Bill Henson ... again

[Kym]

http://www.news.com.au/national/alarm-over-hensons-new-show/story-e6frfkvr-1226031816181#ixzz1IEB8d6X5


ARTIST Bill Henson is at the centre of a new storm after it was revealed school groups are being exposed to provocative photos of teenage girls at his new exhibition.

Child protection advocates and parents' groups have expressed concern that school children are visiting the Melbourne exhibition, which includes a series of naked images of a young university student striking sexual poses and provocative shots of a younger teen, reported the Herald Sun.

This article raises the old questions of what is art?, what is porn? and what is exploitation of children?

Personally I'd like to see him stick to 18+ models and then there is no issue.
Having seen his work, I personally think he goes too far considering the age of his models.


Tolarno Galleries, which is housing the exhibition, claims to be "at the cutting edge of contemporary Australian art" but would not say how old the youngest girl in the photographs was.

The 'art' excuse can cover a lot of exploitation.

If I was to take naked images of a <18yo (lets say 12 or 14) and make them publicly available I would be quickly labelled
a paedo might end up in gaol. Why is Bill Hensen subject to different laws?
Is being an 'artist' an excuse from such laws makes you immune for such laws and morality?

While not being a prude, I would not give permission of my child to be one of his models.


_____________________________________

This will thread will raise quite strong emotive views and opinions, so it starts with a first and final warning, 7 day bans for any personal attack!
Keep the discussion on topic.

[ricktas]

For me, pornography is images of sexual activity of some type. From what I have seen Bill Henson's Art is photographs of the naked teenage form, not in any way sexually suggestive or provactive. Being naked, to me, doesn't imply sexualised, other than the human form being seen as such, as we are sexual beings. As long as his work doesn't show sexual activity, I am fine with it. I don't see the difference between naked 2 years olds in the bath, naked teenagers standing in a room, the local firies stripping down, or the CWA ladies dropping their gear at 70 and 80 years old. The human form is beautiful!

[ElectricImages]

The fact that it's controversial work lends credence to its status as "art". Porn is pretty much by definition vapid and devoid of any meaning apart from the obvious one of provoking arousal. Nakedness/nudity is not the same as pornography/abuse/exploitation. After all, if any image of a minor in any state of undress is to be considered pornography, then seeing ACTUAL minors in revealing garments should be considered a far greater crime, and kids should be banned from the beach for the good of all society. :p

Just as it's possible to photograph artistically, I believe it's possible to paint or draw pornographically. This has been recently debated on the Internet due to the use of photo-realistically drawn images of young girls in provocative poses for the US clothing company American Apparel. The drawings in question are considerably more pornographic than any of Henson's photographs; but just because they're pencil rather than pixels, most people tend to associate them more with the masterpieces of Leonardo than the centrefolds of Playboy.

I don't think Henson isn't the best artist-photographer in the world; but I do think his work is artistic, rather than pornographic. The outraged diatribes against his work tend to be far more gratuitous than the works they critique.

jm2c. ymmv. etc etc.

[Kym]

I agree the naked form is a thing of beauty, but posting 2yo bath-time pictures in the public (now-a-days) is a dangerous thing.
I'm specifically focusing on the <18 (i.e. child) issue. Even our site rules don't allow <18yo nudes.

[ElectricImages]

I kinda think that in some ways the age thing has become the whole POINT of Henson's work. I think his work challenges us to have exactly these conversations about youth, beauty, and challenges us to think about the beauty of humans in ways apart from sexual beauty. Basically, if Henson said "don't worry, all my models are over 18," you'd get a whole STACK of rednecks making lewd comments about the models and probably rating them, as if that magical age barrier somehow implied permission to treat his models as objects rather than subjects. :p

By making their age indeterminate - and, in fact, controversially low in some cases - he forces everyone to view and converse about the beauty of his subjects in non-sexual ways. Nobody dares to comment on the attractiveness of Henson's subjects, whatever age they may be, because to do so could be the equivalent of yelling "I'm a sicko pervert!" in a crowded room. Instead, his fans tend to speak in hushed tones of the beauty of the PHOTOGRAPHS - not the models themselves.

Henson's photographs therefore cause us to examine and challenge ourselves, our behaviours, and our fears - and therefore, by definition, I think they are art. Whether or not they are *good* art is a matter of personal taste. :p

[Kym]

Legalities...

http://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/745.htm


You could be charged by the police with producing child pornography if:
you take a nude or semi-nude picture of a person under 18, even if they are your friend and consent (agree) to the picture being taken
you take photos or video of a person under 18 involved in sexual activity or posing in an indecent sexual manner (or who looks like they are)
.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s70.html


(1) A person who knowingly possesses child pornography is guilty of an
indictable offence.
Penalty: Level 6 imprisonment (5 years maximum).
(2) It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) to
prove-
(a) in the case of-
(i) a film; or
(ii) a photograph contained in a publication; or
(iii) a computer game- that at the time of the alleged offence the film,
publication or computer game was classified other than RC or X or X
18+ or would, if classified, be classified other than RC or X or X
18+; or
(b) that the film, photograph, publication or computer game possesses
artistic merit or is for a genuine medical, legal, scientific or
educational purpose; or

...

(3) Despite subsection (2)(b), the defence of artistic merit cannot be relied
on in a case where the prosecution proves that the minor was actually under
the age of 18 years.

[ElectricImages]

Despite the exception to the artistic merit exception, the whole of s70 hinges on the definition of "pornography". In most legal definitions, the meaning of that specific term hinges on whether or not it is designed to appeal to "prurient interests" - i.e. is it created to provoke sexual arousal.

Whether or not it is of artistic merit becomes irrelevant, if the defence can first demonstrate that the material was not created in any way for the sexual interests of the creator or others, and is therefore not pornography.

(Disclaimer: IANAL)
(Disclaimer to disclaimer: but I did study a combined degree in in Law/IT at uni).

[peterb666]

The interesting thing here is that Ms Hetty Johnston, the one making the complaint hasn't seen the exhibition but says "I have seen a book of his works; let me tell you, they are disgusting."

Furthermore, the complaint is that Ms Johnston just believes many of Henson's works are "illegal" for the sake of it. This is despite Henson having received classification approval for the work.

Remember folks, it IS 1 April and this article was posted before midday. More like Henson just trying to get a bit of extra free publicity.

[peterb666]

Whether or not it is of artistic merit becomes irrelevant, if the defence can first demonstrate that the material was not created in any way for the sexual interests of the creator or others, and is therefore not pornography.

Then an awlful lot of advertising is pornography by that definition.

[James T]

To say someone like Henson should make his images only using +18 year old models, is missing the point of the work.

Long and the short of it is, a lot of people are idiots, with little of importance in their life - so they like to kick up a fuss about random things from time to time to make themselves feel better. I usually chose to ignore them until they find a new fad 'horror' to expose on ACA or the like. :th3:

[zollo]

wow doctors and specialists dealing with the human body must see a lot of "porn" if the definition of porn is a naked human standing/posing/whatever
i dont see sexual intent with those photos - although the choice of subject matter is not to my taste either.

BTW has anyone been to "MONA" http://mona.net.au/ in Tasmania?
Some of the "art" in there would really bake a conservatists noodle

[ricstew]

For heavens sake they took year 12 photography students to the exhibit..........not kindy kids. Would there be such objections if they were at an exhibit of voluptuous nudes by some old dead painter? or an exhibit of magazine covers? If you dont like his ' art ' dont attend the axhibit :)

[ricktas]

Zollo, I have been to MONA. I came away amazed, intrigued and disgusted. I agree, there is a photo at MONA of a man and a dog simulating sex together, images (video) of people cutting genitalia off humans (special effects used). These were way more confronting to me than a posed naked human form.

If anyone gets the chance to visit MONA, here in Hobart, do so, it has been chosen as the worlds best experience, above the taj mahal and louvre amongst others.

[Analog6]

I don't think Henson's work is that extraordinary - they are good images, well handled, but I've seen other work as good on various internet art sites, for a lot less money because the artist has not had their name in the newspapers and a lot of fuss made of them.

And all that controversy is bl00dy good for sales after all - how many of us could get $30,000 for works of similar quality (and I think many on here capable of producing them)? As Kym says, we'd be labelled dirty perves.

That said, Hetty Johnston seems to go overboard, if she can see a bit of skin it is porn. She has been discredited in some circles, I read at the time of the last Henson fracas.

As to the Y12 students, I imagine they would all be 17-18 yr olds? More likely to be embarrassed at seeing naked images with a teacher there, I can visualise a lot of elbow poking and giggling to cover up the embarrassment. I'd be more worried if they took younger children.

[farmer_rob]

To use the "art" excuse is disingenuous. From memory, Henson has said something along the lines of "exploring the awakening of sexuality" regarding the pictures at the center of the last controversy. IMO, sexuality is implicit in his photographs, and hence hang around the fringes of "child porn" regardless of the "artiness" which separates them from "real" porn.

I am not a prude, but I don't think producing art separates you from the laws of the land.

[ElectricImages]

Photographs of young teenagers may implicitly explore issues regarding sexual development. But there's a big difference between exploring themes and exploiting them. There are hundreds of mainstream films, some of which are probably on your list of "favourites," - films like "Dirty Dancing" for example - that explore exactly the same themes artfully and tastefully. Just because the 17-year-old character "Baby" has a sex scene with Patrick Swayze doesn't make it porn. In the movie "Thirteen" there is frequent sex, violence and drug use amongst the young teens.

The emergence of sexuality is a recurring theme in all arts, because frankly, it's a momentous, memorable and important stage of life. There is not a single comparable phase in the human lifespan that involves so much personal change and uncertainty (except, possibly, death). That photography is singled out as the only area of the arts unable to explore or portray themes of adolescence is mostly a result of knee-jerk reactionism rather than well-considered social and cultural policy, IMHO.

After all, the depiction or re-creation of other social issues isn't banned. There are horrific, gore-filled films, TV shows and games depicting violent rape, sadistic torture, murder and abuse every night on your TV in your living room. None of that turns us all into murderous and violent criminals. Does seeing Bill Henson's work leave ordinary gallery viewers perilously in danger of becoming child molesters? Certainly not. As for arguments that the images might be used by people with existing perversions - I'd argue that with the number of weird fetishes out there there isn't anything on the human body or that's worn on it that doesn't appeal sexually to someone out there. We may as well all wear burkhas, though I dare say even then there might be a burkha fetishist or two out there. :p

[la lumiere]

Interesting comments by all.
I agree with Kym :) and Farmer Rob's :) comments and so won't repeat them.
Exploitation is exploitation be it for the purposes of art, publicity, finance or sex. Children should not be exploited.
Electric Images - interesting points except I don't believe photography is singled out (except perhaps in this discussion) movies, videos, games etc of the types that you have mentioned are not acceptable to many either.
I wouldn't be happy for my children to be photographed and exhibited in such a way.

[Irru]

Some of this thread sounds a bit 'Bill Hicks'. I found myself grinning and thinking about the Coke commercial.
I haven't seen the exhibition so I can't really comment on them.

[ElectricImages]

@la lumiere: Well okay, let's agree in principle: children should not be exploited.

But how is creating an image that may involve the use of a minor as a model, automatically exploitation? Should there be no child actors then? None of Henson's dozens of models, or their parents, have ever complained of exploitation.

And while you're absolutely in your rights to decide what is best for you and your children, that same standard can't be applied to all of society. There are, as you mention, some people who would just as quickly ban all of the games, movies, music videos and other cultural works depicting undesirable images, if it was up them their individual tastes. :p I dare say they'd be quite happy to burn books they didn't like too.

Children shouldn't be exploited. But I don't see any evidence that using minors as photographic subjects is automatically exploitation.

[soulman]

...but how is creating an image that may involve the use of a minor as a model, automatically exploitation? [...] None of Henson's dozens of models, or their parents, have ever complained of exploitation.

Children shouldn't be exploited. But I don't see any evidence that using minors as photographic subjects is automatically exploitation.This, surely, must be the guiding principle in determining whether it is acceptable for Henson to use young models or not - is harm is being done to them by posing? Some people will never be convinced in the negative, but that's about belief rather than rational thought; There is no evidence of any kind that any of Henson's many models - he has been photographing teenagers for decades - feel exploited or in any way harmed or diminished by having worked with him. There is substantial evidence that people have benefited from their experience - when the Sydney debacle happened, a number of his models and their families came out in support of him and his work - but nothing anywhere to suggest anything negative.

In the same way, the various authorities who scrutinised the works in Sydney found no evidence that the images were sexualised or exploitative. That show actually got a PG rating from the Censorship Board. Henson is not getting any sort of a free pass because he's an artist. Even though he is one: a very serious, scholarly & world renowned artist whose work sits within a long tradition of the use of nudes.

I find it fascinating and saddening that people get up in arms about Henson when highly exploitative and sexualised imagery, very often involving children, is beamed from nearly every billboard and TV ad and music video. I think the controversy around Henson's work says much more about us and the way we can no longer see nudity without it creating a pornographic echo in our minds, than it does about Henson and his delicate and haunting images.

The other really interesting aspect of this for me, and one with perhaps the greatest relevance in a forum such as this, is that I am certain that the only reason any of this is in the public eye is that Henson uses a camera to make art, rather than oil paint or marble or some other traditional artist's medium. The fact that the camera, ubiquitous though it is, is rarely used (as a serious tool at least) by artists really confuses people I think. Nearly everybody has a camera and we are all familiar with photographs, in many different contexts, so people associate their existing understanding of photography with what Henson is doing. This is not the same as what we do when we look at a painting or sculpture and I think it stops some people from seeing it for what it is, because they think they recognise it. A version of the "I could have done that" response that we've all probably heard.

[ricktas]

I would much rather hear that authorities had banned Justin Beiber, than Bill Henson. Out of the two, I know which one I find more offensive. One is an artist and the other screeches out sounds that are supposed to resemble music :D

[farmer_rob]

I know it's not rational, but having looked at some of henson's images from the last controversy, I find his work creepy. However I don't subscribe to the "exploitation" argument - I think that is a red herring - and some of the fanatics that pop out of the woodwork looking for another witch burning need to get a sense of perspective.

[terry.langham]

In this area my view is probably tainted, having known victims of sexual abuse and molestation by family members. However I don't agree that a parent can approve naked photos of a minor (regardless of who the artist is) and then when the model is old enough to make their own judgements it is then too late and they have no recourse to have works withdrawn from public viewing. In the end the only answer to that is to not allow the use of minors as models in nude or contraversial works. Draconian? maybe, but I think necessary to protect the minute section of the community that don't have the best intentions.

[ving]

while i have no problem with his work, youth generally wont get it and will just giggle and point... not the right audience for this type of work.

porn is art with a particular audience in mind and while his art is not porn i think a mature audience is best.

[ElectricImages]

...when the model is old enough to make their own judgements it is then too late and they have no recourse to have works withdrawn from public viewing....

If you're interested in protecting minors from their own bad judgement on the capture and use of their images, it would be far better to shut down Facebook/ban under-18s from Facebook, and/or ban minors from owning mobile phones with cameras, than to impose draconian restrictions on Bill Henson or other bona fide photographic artists.

But we all know that's never going to happen... :p

[Kym]

If you're interested in protecting minors from their own bad judgement on the capture and use of their images, i

I think Terry is saying not allow minors to protect the minor for their parents bad judgement.

[ElectricImages]

Yes - but I believe, in every case, Henson's models themselves are willing parties in the process. Having their parental consent is a legality and a supplement, not a replacement, for the model's own consent. :p

[soulman]

I know it's not rational, but having looked at some of henson's images from the last controversy, I find his work creepy.Yeah, I know what you mean. I saw his 30 year retrospective in Melbourne some years ago and there were images there that made me seriously uncomfortable. They're not all like that though and I feel less creeped out by them the more I know about what he's on about. I also think he has a right to pursue his vision if he's not breaking the law or harming anybody. I'm guessing you probably do as well. :)


...I don't agree that a parent can approve naked photos of a minor [...] In the end the only answer to that is to not allow the use of minors as models in nude or contraversial works.I think I get where you're coming from Terry; I am the father of a daughter and I have gone and do go to great lengths to protect her from harm. Henson makes an interesting point about this though, which is basically that we cannot and do not protect children from every possible harm that can befall them. Life is inherently risky and there are many decisions that we as parents make for & with our kids that may have negative consequences. As with everything else, we can only do our best. It would appear that modelling for Henson has been an enriching experience for most, if not all of his subjects, so I struggle to see it an unnecessarily risky choice to allow a child to make.

As much as it is a confronting thing to consider, I wonder why we should be so concerned about this when we allow our kids out of the house, or in front of the computer, without constant surveillance. Children regularly suffer major injuries in sporting accidents, as one of many examples, but playing sport is still rightly seen as an important and enriching thing to do.

[Kym]

Yes - but I believe, in every case, Henson's models themselves are willing parties in the process. Having their parental consent is a legality and a supplement, not a replacement, for the model's own consent. :p

But that is why parents have responsibility for their children - because a 14yo cannot make a rational decision.

They may say yes @14yo, then when 24 say I wish I'd not done that. The parents should have said no anyway.

The parental permission supersedes the child's permission every time!!

[Kym]

As much as it is a confronting thing to consider, I wonder why we should be so concerned about this when we allow our kids out of the house, or in front of the computer, without constant surveillance. Children regularly suffer major injuries in sporting accidents, as one of many examples, but playing sport is still rightly seen as an important and enriching thing to do.

Sports is not a valid comparison, there are risks with sport but we understand those.
My son used to race BMX; that has risks which are mitigated by having proper safety gear like a full face helmet, gloves etc.
He had some big crashes, but no major injuries.

As for 'net supervision ... YES !! It is a must for parents to control their children's access, there are many nasties out their.
We kept a close eye on our son, but eve so he ended up at some quite bad sites, and ran up a dial up bill, that was canned by the TIO because he was under-age at the time. ;)

Bottom line, parents to need to take responsibility and need to put appropriate protections in place.

[ElectricImages]

But that is why parents have responsibility for their children - because a 14yo cannot make a rational decision.

I must respectfully disagree - and so does our legal system. Many/most 14 year olds CAN make rational decisions, and do so all the time. And our legal system stipulates that 14 is, in fact, the age of Legal (and Criminal) Responsibility. From the age of 14, children can be charged with criminal offences, and the law assumes they have the mental capacity to make moral and ethical decisions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_criminal_responsibility_in_Australia

Besides, the arbitrary age of 18 isn't some magic number which somehow grants people the wisdom to make good decisions. Frankly, many children are far more ethical, honest, and rational than some of the adults I've dealt with.

[ElectricImages]

Sports is not a valid comparison, there are risks with sport but we understand those.

And there are some risks with modeling, but we understand those. :p It isn't like Bill Henson publishes the names and addresses of his models next to his images or online. Which is more than I can say about most teenager's Facebook profiles, alongside their photos, sometimes in various states of inebriation or undress. :p


...As for 'net supervision ... YES !! It is a must for parents to control their children's access, there are many nasties out their.
We kept a close eye on our son, but eve so he ended up at some quite bad sites, and ran up a dial up bill, that was canned by the TIO because he was under-age at the time. ;)

Bottom line, parents to need to take responsibility and need to put appropriate protections in place.

The eminent and intelligent Cory Doctorow would disagree: see this video of him speaking at TEDx on the subject of digital privacy and what it means for our kids (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAGjNe1YhMA). We should be teaching kids to make good decisions for themselves, but also to value their online privacy and not surrender it too easily to anyone.

[ricktas]

but this discussion is assuming our LAW is right, moral and just, and the perfect way. It isn't.

[soulman]

Sports is not a valid comparison, there are risks with sport but we understand those.With all due respect, I think it is a valid comparison. What is it that we don't understand about the risks of a child posing for Henson?


Bottom line, parents to need to take responsibility and need to put appropriate protections in place.Absolutely, but I think you might have some difficulty arguing to the parents of Henson's subjects that they don't or didn't adequately protect their child. There is no evidence anywhere to suggest that's true and saying that you wouldn't do it because you don't think it's a good idea - which is very much your prerogative - doesn't make it irresponsible.

[Kym]

<snip>We should be teaching kids to make good decisions for themselves, but also to value their online privacy and not surrender it too easily to anyone.

And that varies by age. What do you let a 10yo, 12yo, or a 16yo do online? - it varies as their understanding and personal responsibility grows.
I'm glad Doctorow disagrees with me, I'm no fan as he takes copy reform too far. I'm no fan of RMS either, even though I do support open source software (off topic).

Children do need parental supervision on the net. A national net filter is also the wrong way to go. The right answer is parental responsibility.

[Kym]

With all due respect, I think it is a valid comparison. What is it that we don't understand about the risks of a child posing for Henson?

Consequences! You can't predict the consequences of public exposure anywhere near as much as that of playing sport.

[ricktas]

In some African societies, ladies are allowed to get married at 12/13 years old. Yet they often have a societal structure and lifestyle that is simpler and some could say better than ours, with less 'modern day crap' in it. Are they wrong to allow marriage at 12/13 years old? We are applying a set of standard here that may be inherently flawed due to societal etiquette, that may mean as a society we need a shift of values. The naked form is not 'disgusting', and im my opinion, should be celebrated as part of what we are as human beings, flaws and all.

[ElectricImages]

Consequences! You can't predict the consequences of public exposure anywhere near as much as that of playing sport.

Well... sport could kill your child (and sometimes does, sadly). Modeling hardly has that kind of consequences!

[Kym]

@Rick ... and in some of those societies women can't vote or be educated, and die by the time they are 35 after having 12 kids.

[I @ M]

Modeling hardly has that kind of consequences!

Gotta disagree strongly with that one, modelling has caused the deaths of young people, the pressures have led to suicide.

[Kym]

Well... sport could kill your child (and sometimes does, sadly). Modeling hardly has that kind of consequences!

While we are being extreme... people have dies from following a modelling career due to drugs, anorexia etc. Straw man too much?

Edit: Snap! with Andrew

[ElectricImages]

In some African societies, ladies are allowed to get married at 12/13 years old..

Never mind African. Prior to 1964 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Consent_to_Marriage,_Minimum_Age_for_Marriage,_and_Registration_of_Marriages), there were numerous countries with no minimum legal age for marriage. In our own legal system, derived from that of Britain, King Henry VIII's last two wives, Catherine Howard and Catherine Parr, were both 14 years old (*eeek*)

[ElectricImages]

Gotta disagree strongly with that one, modelling has caused the deaths of young people, the pressures have led to suicide.

If there aren't sufficient protective measures in place, I'm sure there's the possibility of mental health issues spiralling out of control. You shouldn't send motorcross riders out on the field with no helmets. In cases where models have had mental health issues, the support and treatment of those issues hasn't been adequately addressed. But they haven't been killed by the camera. :p

[ElectricImages]

While we are being extreme... people have dies from following a modelling career due to drugs, anorexia etc. Straw man too much?

Edit: Snap! with Andrew

In the two years between mid-2001 and mid-2003, there were 150 cases of serious injury and 48 deaths from sport in Victoria alone (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1725286/).

I was unable to locate any statistics on the number of people killed by being photographed.

[I @ M]

Stop splitting hairs electricimages, your statement that "Modeling hardly has that kind of consequences" is blatantly wrong.
It has caused death and injury, plain fact.

[ElectricImages]

Stop splitting hairs electricimages, your statement that "Modeling hardly has that kind of consequences" is blatantly wrong.
It has caused death and injury, plain fact.

(1) Please cite any statistics you might have on the impact of photographic modelling.
(2) Please don't be offended. Your post sounds a bit strident, and I'm sure as adults over the age of 18 we're capable of rational discussion and decision-making. :p

Available research indicates that models are not more likely to suffer from eating disorders than the general population (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Xq943gY3Cl8J:www.canada.com/story_print.html%3Fid%3D3d640bbc-fa35-4b62-94cb-fc8261eab195%26sponsor%3D+%22McWhirter+hopes+her+study+will+encourage%22&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=flock&source=www.google.com):


"Not unexpectedly, the models scored an average BMI of just 17.4, compared with a more "normal" 22.7 for the students. But their eating and exercise habits showed little difference, and more than 80 per cent of both groups had normal, healthy eating behaviours and displayed positive attitudes toward food. The other 20 or so per cent don't necessarily have eating disorders but may have some questionable eating habits such as skipping breakfast, McWhirter says."

[I @ M]

(1) Please cite any statistics you might have on the impact of photographic modelling.
(2) Please don't be offended. Your post sounds a bit strident, and I'm sure as adults over the age of 18 we're capable of rational discussion and decision-making. :p

(1) You go and research the facts re physical harm and death caused by modelling, yes, you will have to spend some time doing it due to the fact that the word suicide is in itself heavily censored in the mainstream media in Australia in particular. Have a look at any research done regarding physical self appearance in adolescent / teen / young adult ( female in particular ) people involved in the modelling industry and tie that in with the real physical damage done by the mental trauma associated with anorexia and bulimia . Then research the physical and emotional harm that has been caused by inappropriate image publication ( particularly the 'net ) when young people have have either had their images broadcast or actually broadcast their own images in a moment of bravado.

Don't suddenly introduce the word photographic into your argument, it isn't there in your initial quoted post. But, as an aside whether it be high fashion parade type modelling or "mens mag" modelling I am sure you will find plenty of factual information on the problems and harm that has befallen models.

(2) I am not offended, yes my post is strident, as an adult over the age of 18 I take strong exception to you posting what amount to untruths.

[Kym]

Just google...

http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-fashion-tragedy-burberry-model-commits-suicide/
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/fashion/article6925853.ece
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2008/06/the_ugly_side_o.php
http://fashionista.com/2011/01/mother-of-deceased-anorexic-model-isabelle-caro-commits-suicide/
http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2010/06/model_suicides.html

And lots more.

But this is waaaay off topic... the summary being:

1. Minor's do need protection in our current western society
2. Parents need to take responsibility
3. The nude form in and of itself is beautiful
4. Art cannot always be an excuse for what amounts to exploitation

[WhoDo]

Yes - but I believe, in every case, Henson's models themselves are willing parties in the process. Having their parental consent is a legality and a supplement, not a replacement, for the model's own consent. :p
I've tried to stay out of this revised debate because many here already know my views on the subject. That said, I can't let this one pass without comment.

Some of Henson's models are aged 12 years! They are nowhere NEAR an age where they could give informed consent. Parental consent isn't a "supplement"; it's a legal necessity for minors unable to consent on their own behalf. Even so, I STILL don't think parents have a right to consent on behalf of a minor for this sort of process; viz naked images, artistic merit or otherwise, that may subsequently be a source of regret or embarrassment to the subject when they are old enough to understand what has been said or done on their behalf.

Parents do NOT always make the right choices for their children either. That is why society sets rules for conduct within the social order that supercedes even parental consent. Heck, would you accept Ma Baker's right to allow her "boys" to murder others? Society has an overarching responsibility, flawed as it may be, to protect its children even from their own parents!

The biggest problem I have with Hensen is NOT his work but his steadfast refusal to publicly declare that the protection of the minors he chooses to photograph is his primary concern. I believe that is because it isn't his primary concern. I personally believe his ONLY concern is the furtherance of his own agenda, call it his art if you like, at the expense of anything and everything else. That is also why I am so steadfastly against his admitted lurking near school grounds and playgrounds looking for more 12 and 13 year old potential models. What price would you place on the "Innocence" of our children? Is it enough to say that the loss of innocence is a fair price for Art?

[Kym]

In the two years between mid-2001 and mid-2003, there were 150 cases of serious injury and 48 deaths from sport in Victoria alone (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1725286/).
I was unable to locate any statistics on the number of people killed by being photographed.

Context: http://www.livingisforeveryone.com.au/IgnitionSuite/uploads/docs/LIFE-Fact%20sheet%203.pdf
The sport death rate is 0.6 / 100,000 people
The suicide rate is 8.5 / 100,000 people

Now consider http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/its-time-to-confront-the-deadliest-demon-of-them-all-20101102-17c9c.html?comments=47

The issue is youth and body image; not just photography per se.

Getting back on topic ... why would a 12yo want their naked image in public when they are 17 or 24? They cannot foresee the consequences.

[soulman]

So, various activities that kids might do with the permission of their parents - life modelling for Bill Henson, sport and plenty of other things - may lead to injury or death. Responsible parents are constantly balancing the need for their children to have enriching experiences against their desire to protect them from harm.

I don't have an informed opinion about the wider issues of potential problems arising from modelling, but, again, there is no evidence of any harm ever being done to anyone who has posed for Henson and there is significant evidence to the contrary. The same cannot be said for sport, Facebook, walking down the street, or even visiting family members.

Of course parents will choose the risks they are prepared to let their children take. A number of responsible parents have chosen to allow their kids to pose for Henson and those choices I think need to be respected along with the people here who would not.

To assume, or insist that harm and exploitation are taking place, when there clearly they are not, is not rational. I am fine with people having beliefs, but they aren't rational arguments.



...even so, I STILL don't think parents have a right to consent on behalf of a minor for this sort of process; viz naked images, artistic merit or otherwise, that may subsequently be a source of regret or embarrassment to the subject when they are old enough to understand what has been said or done on their behalf...

...the biggest problem I have with Hensen is NOT his work but his steadfast refusal to publicly declare that the protection of the minors he chooses to photograph is his primary concern. I believe that is because it isn't his primary concern. I personally believe his ONLY concern is the furtherance of his own agenda, call it his art if you like, at the expense of anything and everything else...You're drawing a pretty long bow there WhoDo. :)

Perhaps I could respectfully suggest that actually you do try to seek out what he says about these issues, because you'll find that the welfare of his models is actually of great concern to him. I have heard him speak on more than one occasion and watched him deal very graciously and respectfully with all sorts of concerns raised by audience members. I know from this that he cares very much about his models' welfare and that he has gone to considerable effort to make sure his involvement in the lives of his models is a positive one. He speaks of having formed many long friendships with models and their families and is clearly someone who takes these issues seriously.

There are so many things in the world that cause demonstrable harm to children. Modelling for Henson is not one of them and criticising him does not help help any child anywhere.

[WhoDo]

There are so many things in the world that cause demonstrable harm to children. Modelling for Henson is not one of them and criticising him does not help help any child anywhere.
Now you're the one drawing the longer bow here, soulman. To categorically state that "(sic) Modelling for Henson .. does not cause demonstrable harm" is something that none of us can know with any certainty right now. Remember the stolen generation of Australia? Good, concerned, well-meaning people at the time thought they were actually doing the right thing by those children then and now there is no question, with the benefit of hindsight, that they were quite wrong.

It may turn out that modelling naked, for Hensen or anyone else, at age 12 has no lasting repercussions, but are you willing to gamble the future and innocence of these children on that belief for the sake of one person's Art? I'm not, sorry, but then that's just me. If there are enough people in our society that share your opinion rather than mine then society will decide in your favour ... at least for now. I'd personally prefer not to risk the innocence and welfare of children in pursuit of any art form.

As for Hensen's concern for his under age model's welfare, to the best of my knowledge he has never publicly expressed that. If you can establish that in fact he has then I will most certainly stand corrected. Anecdotal evidence, however, is not sufficient in this case.

[ricktas]

I have photos of me naked as a child, teenager and adult. I don't see them as a loss of my innocence in anyway. If anything they are embarassing and something to laugh about, but not a loss of innocence, more an expression of innocence at a particular age.

[snappysi]

I dont really want to weigh in on this in any great manner, but Rick i believe that some of the concerns here in relation to your post is that YOU have these photos, taken no doubt by a parent or sibling and for the most part kept for viewing by close family members. I wonder how you would feel had that decision been made for you and the results displayed for all to see in a gallery...

Simon.

[ricktas]

I dont really want to weigh in on this in any great manner, but Rick i believe that some of the concerns here in relation to your post is that YOU have these photos, taken no doubt by a parent or sibling and for the most part kept for viewing by close family members. I wonder how you would feel had that decision been made for you and the results displayed for all to see in a gallery...

Simon.

My parents own copyright over them and if they wished to do so, I would not stop them! People seem to offended by the naked form and riding along on this social agenda of 'think of the children'. MOST people, children included are not harmed by the taking of the photos in the style of Bill Henson. I would say the ones that are, are harmed more by the response to them by 'do-gooders' who call the photographer, and the model's parents some very unsavoury things. We need to stop wrapping kids up in cotton wool and protecting them from LIFE! Life is hard, life can be harsh, life can be unfair, Life can be fun, Life can be lived, Life can be explored, Life can be embraced.

Whatever happened to letting people decide for themselves, and their children what was good for them? We seem to complain at rules that resrtict photographers access on beaches, at sporting events, national parks, etc, but to tell other photographers they shouldn't do something just because it offends your sensibilities or morals, when it is not illegal is doing exactly what the lifesavers, sporting bodies, National Parks services do. What side of the fence you sit on is your choice, but you cannot have it both ways.

How harmful can it be? Well most people I know who have teenagers let them use mobile phones, facebook etc. How many of you monitor everything that is done by your children on these services? Mobile phones might cause brain tumours, but you still let them use them. Facebook bullying is rife, but you still let them use it. I see no difference in allowing a teenager to pose nude to possibly exposing them to a device that could cause brain tumours. Both could cause issues in the future, but one is deemed socially ok, and the other isn't?

[Kym]

I have photos of me naked as a child, teenager and adult. I don't see them as a loss of my innocence in anyway. If anything they are embarassing and something to laugh about, but not a loss of innocence, more an expression of innocence at a particular age.

Sure, we do as well. But, if they were then published on the 'net? What if you as a teenager had body image issues? It gets really complicated. Family pics are one thing, publishing is another.

[soulman]

And none of this has anything to do with life modelling for an artist. Just saying... :p

[ricktas]

Sure, we do as well. But, if they were then published on the 'net? What if you as a teenager had body image issues? It gets really complicated. Family pics are one thing, publishing is another.

And there is the crux. A teenager with body issues is most likely going to refuse to model for Henson, or anyone else. The teenagers who do model for him are most likely well brought up, grounded, intelligent people, who know that no-one is perfect, but are happy with themselves, enough at least to pose naked. I reckon if we asked teenagers we know "would you pose naked for me", most would tell you to 'go away'. The ones that say yes, with parents permission are generally not going to be the ones with 'issues'.

I really do not see what it is about his photos that gets people so worked up.

[zollo]

people fear the unknown. I.E. it is potentially an unknown what will happen to the 12-14 yo model in 10 years time. they may do drugs, develop mental issues, die etc. etc. and people looking for a reason will say - see, it is the modelling that caused it. therefore they seek to ban it. probably without really thinking about the possible unknown consequences of that action. which is just as scary.

[ricktas]

Another thought..to get people thinking.

Some have said parents do not have the right to consent for their children to pose naked for Bill Henson as it could be a source of regret, embarrasment or even the cause of serious issues later in their lives. Yet, parents consent to allowing these same children to be taught sex education in schools, where statistics show that teenage pregnancies are at an all time high level, even after 20-30 years of 'progressive' sex education in schools. Seems to me that parents should be saying no to sex education for their children cause of the risk it poses to their children in the future. Life is full of risks, to try and protect children from them all is not only a failed endeavour in the first place, but most likely a dangerous pursuit, as children who are protected so intently, often break free and rebel, and then take things to extremes, which defeats and inihalates all the 'good' work the parent(s) were intending to achieve.

[ElectricImages]

It may turn out that modelling naked, for Hensen or anyone else, at age 12 has no lasting repercussions, but are you willing to gamble the future and innocence of these children on that belief for the sake of one person's Art? I'm not, sorry, but then that's just me. If there are enough people in our society that share your opinion rather than mine then society will decide in your favour ... at least for now. I'd personally prefer not to risk the innocence and welfare of children in pursuit of any art form.

Frankly, modelling for Bill Henson is less likely to cause harm to a child model than telling that child that they have been exploited and arresting their parents for not protecting their child's welfare (as was demanded by Hetty Johnson, in addition to the arrests of Henson and the gallery owners after a previous exhibition). I'd suggest that Hetty Johnson and her ilk are so busy pursuing their personal political agendas, they may completely overlook the actual welfare of the children involved. :p

[ElectricImages]

Just google...

http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-fashion-tragedy-burberry-model-commits-suicide/
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/fashion/article6925853.ece
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2008/06/the_ugly_side_o.php
http://fashionista.com/2011/01/mother-of-deceased-anorexic-model-isabelle-caro-commits-suicide/
http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2010/06/model_suicides.html

And lots more.


But those are all irrelevant. Correlation does not equal causation.

[WhoDo]

Life is full of risks, to try and protect children from them all is not only a failed endeavour in the first place, but most likely a dangerous pursuit, as children who are protected so intently, often break free and rebel, and then take things to extremes, which defeats and inihalates all the 'good' work the parent(s) were intending to achieve.
So what you're saying, Rick, is that instead of trying to "protect children from them all", meaning the risks in life, that instead we shouldn't protect them from any? Sorry, but that's just terrible logic! We must still protect them ... us ... from UNNECESSARY risks! What on earth is so NECESSARY about allowing one so-called "artist" to express himself using, yes USING, the innocence of our children?

This isn't about feeling shame over the naked image, or even sex and sexual exploitation. Instead it's about giving up, without their informed consent, the rights of our children in order to serve the desire of a single "artist" to exploit their innocence for his own "artistic" purposes.

If it was just about the beauty of the naked human form then Hensen surely wouldn't need to use 12 year old girls! He wants to show their particular naked form as an expression of youth blossoming into maturity, or so he says. Allowing that may well be taking something from those children, without their informed consent, that they would NOT be willing to give up if they were old enough and wise enough to understand and make the choice for themselves. Furthermore, once taken it can never be given back! Saying sorry later, as did our government over the stolen generation, can never be enough.

Everything in Life is a balancing act; Yin vs Yang. To give Hensen his artistic freedom you must be willing to take away the freedom of the child to choose. Handing it to the parents is no substitute, as many children and parents have lived to attest. Innocence is just not something many of us are willing to sacrifice on the alter of Art.

On that note I will again withdraw from the "debate"; I've said my piece and in saying it I doubt I have further endeared myself to the more rabid proponents of artistic freedom, nor will I ever convince them that their rights as artists should NEVER supersede the rights of their subjects, whether human or otherwise. It's a waste of effort if the "artist" cannot see beyond himself and his or her personal need for artistic expression.

[soulman]

To categorically state that "(sic) Modelling for Henson .. does not cause demonstrable harm" is something that none of us can know with any certainty right now.He has been doing this for nearly 4 decades. Given the intense media scrutiny in recent years and the fact that the only comments made by the people who have worked with him have been positive, I am quite comfortable with my statement.


As for Hensen's concern for his under age model's welfare, to the best of my knowledge he has never publicly expressed that. If you can establish that in fact he has then I will most certainly stand corrected. Anecdotal evidence, however, is not sufficient in this case.Well, I did say that I had heard him speak about it at length and mentioned other audience members, so I thought that would have given you a clue that these were public events. I would be happy to take you at your word that it happened if you were telling me this WhoDo and I would like to think you would show me the same courtesy and respect if we were in the same room. You can consider that as having been established in fact or not, but I am not going to write a statutory declaration for you.

I have heard him speak in public twice, spoken with him directly, informally studied his work and read a number of interviews with him. I know he is fair dinkum about the welfare of his models and that he has sought feedback from them about how his work affects them. I have heard him say that he cares very much about this, has looked for evidence of harm amongst his current and former models and has found none. I have absolutely no reason to doubt what he says.

The first time I heard him speak, in 2006 at the Wangaratta Art Gallery, I witnessed him field a barrage of at times aggressive questions from nearly everyone in the audience, including me, and watched him calmly and respectfully address every single point that was raised. He answered his critics and we were all silenced; It was quite remarkable.

Henson is not only an important Australian artist who will be remembered long after these debates are forgotten, but he is quite a decent bloke from what I can tell.

[ElectricImages]

To give Hensen his artistic freedom you must be willing to take away the freedom of the child to choose. Handing it to the parents is no substitute, as many children and parents have lived to attest. Innocence is just not something many of us are willing to sacrifice on the alter of Art.

No, if you ban Henson's work you take away the freedom of the child to choose. I think "children" are capable of choice, and the whole notion that taking a photo of someone somehow "removes" or "destroys" their "innocence" about as rational as the Aboriginal superstition that the same act will take away your soul.

Just sayin'... :p

[ricktas]

So what you're saying, Rick, is that instead of trying to "protect children from them all", meaning the risks in life, that instead we shouldn't protect them from any?

Exactly! Rather than protecting them from everything, how about educating them, teaching them that there are risks in life, and how to recognise them and deal with them. I would argue that over-protection creates a young adult that has no idea how the real world works. The world is full of dangers, teach childen about them, at the appropriate age, but at the very least make them aware of the implications and dangers present, rather than wrap them in cotton-wool and protect them from the big nasty world. There is a very big gap between protecting a child from a real and valid danger (boiling water, the backyard pool, drug use, etc) than protecting them from life! In the end all any of us can do, is our best, but by trying to protect them from dangers that may not exist, is taking away time and effort on the real things that can and will affect a child, on an individual level.

Some people don't own dogs when they have small children, and won't let their child come into contact with dogs, cause dogs can bite, kill and are dangerous. Other people incorporate dogs into their families, cause they see the benefits a dog can bring to a child. who is right? who is wrong? but both have made decisions for them, just the same with Bill Henson's work, I am sure some parents have said No, but others have said Yes, and who are we to dictate to them what they can or cannot decide for their child, when they are not breaking the law. Each to their own and respect to for them for their decision.




Everything in Life is a balancing act; Yin vs Yang. To give Hensen his artistic freedom you must be willing to take away the freedom of the child to choose. Handing it to the parents is no substitute, as many children and parents have lived to attest. Innocence is just not something many of us are willing to sacrifice on the alter of Art.


But where is your proof? Where has it be shown that having your photo taken by Bill Henson has taken away anything? Not one child (as far as I am aware), currently or in the past, has come out and said any such thing. The children he photographed in the last 10-30 years, where are they when these controversies are given media attention? I haven''t heard them yelling 'my freedom was taken away: I was damaged by letting Bill take my photos: etc". There is ZERO evidence out there that modelling for Bill Henson has any adverse side effects on his models.

I respect your opinion, but I cannot find a single fact (on the net) reporting that a child's freedom, well-being or life has been adversly affected by being photographed naked by Bill Henson, and he has been doing this type of photography for decades. I would think at least one person would step forward if they felt that way, especially with the media carrot of 'here is a heap of money, tell us your story' journalistic modality we see so commonly. Where are these children who had their freedom taken away from them?

[ElectricImages]

(2) I am not offended, yes my post is strident, as an adult over the age of 18 I take strong exception to you posting what amount to untruths.

I've provided citations and references for my claims. You've told me to do the research for you, while simply repeating and perpetuating some commonly held misconceptions. If you want to prove your case, I'm sorry , but you need to demonstrate it, not tell me "You go and research the facts..." - I already have. Citations and references have been provided. It is up to you to prove your own case, not up to me to prove yours. :p

I also take exception to being told I'm telling "untruths" - especially since you haven't bothered to post anything to back up your own claims. However, I haven't resorted to terseness or disrespect in my posts to you, so I'd appreciate the same courtesy in return, please.

[I @ M]

You've told me to do the research for you, while simply repeating and perpetuating some commonly held misconceptions.

No, I don't want you to do any research for me, rather educate yourself about that which you refer to as commonly held misconceptions.

As for the latter part, I stand by what I said, your statement --- Modeling hardly has that kind of consequences! --- is simply not true.

[ElectricImages]

No, I don't want you to do any research for me, rather educate yourself about that which you refer to as commonly held misconceptions.
As for the latter part, I stand by what I said, your statement --- Modeling hardly has that kind of consequences! --- is simply not true.

"Rational" debate doesn't work that way. If you want to challenge the references I've provided, the onus is on on you to provide your own evidence.

As for the "consequences" of modelling - I've provided a reference to academic, peer-reviewed research that found that the rate of full-blown eating disorders (anorexia and bulimia) in models was no worse than in the general population, and that models have higher self-esteem and were more likely to have a positive self-image. There's simply no evidence that models have a higher rate of fully-blown/fatal eating disorders or suicide than any other demographic. If you want to refute the research I've provided, you need to show me the research please, not just repeat common hearsay over and over. Repetition doesn't make it true. :p

Here's some of the outcomes of existing academic research for you to have a look at: http://www.belleiq.com/2008/11/22/thin-model-issue-part-2-previous-academic-research-on-models-health/
And also the findings of the largest academic research project on the subject to date, here: http://www.belleiq.com/2008/11/07/thin-model-issue-part-1-thesis-research-on-models-health/. I quote:


"CONCLUSIONS
Results from this study suggest that, despite being significantly taller and weighing significantly less, fashion models do not have higher rates of disordered eating behaviour than their non-model peers; they do, however have higher general self-esteem. Contrary to popular stereotypes the findings suggest that the modelling population is not a high-risk group for eating disorders."

[ving]

bill henson... isnt he that muppet guy? ;)

[Kym]

@ving - that would be Jim Henson. BTW Kermit was usually nekked !!

[ving]

true that! nekked frogs do nothing for me. miss piggy tho! what a babe. :D

[ricktas]

I liked the two old farts in the theatre...now they would be interesting to photograph nude. Though maybe old people have to be protected as well, after all they could be suffering slight dementia and not in a position to consent or understand and it could be detrimental to them in future :D

[ElectricImages]

I liked the two old farts in the theatre...now they would be interesting to photograph nude. Though maybe old people have to be protected as well, after all they could be suffering slight dementia and not in a position to consent or understand and it could be detrimental to them in future :D

Bwaahahaha! XD

Kermit gets hit around by Miss Piggy a fair bit, he may suffer from shock, stress and amnesia and also be unable to give informed consent. And Miss Piggy's consent would mean nothing, 'cause if she wanted to take it back, you better not stop her. )

[Kym]

http://southern-courier.whereilive.com.au/lifestyle/story/fashion-week-call-to-end-dieting/


Eating disorders, including Anorexia Nervosa, Bulimia Nervosa and Binge Eating Disorder are not a lifestyle choice but are serious mental and physical illnesses that have very high suicide risk. Anorexia has a suicide rate 32 times higher than average
We know that the fashion / modelling industry has huge pressures re: body image and significantly higher numbers of people with eating disorders.

It's interesting that the article starts with
Australia’s fashion industry is being urged to say no to dieting and be more socially responsible in its promotion of models and fashion during Australian Fashion Week as part of International No Diet Day.

[ElectricImages]

http://southern-courier.whereilive.com.au/lifestyle/story/fashion-week-call-to-end-dieting/
We know that the fashion / modelling industry has huge pressures re: body image and significantly higher numbers of people with eating disorders.
It's interesting that the article starts with

Please refer to the academic research links provided above. What "we know" is not always the truth. Particularly since the media loves to perpetuate misconceptions, and ideally hype them so that they're even more sensational. There are multiple, independent, double-blind, peer-reviewed studies which have shown that models are just "unusually attractive, not unusually disordered".

Apparently, some people are just born thin and beautiful. *sigh* :)

[ving]

Statler and Waldorf appeared nakid in an episode once i am sure... it scared me for life!

[Kym]

One paper is not enough. Newsflash - not all academics have a clue or get it right.

There are counter views and research.
http://www.diet-blog.com/11/anorexic_model_dies_at_28_when_will_the_fashion_industry_get_it.php
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/poll-finds-women-unhappy-with-body-image-20100211-nto2.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-09-25-thin-models_x.htm

[ElectricImages]

One paper is not enough. Newsflash - not all academics have a clue or get it right.

If you follow the first link, you'll find a number of separate, independent academic works cited. To save you the trouble, here is that link again: http://www.belleiq.com/2008/11/22/thin-model-issue-part-2-previous-academic-research-on-models-health/. The second link was to the largest study of the frequency of eating disorders in models. Here's the methodology of that study:


METHODOLOGY
A total of 339 female models (professional fashion models) and female non-models (university students) participated in an anonymous online survey. Measures used in the online survey included the Eating Attitudes Test, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, Appearance Self-Esteem Scale, Physical Appearance Comparison Scale, and the Sociocultural Attitudes Towards Appearance Questionnaire. All of these tests are frequently used, validated, and sound psychological assessment tools. Upon completion of the data collection, statistical analyses were performed. Using SPSS 15.0, t tests, chi square tests, analyses of covariance, and correlation analyses were conducted.

Looks statistically valid to me. :p


There are counter views and research.
http://www.diet-blog.com/11/anorexic_model_dies_at_28_when_will_the_fashion_industry_get_it.php
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/poll-finds-women-unhappy-with-body-image-20100211-nto2.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-09-25-thin-models_x.htm

But none of those are research. And the last two articles aren't about models at all, they're about women in general being unhappy because they don't look like models. :p

Guess which demographic DOES have research showing a higher prevalence of eating disorders? Athletes (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B82X6-4HTMF65-3&_user=1526876&_origUdi=B82X6-4HTKDS4-1&_fmt=high&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2002&_rdoc=1&_orig=article&_origin=article&_zone=related_art&_acct=C000052220&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1526876&md5=9f4445081581e2b8331e519c5be34d03). Pretty conclusively (http://journals.lww.com/cjsportsmed/Abstract/2004/01000/Prevalence_of_Eating_Disorders_in_Elite_Athletes.5.aspx).

[WhoDo]

As for the "consequences" of modelling - I've provided a reference to academic, peer-reviewed research that found that the rate of full-blown eating disorders (anorexia and bulimia) in models was no worse than in the general population, and that models have higher self-esteem and were more likely to have a positive self-image. There's simply no evidence that models have a higher rate of fully-blown/fatal eating disorders or suicide than any other demographic.
Again I am drawn back into this debate by half-truths and skewed "facts".

The Hensen debate isn't about FASHION MODELS or EATING DISORDERS per se. It is about the potential consequences, largely emotional, of using under-age photographic models for nude studies when they are not sufficiently experienced to make an informed decision about their own involvement. Slipping in the word "suicide" as an afterthought to your own unrelated research is disingenuous in my opinion.

A better analogy might be to the consequences of juvenile females being exposed by the sharing of naked images over mobile phones! The issue is one of the mental trauma that results when the subject realises what has happened. True, Hensen doesn't take poor quality, semi-pornographic images and publish them via the telecommunications system. That said, the consequences for his under-aged models may well be analogous. As far as I'm aware no-one has actually done any research on that aspect of his work. Just because no-one has complained doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. For example, systematic abuse in the work place often goes unreported for years before one brave soul speaks out and starts an avalanche of "me too" reports! Just ask the Catholic Church about that if you need confirmation (no pun intended).

Victims of emotional trauma and abuse may take a lifetime to finally admit the consequences for them, and some NEVER will! That doesn't mean it didn't happen! it also doesn't mean we shouldn't exercise some care about foreseeable risks to prevent it from happening!

[soulman]

But none of those are research. And the last two articles aren't about models at all...Indeed. And none of it bears the slightest relevance to Henson, or his subjects, who are not fashion models.

[ElectricImages]

Again I am drawn back into this debate by half-truths and skewed "facts".

The Hensen debate isn't about FASHION MODELS or EATING DISORDERS per se. It is about the potential consequences, largely emotional, of using under-age photographic models for nude studies when they are not sufficiently experienced to make an informed decision about their own involvement. Slipping in the word "suicide" as an afterthought to your own unrelated research is disingenuous in my opinion.

If you read the thread, you'll find that the threat of suicide, eating disorders, and what have you is raised by people who think modelling is harmful, around Post #40 (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?81493-Bill-Henson-...-again&p=820073#post820073) in this thread. It wasn't raised by me, but I've been compelled to respond because the claims about modelling were erroneous.

I've already addressed the question of informed consent with regards to young models elsewhere.


A better analogy might be to the consequences of juvenile females being exposed by the sharing of naked images over mobile phones! The issue is one of the mental trauma that results when the subject realises what has happened. True, Hensen doesn't take poor quality, semi-pornographic images and publish them via the telecommunications system. That said, the consequences for his under-aged models may well be analogous. As far as I'm aware no-one has actually done any research on that aspect of his work. Just because no-one has complained doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. For example, systematic abuse in the work place often goes unreported for years before one brave soul speaks out and starts an avalanche of "me too" reports! Just ask the Catholic Church about that if you need confirmation (no pun intended).

Victims of emotional trauma and abuse may take a lifetime to finally admit the consequences for them, and some NEVER will! That doesn't mean it didn't happen! it also doesn't mean we shouldn't exercise some care about foreseeable risks to prevent it from happening!

The crux of your argument appears to be based on the following:

"potential consequences, largely emotional"
"the consequences for his under-aged models may well be analogous [to girls putting their scantily clad images on Facebook]"
"Just because no-one has complained doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist"

All of this is supposition, without any evidence. If you're such a fan of "facts" and "truth," well the truth is that not one of Henson's dozens of models has ever come forward to complain about mistreatment or exploitation in the course of his 30-year career. All this despite the massive media and political firestorms that whip everyone up into a self-righteous fury every few years. :p

While you're speculating about problems that might or might not exist - if there "might be problems" with everything, that simply haven't been reported, you may as well ban children from every activity in life until they turn 18, except the basics of eating, drinking, and sleeping. Except that that regime could have potential consequences, largely emotional, too, I suspect.

Wrapping kids up in cotton wool and not allowing them to take responsibility and make decisions is what is wrong with raising children today in the first place. :p Children become teenagers or young adults and make BAD decisions, and people are SO SURPRISED that children who have had all the decisions made for them for years and years and who have been "protected" from anything with "potential consequences" have no ability to make good decisions later in life.

Education is the answer. These "protections" are a gilded birdcage, and they may let nothing in , but they never let the child out either.

[WhoDo]

All of this is supposition, without any evidence.
Exactly, because as you yourself said "there is no evidence". Does that mean there is no risk? Absolutely NOT!


If you're such a fan of "facts" and "truth," well the truth is that not one of Henson's dozens of models has ever come forward to complain about mistreatment or exploitation in the course of his 30-year career. All this despite the massive media and political firestorms that whip everyone up into a self-righteous fury every few years. :p
No, YOU are the one claiming your position has the support of facts, research and evidence. I don't see any that is relevant to the question at hand. Just a lot of interpolation from other areas. I have spoken all along about unacceptable RISK. Nothing you've written convinces me otherwise.


While you're speculating about problems that might or might not exist - if there "might be problems" with everything, that simply haven't been reported, you may as well ban children from every activity in life until they turn 18, except the basics of eating, drinking, and sleeping. Except that that regime could have potential consequences, largely emotional, too, I suspect.

Wrapping kids up in cotton wool and not allowing them to take responsibility and make decisions is what is wrong with raising children today in the first place. :p Children become teenagers or young adults and make BAD decisions, and people are SO SURPRISED that children who have had all the decisions made for them for years and years and who have been "protected" from anything with "potential consequences" have no ability to make good decisions later in life.
Emotive over-statement. I have suggested nothing of the kind. I have simply suggested that exposing 12 year olds to Hensen's art poses a high RISK. I'm not prepared to take that risk. Apparently you are ... until, that is, it is your son or daughter for whom you are making a potentially life-changing decision. I hope your conscience will always remain free of any personal recriminations over that choice.


Education is the answer. These "protections" are a gilded birdcage, and they may let nothing in , but they never let the child out either.

More emotive argument. It is a poor strategy in debate to set your own parameters and argue to those rather than addressing the original parameters of the opposing view. * removed, members are entitled to an opinion that differs to your own, attacking them for that opinion is not on* Don't answer; it was a rhetorical question only.

PS. By all means have the last word in this exchange. It evidently seems important to you and it certainly isn't to me. Cheers.

[Kym]

Closed before it gets personal.

There are clearly varying views that won't change and I can't see any more value in the discussion.

[ving]

kermit rules! :p