Art & Photography

ABC Net, 'Sex crime penalty increase 'nothing to do with Henson'; (Australia), October 26, 2008
The Law Society of New South Wales has rejected claims that the NSW Government's plan to change penalties for sex offenders was prompted by the artist Bill Henson.
Changes include an increased penalty for possessing child pornography, which can now attract 10 years in jail, up from five. There will also be a maximum 25-year sentence for having sex with a child.

Cooke, Jennifer, Push to toughen rules on children in art; smh.com.au; November 6, 2008
After controversy in May over a Bill Henson photographic exhibition that included naked underage children, Mr Hatzistergos will ask a meeting of the ministers today to consider strengthening procedures under which publications can be the subject of "calling in". Publications include art exhibitions.

Craven, Peter, No nudes today, zealots rule, OK? - The Age; October 6, 2008
About: David Marr, The Henson Case -Australia
The photographs by Henson, subjected to the most intense scrutiny by the highest authorities, in a context of aggravated moral panic and revulsion, have been cleared of any taint of pornography, quite apart from artistic merit.
The opposite viewpoint has no legal basis and is socially deranged because it assumes the only non-family motive for ever taking photos of children must be perverted.
This falls into precisely the trap of sexualising children that the campaigners so fear.
It's sick, and it has to be resisted.

Gordon, Nan, It's ridiculous that we treat child nudity as a problem - The Independent (UK), 8 July 2008
Perversity is in the eye of the beholder. Children are born without a fear of sexuality or a fear of their own bodies. That fear is imposed on them. Children are sensual beings, they touch and they like to be touched. It's the adult who sometimes takes advantage of this situation.
It's not about what the children in an image are doing and there's nothing sick about a nude child. It's so ridiculous we treat this as a problem in society.

Ipce Newsletter,

Australia debates about child nudity - "The evil is in the eye of the beholder", # E25, July 2008.
1. The Bill Nelson case
2. The case of the girl on the cover of Arts Monthly Australia
Since May 2008, two publicly showed photos of naked young children have started a public debate in which, among other questions, fear of child nudity and artistic freedom combated. Even the Prime Minister, but also the photographed children play their role in this debate. The two cases were an exhibition of photos of artist Bill Nelson and the cover photo on the magazine Art Monthly. We follow the cases by giving quotes from the media. [...]
What we hear is: 'Do not listen to the child, the victim. Listen to the victimologists. They know better.'
However: the evil is in the eye of the beholder.

Fear of photos - Some cases & a broad overview & analysis - # E25, July 2008.
Police is using anti-terror laws to catch 'pedophiles' - that is: everyone who photographs a child. They rely on a public opinion that fears that a photo might be give someone pleasure, that the photo might be placed on the internet and, thus, might pleasure other 'pedophiles', which is a shame, a scandal and a disaster per se. If child nudity is included, a moral panic awakes in the public.
So, our children are effectively taught that nudeness and body pleasure is evil, wrong, dirty and perverse.

About:
Marr, David, The Henson Case -Australia:
Craven, Peter, No nudes today, zealots rule, OK? - The Age; October 6, 2008
The photographs by Henson, subjected to the most intense scrutiny by the highest authorities, in a context of aggravated moral panic and revulsion, have been cleared of any taint of pornography, quite apart from artistic merit.
The opposite viewpoint has no legal basis and is socially deranged because it assumes the only non-family motive for ever taking photos of children must be perverted.
This falls into precisely the trap of sexualising children that the campaigners so fear.
It's sick, and it has to be resisted.

Morgan, Joyce, 'Child protection rules 'too restrictive'; smh.com.au, November 14, 2008
Anyone who photographs children will need the permission of the parents before the pictures can be exhibited.
The ruling is included in sweeping guidelines released by the Australia Council yesterday designed to protect children in the aftermath of the Bill Henson controversy.
The six-page document also requires artists who work with naked children to ensure that their parents understand the nature of the artwork. Artists must also have a commitment from parents that they will supervise the naked child.

NZ Herald, The naked truth; October 28, 2008
It seems to me that the world's gone a little bit crazy about naked children in art work, all the while encouraging them to wear glitter eye shadow and lipstick, mini high heels and t-shirts with the most insanely X-rated phrases possible.

Rapoport, Paul; Kids need protection, but art isn't porn; National Post, July 23, 2008
The goal of protecting children should have no argument. But making children afraid of all nudity doesn't protect them. It makes them anxious, insecure and more susceptible to poor body image and other problems, including abuse.

Silmalis, Linda, Bill Henson scandal prompts overhaul of art laws; The Sunday Telegraph, October 26, 2008
LAWS regulating child nudity and art will be overhauled in New South Wales the wake of the Bill Henson controversy.
Photographers and film-makers will no longer be able to rely on a legal defence of "artistic purpose" under one of the biggest shake-ups of NSW child-protection laws.