Pornography or Art?

The art world are releasing a flood of words that seek to justify Bill Hensen taking and displaying photos of nude girls. Others are shouting ‘Pornography’ and even Rudd doesn’t like the pics (or he sees some votes in taking a public stand against them)

……Prime Minister Kevin Rudd described the works as “revolting” and devoid of artistic merit, the art community has come out strongly on the side of Henson, rejecting the accusation that his works are pornographic.

Put simply, it is morally wrong and illegal to take photos of naked children and display them. Calling it art doesn’t change the law or nullify the moral status and anyone suggesting that it does is simply giving us an insight as to why there is a disconnect between artists and the rest of us. The fact that Hensen might be charged and that commentators have suggested it would be difficult to gain a conviction likewise doesn’t change the status of the act; it simply reflects on a legal system that places legal point and counterpoint above justice. More poor taste in a poor taste week UPDATE: ACTRESS Cate Blanchett and other prominent Australians who attended Kevin Rudd’s 2020 Summit have backed controversial photographer Bill Henson, saying charging him would damage Australia’s cultural reputation. Well they would, wouldn’t they? It’s their style.

The letter, whose signatories also include writer Peter Goldsworthy, playwright Michael Gow, journalist and broadcaster Marieke Hardy, film maker Ana Kokkinos and economist Saul Eslake, said Henson was being subject to trial by media.

The Art world stand just doesn’t make sense to me. If I, or even Cate Blanchet had nude photos of children on our respective computers we could be charged with an offence if the pics were discovered. It’s not about art, censorship, trial by media or us terrible conservatives getting our way and I don’t care if Bill gets charged or not but I do care that we apply the same standards of law right across society. It is simply about the law.