you cant be serious.....

I was shocked when I heard the news that the Bill Henson exhibition had been closed on grounds of child pornography. I personally think his...

I was shocked when I heard the news that the Bill Henson exhibition had been closed on grounds of child pornography. I personally think his work is brilliant, and not phonographic at all.

What do you think?

edit: Well is seems that the controversial pictures have been removed. A statement on the gallery website says...

"After much consideration we have decided to withdraw a number of works from the current Bill Henson exhibition that have attracted controversy. The current show, without the said works, will be re-opened for viewing in coming days."

You Might Also Like


  1. I heard about seems pretty over the top because I doubt his intention was to exploit his models in a pornographic context. The images are a little bit risque - but isn't most art? Everything is so politically correct these days...I hate censorship.

  2. "Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has said the images are "revolting" and have no artistic value."

    Who is he to say that? Is he an art historian or an artist, no he is a politician. Since when did politicians have an in depth undertsaning of the values of all forms of art?

    I think it's bullshit, people are to damn conservative.


  3. Personally I haven't seen the images, but I don't understand why we would need to see young girls or boys even, naked anyway. Yes, I agree art is meant to shock and deliver a message (not sure what it is here though), but are children of that age really capable of making a mature decision to pose naked, and is it a parent's right to make that decision? Children need our protection, and it may not have been the artist's vision for these images to be abused, but he can't control how they are used by certain sick individuals. My opinion only. Thanks Daydream Lily for putting it out there.

  4. I think it's an overreaction for sure. If it were a shot for playboy then more than fine. But for the work of such an artist, who is all about the exploration of the body in its natural and emotive form, the image is far from explicit.

    Sally Mann photographed her children in the same context. She was documenting how they naturally behaved and dressed (or lack of) yet she has been criticised for exploiting them.

    This is definitely a case of censorship. They've raised more of an issue by drawing media attention to it. A naked girl in the media is alot different to a naked girl in a gallery.

  5. It is definately a over reaction - however it was bound to happen. In this day and age where everyone is paranoid about pedophiles coming to snatch your kids up there was no way he could have exhibited those images without a public backlash.

    Unfortunatly this is the way society is these days - we look for the bad in everything.

  6. Personally, I think that there cannot be enough censorship when it comes to protecting our children. The images are unneccessary. We dont need to see what 13 year old girls look like, naked. Gaugin was a famous artist who painted images of young girls. He was a paedophile. I'm not saying this guy is, but why would you want to take and display images of children in the nude? We know children are beautiful, I think to call this pornographic is to send us down the wrong road. It is just wrong, full stop. Art needs to have some responsibility, it is not outside the law just because it is art. I'm sorry if this seems like a rant but, hey, you did ask : )


Flickr Images