moral issue, but it does not matter. Moral issues are not legal issues. The law has already shown itself to be devoid of morals. It is a question of censorship, as nothing else that could be called criminal occurred. This clearly shows that censorship has no legal relevance, nor any reason to exist. Therefore, all censorship should be illegal. If you think you have the right to tell Bill Henson what to like and what to photograph, then maybe Bill Henson should come in to your home and put up his artwork everywhere. That’s what censors deserve–to have their own opinions censored.

It might interest you all to know that most people were married before they hit their teens until about two hundred years ago. Why is 99.999% of human history suddenly objectionable? It’s obviously not. That people would fantasize differently in every moment of history is truly disturbing–certainly more so than a flat-chested girl or two.

By: DeanaH

DeanaH — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 20:47:02 +0000

WAY overblown and much ado about nothing, my kids have many pics like this and playing outside in the yard in our family albums – along with their father and I. The dark ages, puritanistic ideas which still abound about nudity equaling sex equaling a moral value, is just depressing. Nudity is not a morals issue, nor is sex. One wonders if the proliferation of sexual predators and those simply obsesses with it, isn’t due to our children having this natural part of human existence squashed in them as children, and beat into their head that it is forbidden fruit and “wrong”. These photos are wonderful artistic expressions of humanity, and normalcy.

By: Conor

Conor — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 20:31:57 +0000

They have laws for everyone. Just because they’re famous, or just to say ” it’s art ” does not excuse them. It’s paedophilic, it’s disgusting. It should not be allowed. Pornography and art are two seperate things. This is not art. This is illegal child nudity. It is not right and anyone who thinks that child nudity should be allowed or that child pornography is right, then they’re just showing themselves to be paedophiles, aren’t they, and should be burning in Hell because they’re not Human. They’re not worthy of life. Laws are laws and they’re there to stop this. Just to call it something else doesn’t stop it being what it is. It’s disgusting anyone could think that this is allowable, parental consent or not.

By: christopher

christopher — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:36:34 +0000

I cannot say that Bill Henson’s work is pornographic any more than the work of Sally Mann, Jock Sturges or Irina Ionesco. But like all of these artists his work is obviously sexually suggestive and intentionally provocative. Anyone who creates images of naked children in erotic poses who claims to be an innocent victim of puritanical fanaticism when their works are challenged and condemned are playing the fool, plain and simple. I am aware of the fact that children are sexual creatures and I do not personally have a problem with child nudity, but as sexual animals living in a domesticated world there simply is no way in which one can seriously expect universal positivity when utilizing such aspects artistically. Nor should one view themselves as enlightened among sheep either. There is nothing ignorant in finding public provocation offensive and those who believe that using children in such a manner is socially unhealthy are far from delusional. As an artist myself I find great hypocrisy in much of how children are viewed and used artistically and I also recognize that central to the argument of why such works are important is artistic ego, not the weak reasoning which centers on the opinions of biased groups and gallery owners. Sorry to be so contrary but I feel my opinion to be valid on this matter.

By: Sam

Sam — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:45:11 +0000

I have seen this on the BBC. It is crazy how the

police actually stormed in and confiscated the artists

work. This has been taken way out of context. I’m I

wrong, this doesn’t exactly look like child pornography.

Did the parents of these kids approve the work?