That's horrible. Just because the dude is a photography doesn't mean the stuff aren't child pornography. Heck, then all the perverts will get so degrees and say, "Well, they naked girls & boys aren't dirty...they're art." What an ass!
And love the comment about Joe Jonas, LOL. I think if you were a 13 year old, maybe Nick Jonas would be more likely^_~
We're more aware know of how many child predators there are out there, so no one should be putting naked children out for the public consumption and calling it "art". Most people who like it are pedophiles. The parents and the the artist shoul be punished and Cate should shut her ugly mouth.
Just once, just once, I would like to read an article where an actress I like(d) would say something like: I strongly support legislation that mandates that child porn photographers be pulled apart by wild wolves. And then eaten by said wolves. And then shat out by aforementioned wolves.
I believe where she was going with her comments is that it would be far more damaging to the children to have this case go public and have their identities revealed in association with this case. She does not argue that the photographs are inappropriate, however she does believe that it is not in the best interest of those involved to slander the artist thereby making the subjects mor vulnerable. I believe she is speaking as a mother and is protecting the children involved. Were the matter to dissolve, as she and the others are suggesting, the ill-advised children, who posed with the permission of the parents, would be better protected. She did not mention that she would like to see the "art" on display, I think it is a given that she would prefer it to quietly go away, protecting all those involved. Given parental permission given and the willingness of the children...it is art. It is also in the eye of the beholder to judge what they find offensive. Much like in the Miley Cyrus shoot, it was not offensive until those words were spoken against it. I think you're all being harsh on her, she's defending the children in a manner less offensive to them than this person is willing to take.
I knew some clueless art fags would be defending this bitch soon. The parents were wrong for subjecting their children to this, the photographer was wrong for taking the pictures. It is what it is. They all deserve punishment.
HAHAHAHA @ anon 10:04. I'm Chris Hansen from Dateline NBC. What's in the bag? I can't believe that stupid tramp said that. I guess I just don't get what makes actors and other celebritards think anyone values their political opinions anyway. What a douchnozzle.
Didn't that guy who played the principal in Ferris Bueller's Day Off get arrested for this same thing? He took pics of naked boys and tried to call them art too. Sick.
jesus christ! are you people even aware of the fact that to be photographed or videoed that you need to SIGN A RELEASE FORM, and that if you are underage, YOUR PARENTS NEED TO SIGN?
FFS he's not selling these photos to 'teen beaver' magazine under false pretenses.
fucking christ, you people are reactionary idiots. ever taken a picture of your kid in the tub? good. i'm turning you in to the intarwebz police.
This is to all of Hollywood...Shut Up and quit thinking we really care what you think. Just because you put out movies you think we care about you? Just because you get your pictures taken you think we care about you? Nope we are just waiting for you to die and find out what you all were really like...big dumb assholes!!
Shut up look pretty and make pretend shit so that we real people who work for a living can watch your mindless works!!!
Celebs really need to get a clue or have some real people around them so they can quit acting like they know something...you know we could make good money out there telling them what they should or shouldn't say and she really should not of said this!!!
hey 10:23, i'm not defending cate blanchett, i'm defending the ARTIST. whose photos hang in galleries and not on locker room walls. spare me your faux indignance, because i'm sure you would have jerked it to pictures of lilo when she was underage too. by the way, i'm a chick, so you're wrong on the fag talk, thanks.
I know that art to an extent is considered sacred but this is crossing the line for me. I cannot understand for the life of me why a grown man feels like he MUST, without question use underage girls to complete his vision. He couldn't use an 18 year old? Really? I think it's sick and disturbing and Cate Blanchett is a moron for even uttering one word in defense for this guy. You know that she thinks her opinion has more bearing on the situation too. The reality is that she's fucking herself over.
And any parents that would give their consent to something like this are lowlife scum.
i doubt you will be able to comprehend anything either man is saying though, so maybe you should skip the youtube.
it's really sickening. you all sound like sheep who can't think for yourselves. give yourself a nice pat on the back for it, i'm out. this is disgusting. i'm willing ton bet cold hard cash that not a one of you has ever even seen anything the guy's done and you sit behind your monitors talking the most absolute and utter shit.
galley, go play with your arthouse fag friends and brag about all your art knowledge with them. We really don't give a fuck about your opinions of this pedo.
Charles Manson and John Wayne Gasey's "art" has also sold for millions, it doesn't mean I have to like it or respect the "artist". Go fuck yourself, galley.
If any of you know any children who've been victimized you'll understand why this type of "art" is not necessary. Children are beautiful, and they're just as beautiful clothed if you're using them for exhibits. Children need to be protected, not exploited. What this man has done is exploit children for his own financial gain and fame. I do not think he would do the same if these were his children and Cate would not allow her children to be the subjects of these photographs either.
The article galley cited is interesting if only for the final paragraphs...
"While Henson made efforts to ensure that his young subjects and their parents were comfortable and informed, child advocates say no one can consent to such a practice.
"It is clear from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child that parents do not have the right to make that decision on behalf of their children," the chief executive of Child Wise, Bernadette McMenamin, said.
"And children, at the age of 12, 13 or 14, do not have the experience or the understanding to make an informed consent. They don't understand how those images will be used or re-used. When they're 18 or 20 or 30 they may look back and say, 'My god, I made a mistake.' ""
So, If parents can't make decisions about their children, and the children can't make decisions, children are the property of the UN, I suppose.
I know better than to enter an Art vs Porn debate on this site, but I thought it amusing that the Right Wing types on here were siding with the UN.
"Given parental permission given and the willingness of the children...it is art. It is also in the eye of the beholder to judge what they find offensive. Much like in the Miley Cyrus shoot, it was not offensive until those words were spoken against it"
THE WILLINGNESS OF THE CHILDREN?! Seriously, do you have kids? Most kids do what you say. You tell a little kid to do something, they'll do it. They have no idea if someone is asking something truly unsavory. Plus, these Parents of the Year who urge their 13 year olds to strip down for "art"... truly awful.
As for "eye of the beholder" - yes, true, not everyone is going to find naked, unconscious 13 year olds offensive. But it seems like there are two categories to those folk: artsy moral relativists, and pedophiles.
There's nothing wrong with trying to help protect kids from irreversible harm if their parents are unwilling to do so. Dina Lohan is the perfect example of someone who whores her kids for fame and money. There are lots of Dina Lohans all over the world. Parents whore their kids and the kids aren't allowed to say no.
Galley went to see and hear what he had to say and watched this video. Like this guy is art so is Playboy and Playgirl and Hustler and Penthouse. They are all pics of naked people. I personally feel this is gross and I would never allow my child to pose for a person that would use this in an art show. As an adult we can all make our own choices. Allow your art subjects to grow up first and then allow them to pose naked for him. 18 to 21 and older I personally feel that is still young but they are looked at and treated as adults by then so fine wait until then but do NOT tell me that this is the same as taking a picture of my kids in the bath tub...because I can say that I personally stopped that at 1 year that showed anything...anyway. I have pics of my son in bubbles but you cannot see his parts. I am a mother I am a woman and I would not allow for that to happen to my children!! NEVER!!! That does not make me warped or closed minded it makes me a MOM!!
I know that art to an extent is considered sacred but this is crossing the line for me. I cannot understand for the life of me why a grown man feels like he MUST, without question use underage girls to complete his vision. He couldn't use an 18 year old?
i wonder how many of the commenters above have even seen the photos. I wonder if they're really any different than the "child porn" photos taken of some of the world's top (and often underage) fashion models. Seriously, there is a line between art and porn. I haven't seen the photos either, but I have trouble believing that a world-wide respected photographer's photos of naked children are really the same Uncle Billy-Bob 's taken in the back of the garage.
Oh, and btw, isn't this the same website that posted the downblouse photo of Ashley Tisdale?
I'm not complaining, I'm just saying get off yer high horse, y'all.
Anon 11:36:17 is lying. I heard she has an exhibition of her son and a camp counselor named Lance taken when her kid was 12 and eager to please! You are a sick freak, madam!
IIRC, Galley was defending Tom Waits' voice in another recent thread. "LOOK AT ME, I LIKE INDIE ROCK". In other words, he/she is a faux hipster who pretends to be interested in things that make him/her seem cultured. Nothing to see here, you each probably know people just like this. Just ignore them and move on.
It's sad that men will never understand how young 13/14/15 year old girls really are, mostly emotionally. They're insecure, scared, confused, easily manipulated and victimized. All of you who defend people like this are disgusting.
ok , ill try, galley. Tom waits sucks, he always saucked, and ppl who like him suck.
As for your pedophile loving self- You seriously should reconsider some of your admiration towards this ahole henson. His photography is kiddish (no pun intended) and he-get this! -SUCKS AT IT.
"i love how i'm the only one signing their posts around here."
I love when retards play this card. Like typing in some one-word screen name will pierce the veil of anonymity. "Wow, Blingy Washington is really putting himself out there with that statement! His credibility in the world is destroyed!"
So galley thinks it's okay for a parent to decide that their child can pose naked for pictures. Because the guy taking them is such a great artist. What an idiot! If the parents think it's okay, then THEY should be the ones posing naked, not the kids. The kids are too young to be able to decide for themselves, and no one should be able to decide for them.
By fred - see, I signed my name galley! it's really me, fred!! i'm not anonymous..., on May 28, 2008 12:31:36
uh JMC dont bring the eurotrash's take on whats 'taboo' into this. Granted, Europes sexuality is more open and receiving, but i doubt the majority of europeans would agree with this sick fucks skewed perception of 'art' Im not brainwashed, im just not a perv.
I looked into this originally because I admire Blanchett and was sure she had been the victim of some terrible misunderstanding at most, or oversimplification at best. But this picture is appalling. It resembles to me a couple desperate to dump the body of a child they have taken advantage of.
can anyone, oh, i don't know--think for themselves around here? one person calls me a wannabe hipster, then everyone jumps on the bandwagon. one person calls me out for signing my name, then everyone starts moaning and crying about it.
'cheap ass ansel adams?' where do you see ansel adams in these pictures? please do fill me in, mr. art critic.
thanks for posting child victimization, 12:33:33. I seriously didnt need to see that.( i know you didnt force me to look, my morbid side wins sometimes) But it just further proves my point how lame of a photographer he is. Even if they were all consenting adults, the pic sucks.
@ galley: maybe you should have thought of that before you cast stones at everyone who reads this site and comments here. If they disagree with you they're closed minded idiots and conservative right wingers who don't appreciate art and suck at life right? diaf plz
Galleys Anus, I would think your farts smell like roses.
As for galley herself- dont dish it if you cant take it. You ironically stated whats wrong with yourself. YOU cant think for yourself. You most likely heard your lame art teacher, or some professer youre stalking taking up for this asshole, so you mirror his opinion on here, a site thats devoted to shining lights on celebs faults or fatass's. You really think ppl are going to 'jump on a bandwagon', to spite you? You have issues
12:48, i'll see your diaf and raise you, mmkay? i never called anyone a right winger or closed-minded, but i don't need to--your comments speak for themselves.
btw, the picture you're all moaning about is fifteen years old. and the federal govt. in australia gave him a grant to show it all over the country. if you have a real problem with all this then take it up with them--they've been giving him money for near on twenty years now.
Darling galley, Your defense is bullocks, and I instructed you to cease bloody stalking me. Get on the lift and leave me alone, you bloody whore. Love, Bill Henson
My dick is like Tom Waits: Performs like it was soaked in a vat of bourbon, left hanging in the smokehouse for a few months and then taken outside and run over with a car, but goddamn does it have a dedicated cult following. www.somethingawful.com sorry, i couldnt help posting this. dedicated to galley
I'm gonna hold off on getting all hellfire and brimstone until I actually see the pictures in question. Well, IF I ever see the pictures in question, which I probably won't. Meh, whatever.
what the fuck is wrong with you people thinkin that this is porn? do you even get the difference between nakedness and porn? naw im afraid you dont. if this was an oil painting and not a photograph you stupid fucks wouldnt care to waste your time on this discussion.
...and yes, i have actually been to this exhibition in 2005.
what the fuck is wrong with you people thinkin that this is porn? do you even get the difference between nakedness and porn? naw im afraid you dont. if this was an oil painting and not a photograph you stupid fucks wouldnt care to waste your time on this discussion. ======================== ======================== Most people who like these pictures and paintings are fetishists who get off on child porn, that's what wrong with them, and that's also what's wrong with people like you who don't understand that. You probably don't don't even know art history well enough to know oil paintings like that one are found all over Greek and Roman B.C. dated artwork which was considered erotica and most of it made sex objects of young children because young children were molested and raped by older men and many of them were family members.
There's nothing wrong with evolving and trying to draw a line between right and wrong. Let's try not to be savages.
uhhhh... have any of you actually SEEN Bill Henson's works??? he is a true visionary & an amazing artist. its not porn just because there's nudity!!!! the uncultured masses are always so quick to judge...
Google Bill Henson in Google Images with "safe search" off. LOL you'll get some not-so-pretty pictures. Looks like ol' Bill had a taste for caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack.
Looks like child porn to me. Even if you want to give Mr. Henson the benefit of the doubt, he could hv found/asked a youthful looking 19-20 yr old to pose for him...not use an actual child.
If you are 18 years of age and over and have all of your mental capacity, meaning not of low IQ as in Mentally Retarded, TAKE OFF YOUR CLOTHES AND BE PHOTOGRAPHED IF YOU WISH!!!
SORRY ,but anyone under 18 years of age unclothed ,etc. is CHILD PORN.
ART is a painting of flowers or a house ,and not 13 yrs. old kids!! Muther'fuck'n sicko!
CATE Blanchett has missed the mark in this support of this guy, andI AM SURE HER people(Layers ,Agents )will have her rethink and retract this BAD choice and bad public choice of hers ASAP!!! It is bad for her professionally . Take about the backlash she is going to get. THIS IS AWFUL TO SUPPORT ANY PICS OF TEENS ,KIDS ,ETC.
Wow galley, your all real CUNT. First you shoot your mouth off then you post a picture that isn't even the one in question. You know everything and your just soooo bitchin, like, don't cha know. Come down off your pedastal and feel the wrath of my rubber fist ounding your asshole.
If I had images on my computer hard drive similar to those "photos" taken by Henson, the motherfucking cops and the court system would throw the book at me. This shit is inappropriate, plain and simple.
omg 16:58 that should have a warning. it's not even legal to look at a pic like that in the u.s. that looks like a little girl scared and about to be raped. galley is a sick fuck.
i have to say what's already been said before. this guy is into exploiting youth. he's a sick fuck and should be punished like anyone else who poses children in this way. are some of you (galley) saying that we can take pictures of naked children as long as we call it art? or do we have to famous to do that
Why doesn't she give permission for the old perv take any pix's of her kids while they are alone with him huh? Then show them to us and say.. hey, it's art.
i think the pictures are an interesting study in female adolescence in the context of "art" but that doesn't make them any less disturbing. being a woman, these photos aren't the least bit arousing but they make me think about the awkwardness of adolescence and becoming award of your growing sexuality. unfortunately there are a lot of sick people in the world who are sexually aroused by pics like this. children and teens are vulnerable enough as it is when put in the public eye, add on to that the fact that they're naked, it seems kind of reckless. the pic of the two people carrying the naked girl is pretty disturbing, more so than the portrait.
btw, i don't agree with a lot of what "galley" said but you're a big fucking nerd if you think someone got owned on a comment board. go out and see some real art. and no, "manga" and "hentai" don't qualify as art.
ok, to me, celebrating a child's innocence and beauty (including with nudity)is a picture of a young one running naked outside on a summer's day, or of one freshly out of the bathtub, you know? exploiting children and promoting pedophilia is prepubscent girls, softly lit from behind, highlighting growing breasts with vacant looks in their eyes. see the difference? the other difference is parents having these photos in the family album, and parents signing forms to allow photographers to make money of their children's bodies, but that's a whole other story...
at the very least, he could've not shown their faces..."celebrate" the body or whatever, if you will, but at least leave the actual child out of it. even if they do one day grow up to regret it, it won't matter so much if you can't see their face, because who the hell knows it's them?
anon 21:18:08, anon 21:37:31 & anon 21:41:57; we know that's you galley. You DID get owned so again, STFU! Go away pedi and go listen to your MJ albums. Loser!
anon 21:41:57: even with the faces obscured--actually, ESPECIALLY with the faces obscured, i think it risks promoting the kids as nothing more than flesh, a body to be gazed at. it kind of acknowledges the fact that there is something that needs to be censored. it's like taking away the child's identity (literally & figuratively). it just advocates the many faceless victims of child abuse that exist. but i understand where you're coming from.
"galleyisnowanon" : that was my comment, not galley's. i didn't sign it anonymous. sorry if i offended you. go jerk off to your tomb raider games. i don't want to get owned on a message board, that'd be the worst thing ever since we're all using our real names here.
The photos were extremely disturbing and I'm very disappointed in Ms. Blanchette for taking the pervert's side. No way this is art but a poor and dangerous excuse as to promote his own fetish by endangering young kids and feasting on their vulnerability. Shame on you Kate, you're a mother.
There seems to be some very strange thing in our culture where suddenly taken pictures of young semi/naked children has become porn regardless of the photographers intentions. Images don't suddenly cause pedophilia to exist.
A naked child is a naked child. When the majority start thinking like the perverts then we have a problem.
Beauty and perversion is in the eye of the beholder. It's not in the child or the photograph what you see is a reflection of you. If you doubt this show the pictures to a child.
I feel sick after reading these comments. I opened the comments honestly expecting to hear people defending Bill Henson, not the ignorant comments above. Have any of you ever even seen his work? Obviously not... I cant believe how moronic people are, and how easily whipped into a hate frenzy they can be. I agree with Cate Blanchett's comments that this has damaged Australia's image. I cant believe what philestines you all are, it would be funny if it werent so depressing. I think the comment, "I always thought those muppets were creepy" from someone earlier says it all. Get a clue, you fucking idiot.
anon 21:18:08, anon 21:37:31 & anon 21:41:57; we know that's you galley. You DID get owned so again, STFU! Go away pedi and go listen to your MJ albums. Loser!
By galleyisnowanon, on May 28, 2008 22:02:44
yeah, um, im not galley either you stupid fuck...nice empty insults, by the way...they really detract from the fact that you have nothing intelligent to say on the subject
galleyisnowanon- did you even READ my post at 21:37:31? or are you really not capable of understanding it? because no where in there did i imply i was defending this man you stupid asshole, as a matter of fact i was AGREEING with you and everyone who's NOT galley....how stupid are you? try again, and maybe this time read a little slower:
ok, to me, celebrating a child's innocence and beauty (including with nudity)is a picture of a young one running naked outside on a summer's day, or of one freshly out of the bathtub, you know? exploiting children and promoting pedophilia is prepubscent girls, softly lit from behind, highlighting growing breasts with vacant looks in their eyes.the other difference is parents having these photos in the family album, and parents signing forms to allow photographers to make money of their children's bodies, but that's a whole other story...
i'm saying it's ok to take naked pics of your own young children and keeping them at home (like millions of people do) and taking pics of young sexually awkward girls meant to look "sexy" and publishing it for the world. i don't know how to make it any clearer for you that i'm obviously not a "pedi" since I TOO AM DISGUSTED by these pics....ignorant moron
When i see all the reactions of hypocritical puritans, i'm really happy, that i grew up in europe. When i was young, nobody thought, that naked = sex or porn. Sick people like the puritans here, screaming that halflighted naked young girl is porn, are the pedophiles. Because when they see the girl, they think about sex. If they would be normal, they would think about beauty of the human body. Sorry, but everyone who thinks those photos are porn should visit a sexologist, before it will be too late.
Louise, please tell me that this is your way of rebelling against 'tha philistanes' (i spelled how you prob say it hillbilly') and not your true opinion. Bill Hensons 'art' is horrendous, pompous, ill conceived BULLSHIT. and you advocate child porn, ya sick fuck.
Once she realizes what she signed, she'll probably recant. Liberal artist solidarity is never impartial, logical much less moral. Still love Kate as an actress, tho.
He could have easily used an older girl for that type of portrait, and anyway, his subjects don't make eye contact with the viewer, showing lack of emotional connection and vulnerability. So, I would say this is pretty pornographic, and the way he portrays his subjects is unacceptable. I hope someone does this to Cate Blanchett's children and defends it as art. Besides, parents can be disgusting sons-of-bitches, too--just because they OK'd it doesn't mean it's ok.
As an art student, I think this is pornographic and in any case inappropriate to the point of warranting legal punishment. Bruce is a name for guys who like push-up pops.
I got to get out of this freakin country before I start thinking like this. It's nudity not pornography! Get of your high horses. My experience is people so quick to judge and dam people have a little secret of their own!
Wow, the Euros and the hippies are really invading the thread. You can smell the lack of soap and deodorant from here.
All of you: shut the fuck up, stop being weird, and get jobs. Contribute something tangible to society, for once in your fucking lives.
Taking photos of a nude 4-year-old boy taking a shit and then complaining about the backlash is not helping anyone but your hairy, caustic, unwashed asses.
I love how everybody froths at the mouth over an uninspired, amateurish nude study that happens to include a younger person (whose age most people probably couldn't judge correctly from the picture anyway), but gives Chris Hansen a free pass to build his career around playing on people's fears about pedophilia even though his little "stings" have yielded few convictions.
I like Europe and I wash with oatmeal. Taking pictures of naked children is illegal for a reason. Some people call it art, some people get off on it. Either way, the law is there to protect kids, "artists" are not exempt.
I think ppl are confused about the issue here. It's not about whether his photos are art or not...no one disputes he is an artist and has been for a long time..regardless of who thinks he's good or not. Its about the exploitation of children based on some of his pics. I corrected Galley on the photo issue...the link i posted clearly shows the young girl is being sexualized...forget lighting and mood..look at the pic..clearly the make up is used to make her appear older..sexy...even the pose and lighting..total focus is on her budding breasts...and her face...i feel so much saddness for her when i look at this pic..she seems..sad, embarrassed and resigned. This photograph sends the wrong message about the sexualisation of children..it says it's ok..cool...acceptable...and its not. Children should be protected at all costs even for ART. Btw, I didnt post that link to offend or make anyone gang up on Galley. We, as adults, should be able to hv clear, open debates without resortng to name calling. That doesnt help to enlighten anyone.
"Taking pictures of naked children is illegal for a reason. Some people call it art, some people get off on it. Either way, the law is there to protect kids..."
Some people get off on infants, too, as sick as that may be. So why do I keep seeing babies' asses in advertisements?
After all, if you're not going to "protect" all of the children...
Not cool Cate. Not only should Mr. Henson recieve criminal charge against him but also the parents. These poor children. No child should be photographed naked ESPECIALLY for public viewing.
Oh jesus christ, so I misspelled "philistines". It was a fucking typo. I can see the irony in misspelling "philistines" (hilarious!), but i was so enraged by the ignorance of the people who have obviously not seen his work or have the first understanding of art that i couldnt type fast enough. Doing a spell check wasnt exactly my main concern.
You can't scar a banana emotionally for life, moron. You can go can to the store and buy a bunch of bananas to f-ck. You can tell people about it later and not get arrested for it (well, maybe in the Bible Belt...). Hardly a valid comparison.
I have serious doubts that a lot of you people who become rabid every time someone says "pedophilia" really care about children (with the possible exception of your own), anyway. It's a hot, "trendy" subject you can all gab about around the water cooler at work, or be entertained by in the evenings at home (thanks to his holiness Chris Hansen). It also gives you a flimsy legal pretense for possibly actually going out and lynching people! Won't that be fun?
A line may need to be drawn, but kneejerk, reactionary hotheads like you are not qualified to do it.
"I corrected Galley on the photo issue...the link i posted clearly shows the young girl is being sexualized...forget lighting and mood..look at the pic..clearly the make up is used to make her appear older..sexy...even the pose and lighting.. total focus is on her budding breasts...and her face...i feel so much saddness for her when i look at this pic..she seems..sad, embarrassed and resigned. This photograph sends the wrong message about the sexualisation of children..it says it's ok..cool...acceptable...and its not."
Thank you for sharing your OPINION. I'm sure we all enjoyed reading your OPINION. I also admire your apparent ability to read people's minds and tell others what they were thinking just by seeing them in a photograph. Amazing. You should get an act in Vegas.
Personally, I find it disturbing that you can look at a picture of what looks like two people carrying a corpse and find it sexual.
"ART is a painting of flowers or a house ,and not 13 yrs. old kids!! Muther'fuck'n sicko!"
Wow.... this is an open mind!
It is interesting how a lot of people here are getting all angry and mobish about pictures they haven't seen or if so, they see through their own TWISTED eyes! And then there is this process of transference on the artist and HIS perversness... somehow funny, somehow not.
I can't believe how hypocritical a lot of the posters are! A lot of girls are beginning to explore their sexuality in this age. I do not say it is good, but it is a fact, that the 13 year old "child" is a myth. And I don't think that 13 or even 16 year olds (or 30 year olds) can always understand the consequences of their actions. But I'm pretty sure they will learn from their experiences and develop. Unlike a lot of people here.....
So you people who protect "the parts" of your one year old baby (because it would be sooooo indecent to see your own child in your photoalbum naked...) or you, who think they have to tar and feather someone... think for a moment about one of the implications of art... you got provoked. He won!!!
um, you dont know what the fuck youre talking about, like the hordes of others screaming kiddie porn about an internationally acclaimed artist. If you or the rest of the pig ignorant moral majority (read neo-fascists) had actually seen Bill Henson's photographs, you wouldnt be weighing in on a campaign aimed at destroying a renowned artists career. Or maybe you are too dumb to tell the difference between art and child porn. Do you remember what Kurt Cobain said about the crazy assed Christians who wanted to censor the cover of Nevermind? At least Cate has actually seen the photos in question.
No, it wasn't. The "I" is not located near the "E" on your keyboard. You knowingly spelled the word with an "E", because you did not know how to spell the word. Without the help of spellcheck (a device which cloaks the stupidity of millions of people every day), you would have continued to spell the word with an "E". Therefore, it is not a typo as much as it is an act of ignorance. An ironic one, since you did refer to someone as an idiot in your post.
wow, so much has happened in my absence. i'm glad to see that there are some people out there with the capacity for critical thought posting in this thread now.
sad to say, but i honestly feel that if you find these pictures perverted or sick, then it says a lot about your state of mind.
why didn't it matter when thora birch was topless in american beauty? why does nudity = pornography to some of you? art is meant to make people think. score one for the artist.
people who are following this story might be interested to know that the girl in question in the photo in question refuses to speak to police, as does her family. could that possibly mean that they find this to be a witch-hunt as well? we'll see, i guess. in the meantime maybe some of you should gear up to do some book-burning, just to get rid of this excess anger you're carrying around. lolita's a good one for that, i hear. plus nabokov was russian, so you can fit the whole godless commie pinko act in there too, if you want.
oh, and ladyguitarstar? you didn't even know who the hell bill henson was before this post was made--as if you follow art and not the national enquirer to salivate over the latest pictures of brit-brit's fat ass.
People having a fit over this would consider book outlets like Amazon to be kiddie porn distributors for selling books by photographers Jock Sturges and David Hamilton.
Pictures of naked 13 year old girls shouldn't be in art exhibits. If you can't understand why it's inherently inappropriate in civilized Western culture then that's your problem.
Re: the people who have a problem with the Chris Hanson/Dateline "To Catch a Predator" series. Most charges have stuck and many of the people have been thrown in jail for an average of a minimum 4 years. If you don't like what this show is doing, then you're obviously one of the sick fucks trying to meet and have sex with kids.
@ galley: Nobody is impressed with your art knowledge. I fell asleep during all those classes in college and only took them because I needed to fill my course schedule with something easy. Easy A. Get off your fucking high horse about this photographer who isn't nearly as talented as his fans think he is and STFU. Next week this hack will probably have his own hour on HSN like Thomas Kinkade and what will you think then?
The pic u mentioned wasnt the pic i was referring to. I posted the link of ONE VERY YOUNG under-aged girl he photographed. I know it's difficult for you but try to keep track. You want to call that art, fine. To each his own. My point is the exploitaion of children for the sake of ART or anything.
So many ADULT women hv bodies like young girls..look at ellen page...Mr Henson could use them instead of ACTUAL CHILDREN...thats my point..i mean really when do we draw a line here? children should be protected at all cost. I still stand by that.
The art posers need to STFU, get a fucking life and stop trying to justify child porn just to feel relevent. You know as well as I that if you were indeed so enlightened with art, you wouldn't be here killing time on a celeb gossip site.
NUDITY DOES NOT EQUAL SEXUALISATION This is not about art you fucking morons, this is about you looking at a naked body and seeing it as sexual. This says more about you than it does about Bill Henson. Also, films=art, photography=art, therefore Cate Blanchett can say whatever the fuck she wants.
134 Comments:
Leave Your CommentThat story is disgusting, but I can't stop looking at that ugly dress. A belted gold trash bag? I hate this woman's clothes.
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 09:27:25
Cate, shut your cocksucker.
Thx
By skeets, on May 28, 2008 09:31:23
Cate Blanchett said whaaaat? WTF! Is there any end to Hollyweird's stupidity?
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 09:37:32
Absolutly disgusting. Celebrities should only make movies and keep their dumb opinions to themselves.
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 09:39:41
Let's see if she offers up her own kids for this guy's "art". I bet not.
By Santos, on May 28, 2008 09:40:44
That's horrible. Just because the dude is a photography doesn't mean the stuff aren't child pornography. Heck, then all the perverts will get so degrees and say, "Well, they naked girls & boys aren't dirty...they're art." What an ass!
And love the comment about Joe Jonas, LOL. I think if you were a 13 year old, maybe Nick Jonas would be more likely^_~
By Kate, on May 28, 2008 09:40:48
We're more aware know of how many child predators there are out there, so no one should be putting naked children out for the public consumption and calling it "art". Most people who like it are pedophiles. The parents and the the artist shoul be punished and Cate should shut her ugly mouth.
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 09:44:43
I'd bang that trashbag right off of her and the nonsense out of her head.
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 09:46:22
Didn't any of you see "Notes on a Scandal"? Obviously she's a pedophiliac. Boy oh boy though, she turned me on bangin that kid by the railroad tracks.
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 09:54:19
This bitch needs to shut the fuck up. Is she kidding me? Art my fucking ass.
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 10:03:40
Where is Chris Hansen and the 10 member tactical swat outside when you need them.
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 10:04:52
bill henson is actually a great photographer and i'm sure that none of you even know who the hell he is.
just a p.s.--he takes pictures of other stuff too! like, trees! and bridges! and like, um, the sky and twilight! dumbasses.
http://www.roslynoxley9.com.au/artists/18/Bill_Henson/
By galley, on May 28, 2008 10:16:36
Just once, just once, I would like to read an article where an actress I like(d) would say something like: I strongly support legislation that mandates that child porn photographers be pulled apart by wild wolves. And then eaten by said wolves. And then shat out by aforementioned wolves.
Why can't I read something like that? Ever? Sigh.
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 10:17:04
I believe where she was going with her comments is that it would be far more damaging to the children to have this case go public and have their identities revealed in association with this case. She does not argue that the photographs are inappropriate, however she does believe that it is not in the best interest of those involved to slander the artist thereby making the subjects mor vulnerable. I believe she is speaking as a mother and is protecting the children involved. Were the matter to dissolve, as she and the others are suggesting, the ill-advised children, who posed with the permission of the parents, would be better protected. She did not mention that she would like to see the "art" on display, I think it is a given that she would prefer it to quietly go away, protecting all those involved. Given parental permission given and the willingness of the children...it is art. It is also in the eye of the beholder to judge what they find offensive. Much like in the Miley Cyrus shoot, it was not offensive until those words were spoken against it. I think you're all being harsh on her, she's defending the children in a manner less offensive to them than this person is willing to take.
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 10:20:48
I knew some clueless art fags would be defending this bitch soon. The parents were wrong for subjecting their children to this, the photographer was wrong for taking the pictures. It is what it is. They all deserve punishment.
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 10:23:29
HAHAHAHA @ anon 10:04. I'm Chris Hansen from Dateline NBC. What's in the bag?
I can't believe that stupid tramp said that. I guess I just don't get what makes actors and other celebritards think anyone values their political opinions anyway. What a douchnozzle.
By pervertedeeyore, on May 28, 2008 10:24:13
Didn't that guy who played the principal in Ferris Bueller's Day Off get arrested for this same thing? He took pics of naked boys and tried to call them art too. Sick.
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 10:25:30
jesus christ! are you people even aware of the fact that to be photographed or videoed that you need to SIGN A RELEASE FORM, and that if you are underage, YOUR PARENTS NEED TO SIGN?
FFS he's not selling these photos to 'teen beaver' magazine under false pretenses.
fucking christ, you people are reactionary idiots. ever taken a picture of your kid in the tub? good. i'm turning you in to the intarwebz police.
By galley, on May 28, 2008 10:28:44
This is to all of Hollywood...Shut Up and quit thinking we really care what you think. Just because you put out movies you think we care about you? Just because you get your pictures taken you think we care about you? Nope we are just waiting for you to die and find out what you all were really like...big dumb assholes!!
Shut up look pretty and make pretend shit so that we real people who work for a living can watch your mindless works!!!
Celebs really need to get a clue or have some real people around them so they can quit acting like they know something...you know we could make good money out there telling them what they should or shouldn't say and she really should not of said this!!!
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 10:30:51
hey 10:23, i'm not defending cate blanchett, i'm defending the ARTIST. whose photos hang in galleries and not on locker room walls. spare me your faux indignance, because i'm sure you would have jerked it to pictures of lilo when she was underage too. by the way, i'm a chick, so you're wrong on the fag talk, thanks.
By galley, on May 28, 2008 10:34:20
"Where is Chris Hansen and the 10 member tactical swat outside when you need them."
Those fat cops that rush in afterwards are a "tactical swat team"? Those camera-hungry pigs are barely fit to storm a Waffle House.
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 10:51:11
I know that art to an extent is considered sacred but this is crossing the line for me. I cannot understand for the life of me why a grown man feels like he MUST, without question use underage girls to complete his vision. He couldn't use an 18 year old? Really? I think it's sick and disturbing and Cate Blanchett is a moron for even uttering one word in defense for this guy. You know that she thinks her opinion has more bearing on the situation too. The reality is that she's fucking herself over.
And any parents that would give their consent to something like this are lowlife scum.
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 10:52:22
Wow, a rich, pretty, successful girl who wouldn't even get mad if she found your stash of child porn. This girl is perfect.
By That guy sat right over there, on May 28, 2008 10:53:48
http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/ive-no-regrets-about-posing-for-picture/2008/05/25/1211653846181.html
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=re28HkN39MQ
i doubt you will be able to comprehend anything either man is saying though, so maybe you should skip the youtube.
it's really sickening. you all sound like sheep who can't think for yourselves. give yourself a nice pat on the back for it, i'm out. this is disgusting. i'm willing ton bet cold hard cash that not a one of you has ever even seen anything the guy's done and you sit behind your monitors talking the most absolute and utter shit.
By galley, on May 28, 2008 11:07:50
galley, go play with your arthouse fag friends and brag about all your art knowledge with them. We really don't give a fuck about your opinions of this pedo.
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 11:11:04
Charles Manson and John Wayne Gasey's "art" has also sold for millions, it doesn't mean I have to like it or respect the "artist". Go fuck yourself, galley.
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 11:13:22
It's hard to say without seeing the context of the pictures. Remember how people blew the Milly Cyrus picture out of proportion?
But more importantly, I'd like to carry round Cate Blanchett while she's naked and unconscious.
By thebig28, on May 28, 2008 11:13:53
ooh black and white pics of naked kids. how artistic and edgy! what a hack that guy is.
btw, miley's pics weren't blown out of proportion she's too young to be in such provocative pics. that's her daddy's fault.
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 11:17:29
If any of you know any children who've been victimized you'll understand why this type of "art" is not necessary. Children are beautiful, and they're just as beautiful clothed if you're using them for exhibits. Children need to be protected, not exploited. What this man has done is exploit children for his own financial gain and fame. I do not think he would do the same if these were his children and Cate would not allow her children to be the subjects of these photographs either.
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 11:24:43
The article galley cited is interesting if only for the final paragraphs...
"While Henson made efforts to ensure that his young subjects and their parents were comfortable and informed, child advocates say no one can consent to such a practice.
"It is clear from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child that parents do not have the right to make that decision on behalf of their children," the chief executive of Child Wise, Bernadette McMenamin, said.
"And children, at the age of 12, 13 or 14, do not have the experience or the understanding to make an informed consent. They don't understand how those images will be used or re-used. When they're 18 or 20 or 30 they may look back and say, 'My god, I made a mistake.' ""
So, If parents can't make decisions about their children, and the children can't make decisions, children are the property of the UN, I suppose.
I know better than to enter an Art vs Porn debate on this site, but I thought it amusing that the Right Wing types on here were siding with the UN.
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 11:28:39
"Given parental permission given and the willingness of the children...it is art. It is also in the eye of the beholder to judge what they find offensive. Much like in the Miley Cyrus shoot, it was not offensive until those words were spoken against it"
THE WILLINGNESS OF THE CHILDREN?! Seriously, do you have kids? Most kids do what you say. You tell a little kid to do something, they'll do it. They have no idea if someone is asking something truly unsavory. Plus, these Parents of the Year who urge their 13 year olds to strip down for "art"... truly awful.
As for "eye of the beholder" - yes, true, not everyone is going to find naked, unconscious 13 year olds offensive. But it seems like there are two categories to those folk: artsy moral relativists, and pedophiles.
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 11:32:59
There's nothing wrong with trying to help protect kids from irreversible harm if their parents are unwilling to do so. Dina Lohan is the perfect example of someone who whores her kids for fame and money. There are lots of Dina Lohans all over the world. Parents whore their kids and the kids aren't allowed to say no.
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 11:34:35
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=91oIvd1NRNQ&feature=related
Galley went to see and hear what he had to say and watched this video. Like this guy is art so is Playboy and Playgirl and Hustler and Penthouse. They are all pics of naked people. I personally feel this is gross and I would never allow my child to pose for a person that would use this in an art show. As an adult we can all make our own choices. Allow your art subjects to grow up first and then allow them to pose naked for him. 18 to 21 and older I personally feel that is still young but they are looked at and treated as adults by then so fine wait until then but do NOT tell me that this is the same as taking a picture of my kids in the bath tub...because I can say that I personally stopped that at 1 year that showed anything...anyway. I have pics of my son in bubbles but you cannot see his parts. I am a mother I am a woman and I would not allow for that to happen to my children!! NEVER!!! That does not make me warped or closed minded it makes me a MOM!!
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 11:36:17
I know that art to an extent is considered sacred but this is crossing the line for me. I cannot understand for the life of me why a grown man feels like he MUST, without question use underage girls to complete his vision. He couldn't use an 18 year old?
I agree with you. Thank you.
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 11:41:10
i wonder how many of the commenters above have even seen the photos. I wonder if they're really any different than the "child porn" photos taken of some of the world's top (and often underage) fashion models. Seriously, there is a line between art and porn. I haven't seen the photos either, but I have trouble believing that a world-wide respected photographer's photos of naked children are really the same Uncle Billy-Bob 's taken in the back of the garage.
Oh, and btw, isn't this the same website that posted the downblouse photo of Ashley Tisdale?
I'm not complaining, I'm just saying get off yer high horse, y'all.
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 11:43:36
Anon 11:36:17 is lying. I heard she has an exhibition of her son and a camp counselor named Lance taken when her kid was 12 and eager to please! You are a sick freak, madam!
By Spike, on May 28, 2008 11:44:38
IIRC, Galley was defending Tom Waits' voice in another recent thread. "LOOK AT ME, I LIKE INDIE ROCK". In other words, he/she is a faux hipster who pretends to be interested in things that make him/her seem cultured. Nothing to see here, you each probably know people just like this. Just ignore them and move on.
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 11:44:51
It's sad that men will never understand how young 13/14/15 year old girls really are, mostly emotionally. They're insecure, scared, confused, easily manipulated and victimized. All of you who defend people like this are disgusting.
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 11:46:37
I always thought those damn muppets were creepy!
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 11:56:28
just because she sucked a lot of cock to get where she are,
doesn't mean its ok for everyone else to
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 12:00:27
um, tom waits is not indie rock and yes, i do like him and have done since i was about 20. try again. asshole.
By galley, on May 28, 2008 12:09:55
p.s.
I have pics of my son in bubbles but you cannot see his parts.
really, 11:36:17? now who sounds like a sicko? his parts? wtf are you talking about? i love how i'm the only one signing their posts around here.
By galley, on May 28, 2008 12:14:56
ok , ill try, galley.
Tom waits sucks, he always saucked, and ppl who like him suck.
As for your pedophile loving self- You seriously should reconsider some of your admiration towards this ahole henson. His photography is kiddish (no pun intended) and he-get this! -SUCKS AT IT.
By ladyguitarstar, on May 28, 2008 12:24:05
"i love how i'm the only one signing their posts around here."
I love when retards play this card. Like typing in some one-word screen name will pierce the veil of anonymity. "Wow, Blingy Washington is really putting himself out there with that statement! His credibility in the world is destroyed!"
I love you Galley. Keep posting, please.
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 12:24:49
I came 3 times already reading your replies to me. Please keep going. It's better than my collection of child porn.
By galley, on May 28, 2008 12:26:45
Galley!
get over it you dumb cunt! no one agrees with you, besides other hipster wannabes
-ladyguitarstar
By i signed my name! now what , on May 28, 2008 12:26:47
Maybe you "personally" feel that way because that's what this society has brainwashed you into.
In Europe this wouldn't phase anyone. Sex and the human body has become so distorted because it's such a "taboo."
By JMC, on May 28, 2008 12:29:15
lol 12:24:45
seriously, what the hell do they think signing a dumb penname is? Brave? ooh shes not scared to tell us her fake webname!! *gasp*
By ladyguitarstar, on May 28, 2008 12:29:36
This guy is a cheap ass Ansel Adams. hack hack hack
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 12:31:15
So galley thinks it's okay for a parent to decide that their child can pose naked for pictures. Because the guy taking them is such a great artist. What an idiot! If the parents think it's okay, then THEY should be the ones posing naked, not the kids. The kids are too young to be able to decide for themselves, and no one should be able to decide for them.
By fred - see, I signed my name galley! it's really me, fred!! i'm not anonymous..., on May 28, 2008 12:31:36
"In Europe this wouldn't phase anyone."
Due to the high concentration of homos there.
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 12:32:05
uh JMC dont bring the eurotrash's take on whats 'taboo' into this. Granted, Europes sexuality is more open and receiving, but i doubt the majority of europeans would agree with this sick fucks skewed perception of 'art'
Im not brainwashed, im just not a perv.
By ladyguitarstar, on May 28, 2008 12:33:08
THIS is the picture;
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/arts/deepend/features/gallery/gallery2005/img/artworks/henson_big.jpg
I looked into this originally because I admire Blanchett and was sure she had been the victim of some terrible misunderstanding at most, or oversimplification at best. But this picture is appalling. It resembles to me a couple desperate to dump the body of a child they have taken advantage of.
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 12:33:33
lmao 12:32:05
By ladyguitarstar, on May 28, 2008 12:34:51
can anyone, oh, i don't know--think for themselves around here? one person calls me a wannabe hipster, then everyone jumps on the bandwagon. one person calls me out for signing my name, then everyone starts moaning and crying about it.
'cheap ass ansel adams?' where do you see ansel adams in these pictures? please do fill me in, mr. art critic.
By galley, on May 28, 2008 12:38:40
thanks for posting child victimization, 12:33:33. I seriously didnt need to see that.( i know you didnt force me to look, my morbid side wins sometimes) But it just further proves my point how lame of a photographer he is. Even if they were all consenting adults, the pic sucks.
By ladyguitarstar, on May 28, 2008 12:39:10
I mold my turds into a perfectly symmetric coil the shape of the Gugenheim museum.
I fart to the tune of Husker Du songs, and my farts smell like the velvet ropes in the Louvre.
I am better than everyone here.
By Galley's Anus, on May 28, 2008 12:41:01
@ galley: maybe you should have thought of that before you cast stones at everyone who reads this site and comments here. If they disagree with you they're closed minded idiots and conservative right wingers who don't appreciate art and suck at life right? diaf plz
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 12:48:21
Galleys Anus,
I would think your farts smell like roses.
As for galley herself- dont dish it if you cant take it. You ironically stated whats wrong with yourself. YOU cant think for yourself. You most likely heard your lame art teacher, or some professer youre stalking taking up for this asshole, so you mirror his opinion on here, a site thats devoted to shining lights on celebs faults or fatass's. You really think ppl are going to 'jump on a bandwagon', to spite you? You have issues
By ladyguitarstar, on May 28, 2008 12:54:42
12:48, i'll see your diaf and raise you, mmkay? i never called anyone a right winger or closed-minded, but i don't need to--your comments speak for themselves.
btw, the picture you're all moaning about is fifteen years old. and the federal govt. in australia gave him a grant to show it all over the country. if you have a real problem with all this then take it up with them--they've been giving him money for near on twenty years now.
By galley, on May 28, 2008 12:58:25
wow. you seriously are an idiot, galley
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 13:00:37
Darling galley, Your defense is bullocks, and I instructed you to cease bloody stalking me. Get on the lift and leave me alone, you bloody whore. Love, Bill Henson
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 13:04:20
My dick is like Tom Waits: Performs like it was soaked in a vat of bourbon, left hanging in the smokehouse for a few months and then taken outside and run over with a car, but goddamn does it have a dedicated cult following. www.somethingawful.com sorry, i couldnt help posting this. dedicated to galley
By ladyguitarstar, on May 28, 2008 13:21:53
I'm gonna hold off on getting all hellfire and brimstone until I actually see the pictures in question. Well, IF I ever see the pictures in question, which I probably won't. Meh, whatever.
By Ashley, on May 28, 2008 13:30:06
what the fuck is wrong with you people thinkin that this is porn? do you even get the difference between nakedness and porn? naw im afraid you dont. if this was an oil painting and not a photograph you stupid fucks wouldnt care to waste your time on this discussion.
...and yes, i have actually been to this exhibition in 2005.
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 13:43:13
what the fuck is wrong with you people thinkin that this is porn? do you even get the difference between nakedness and porn? naw im afraid you dont. if this was an oil painting and not a photograph you stupid fucks wouldnt care to waste your time on this discussion.
========================
========================
Most people who like these pictures and paintings are fetishists who get off on child porn, that's what wrong with them, and that's also what's wrong with people like you who don't understand that. You probably don't don't even know art history well enough to know oil paintings like that one are found all over Greek and Roman B.C. dated artwork which was considered erotica and most of it made sex objects of young children because young children were molested and raped by older men and many of them were family members.
There's nothing wrong with evolving and trying to draw a line between right and wrong. Let's try not to be savages.
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 13:54:33
I've got caca :(
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 14:26:18
uhhhh...
have any of you actually
SEEN Bill Henson's works???
he is a true visionary & an amazing
artist. its not porn just because there's
nudity!!!! the uncultured masses are always so
quick to judge...
By absinthe78, on May 28, 2008 14:35:47
^ not poetry. FAIL.
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 15:16:57
Google Bill Henson in Google Images with "safe search" off. LOL you'll get some not-so-pretty pictures. Looks like ol' Bill had a taste for caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack.
By There's more to Bill Henson than meets the eye!, on May 28, 2008 15:43:30
I'm desperately hoping that the post up there by "absinthe78" is an ironic joke.
By people who use phrases like "uncultured masses" are just sheep who happen to smoke clove ciggies, on May 28, 2008 16:04:35
I know! Let's just get Joe Jonas naked and unconscious! No complaints!
By Like, DUH, on May 28, 2008 16:11:19
Damn, and I liked her alot. I wish Hollywood fucks would just be smart enough to STFU about their stupid ass opinions.
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 16:39:02
Galley, this is the photo that is causing all the controversy..not the one you posted.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/the-controversial-career-of-bill-henson/2008/05/24/1211183189567.html
Looks like child porn to me. Even if you want to give Mr. Henson the benefit of the doubt, he could hv found/asked a youthful looking 19-20 yr old to pose for him...not use an actual child.
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 16:58:58
Joe Jonas is hot. I'll fight you Todd.
By Yum, on May 28, 2008 17:05:09
Like Duh,
I'll help you.
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 17:05:41
If you are 18 years of age and over and have all of your mental capacity, meaning not of low IQ as in Mentally Retarded, TAKE OFF YOUR CLOTHES AND BE PHOTOGRAPHED IF YOU WISH!!!
SORRY ,but anyone under 18 years of age unclothed ,etc. is CHILD PORN.
ART is a painting of flowers or a house ,and not 13 yrs. old kids!! Muther'fuck'n sicko!
CATE Blanchett has missed the mark in this support of this guy, andI AM SURE HER people(Layers ,Agents )will have her rethink and retract this BAD choice and bad public choice of hers ASAP!!! It is bad for her professionally . Take about the backlash she is going to get. THIS IS AWFUL TO SUPPORT ANY PICS OF TEENS ,KIDS ,ETC.
By That is muther'fucki'n sick, on May 28, 2008 18:09:17
Wow galley, your all real CUNT. First you shoot your mouth off then you post a picture that isn't even the one in question. You know everything and your just soooo bitchin, like, don't cha know. Come down off your pedastal and feel the wrath of my rubber fist ounding your asshole.
By galleyssooobitchin, on May 28, 2008 18:40:10
If I had images on my computer hard drive similar to those "photos" taken by Henson, the motherfucking cops and the court system would throw the book at me. This shit is inappropriate, plain and simple.
By teammlr1, on May 28, 2008 18:55:33
omg 16:58 that should have a warning. it's not even legal to look at a pic like that in the u.s. that looks like a little girl scared and about to be raped. galley is a sick fuck.
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 19:03:27
LMAO galley got owned. anon 16:58 wins.
By judge, on May 28, 2008 19:07:21
i have to say what's already been said before. this guy is into exploiting youth. he's a sick fuck and should be punished like anyone else who poses children in this way. are some of you (galley) saying that we can take pictures of naked children as long as we call it art? or do we have to famous to do that
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 19:07:42
Why doesn't she give permission for the old perv take any pix's of her kids while they are alone with him huh? Then show them to us and say.. hey, it's art.
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 20:48:57
i think the pictures are an interesting study in female adolescence in the context of "art" but that doesn't make them any less disturbing. being a woman, these photos aren't the least bit arousing but they make me think about the awkwardness of adolescence and becoming award of your growing sexuality. unfortunately there are a lot of sick people in the world who are sexually aroused by pics like this. children and teens are vulnerable enough as it is when put in the public eye, add on to that the fact that they're naked, it seems kind of reckless.
the pic of the two people carrying the naked girl is pretty disturbing, more so than the portrait.
btw, i don't agree with a lot of what "galley" said but you're a big fucking nerd if you think someone got owned on a comment board. go out and see some real art. and no, "manga" and "hentai" don't qualify as art.
By nic, on May 28, 2008 21:18:08
ok, to me, celebrating a child's innocence and beauty (including with nudity)is a picture of a young one running naked outside on a summer's day, or of one freshly out of the bathtub, you know? exploiting children and promoting pedophilia is prepubscent girls, softly lit from behind, highlighting growing breasts with vacant looks in their eyes. see the difference? the other difference is parents having these photos in the family album, and parents signing forms to allow photographers to make money of their children's bodies, but that's a whole other story...
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 21:37:31
at the very least, he could've not shown their faces..."celebrate" the body or whatever, if you will, but at least leave the actual child out of it. even if they do one day grow up to regret it, it won't matter so much if you can't see their face, because who the hell knows it's them?
By anonymous, on May 28, 2008 21:41:57
anon 21:18:08, anon 21:37:31 & anon 21:41:57; we know that's you galley. You DID get owned so again, STFU! Go away pedi and go listen to your MJ albums. Loser!
By galleyisnowanon, on May 28, 2008 22:02:44
anon 21:41:57:
even with the faces obscured--actually, ESPECIALLY with the faces obscured, i think it risks promoting the kids as nothing more than flesh, a body to be gazed at. it kind of acknowledges the fact that there is something that needs to be censored. it's like taking away the child's identity (literally & figuratively). it just advocates the many faceless victims of child abuse that exist. but i understand where you're coming from.
By nic, on May 28, 2008 22:11:02
"galleyisnowanon" :
that was my comment, not galley's. i didn't sign it anonymous.
sorry if i offended you. go jerk off to your tomb raider games.
i don't want to get owned on a message board, that'd be the worst thing ever since we're all using our real names here.
By nic, on May 28, 2008 22:16:05
12:32:05 -LMFAO
By anonymous, on May 29, 2008 01:04:55
The photos were extremely disturbing and I'm very disappointed in Ms. Blanchette for taking the pervert's side.
No way this is art but a poor and dangerous excuse as to promote his own fetish by endangering young kids and feasting on their vulnerability.
Shame on you Kate, you're a mother.
By anonymous, on May 29, 2008 01:25:38
There seems to be some very strange thing in our culture where suddenly taken pictures of young semi/naked children has become porn regardless of the photographers intentions. Images don't suddenly cause pedophilia to exist.
A naked child is a naked child. When the majority start thinking like the perverts then we have a problem.
Beauty and perversion is in the eye of the beholder. It's not in the child or the photograph what you see is a reflection of you. If you doubt this show the pictures to a child.
These images reflect a lot of our society.
By anonymous, on May 29, 2008 03:41:41
I feel sick after reading these comments. I opened the comments honestly expecting to hear people defending Bill Henson, not the ignorant comments above. Have any of you ever even seen his work? Obviously not... I cant believe how moronic people are, and how easily whipped into a hate frenzy they can be. I agree with Cate Blanchett's comments that this has damaged Australia's image. I cant believe what philestines you all are, it would be funny if it werent so depressing. I think the comment, "I always thought those muppets were creepy" from someone earlier says it all. Get a clue, you fucking idiot.
By Louise, on May 29, 2008 03:58:08
Hey nic......STFU before I drive my tomb raider game up your ass and draw your daughter in the nude and call it art
By galley jr., on May 29, 2008 06:38:56
anon 21:18:08, anon 21:37:31 & anon 21:41:57; we know that's you galley. You DID get owned so again, STFU! Go away pedi and go listen to your MJ albums. Loser!
By galleyisnowanon, on May 28, 2008 22:02:44
yeah, um, im not galley either you stupid fuck...nice empty insults, by the way...they really detract from the fact that you have nothing intelligent to say on the subject
By anonymous, on May 29, 2008 08:29:41
galleyisnowanon- did you even READ my post at 21:37:31? or are you really not capable of understanding it? because no where in there did i imply i was defending this man you stupid asshole, as a matter of fact i was AGREEING with you and everyone who's NOT galley....how stupid are you? try again, and maybe this time read a little slower:
ok, to me, celebrating a child's innocence and beauty (including with nudity)is a picture of a young one running naked outside on a summer's day, or of one freshly out of the bathtub, you know? exploiting children and promoting pedophilia is prepubscent girls, softly lit from behind, highlighting growing breasts with vacant looks in their eyes.the other difference is parents having these photos in the family album, and parents signing forms to allow photographers to make money of their children's bodies, but that's a whole other story...
i'm saying it's ok to take naked pics of your own young children and keeping them at home (like millions of people do) and taking pics of young sexually awkward girls meant to look "sexy" and publishing it for the world. i don't know how to make it any clearer for you that i'm obviously not a "pedi" since I TOO AM DISGUSTED by these pics....ignorant moron
By imnotgalleylearntoread, on May 29, 2008 08:42:38
When i see all the reactions of hypocritical puritans, i'm really happy, that i grew up in europe. When i was young, nobody thought, that naked = sex or porn. Sick people like the puritans here, screaming that halflighted naked young girl is porn, are the pedophiles. Because when they see the girl, they think about sex. If they would be normal, they would think about beauty of the human body. Sorry, but everyone who thinks those photos are porn should visit a sexologist, before it will be too late.
By anonymous, on May 29, 2008 09:06:09
Looked up his work on google and I see nothing wrong. Art is what it is. You don't have to like it.
By anonymous, on May 29, 2008 09:17:02
cate, hon, shut up and just act.
By funfunster, on May 29, 2008 09:31:15
I always thought she was relatively normal, guess not. These people really are out of touch with everything imaginable.
By anonymous, on May 29, 2008 09:49:42
Louise,
It's "philistines", hon, with an I.
By anonymous, on May 29, 2008 09:58:27
Louise,
please tell me that this is your way of rebelling against 'tha philistanes' (i spelled how you prob say it hillbilly') and not your true opinion. Bill Hensons 'art' is horrendous, pompous, ill conceived BULLSHIT. and you advocate child porn, ya sick fuck.
By ladyguitarstar, on May 29, 2008 10:11:21
Once she realizes what she signed, she'll probably recant. Liberal artist solidarity is never impartial, logical much less moral. Still love Kate as an actress, tho.
By capitanne, on May 29, 2008 10:12:41
"Beauty and perversion is in the eye of the beholder."..."what you see is a reflection of you."
This is 100% true.
By Toe, on May 29, 2008 10:29:55
He could have easily used an older girl for that type of portrait, and anyway, his subjects don't make eye contact with the viewer, showing lack of emotional connection and vulnerability. So, I would say this is pretty pornographic, and the way he portrays his subjects is unacceptable. I hope someone does this to Cate Blanchett's children and defends it as art. Besides, parents can be disgusting sons-of-bitches, too--just because they OK'd it doesn't mean it's ok.
By Maria, on May 29, 2008 10:40:43
Since when is nudity equal to pornography?? Tiny fucking brains...
By Bruce, on May 29, 2008 10:46:04
As an art student, I think this is pornographic and in any case inappropriate to the point of warranting legal punishment.
Bruce is a name for guys who like push-up pops.
By anonymous, on May 29, 2008 10:48:53
I got to get out of this freakin country before I start thinking like this. It's nudity not pornography! Get of your high horses. My experience is people so quick to judge and dam people have a little secret of their own!
By anonymous, on May 29, 2008 10:50:35
Wow, the Euros and the hippies are really invading the thread. You can smell the lack of soap and deodorant from here.
All of you: shut the fuck up, stop being weird, and get jobs. Contribute something tangible to society, for once in your fucking lives.
Taking photos of a nude 4-year-old boy taking a shit and then complaining about the backlash is not helping anyone but your hairy, caustic, unwashed asses.
By J-Bird, on May 29, 2008 10:54:40
AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA J-BIRD best comment winner
oatmeal is for eating, not a soap you fucking patculi loving dipshits
By ladyguitarstar, on May 29, 2008 11:23:59
I love how everybody froths at the mouth over an uninspired, amateurish nude study that happens to include a younger person (whose age most people probably couldn't judge correctly from the picture anyway), but gives Chris Hansen a free pass to build his career around playing on people's fears about pedophilia even though his little "stings" have yielded few convictions.
By sanguinivorous, on May 29, 2008 11:40:32
I like Europe and I wash with oatmeal. Taking pictures of naked children is illegal for a reason. Some people call it art, some people get off on it. Either way, the law is there to protect kids, "artists" are not exempt.
By anonymous, on May 29, 2008 12:57:41
It is ART. If you haven't seen the work, you have no right to judge!!!
By Rotter, on May 29, 2008 13:29:01
I think ppl are confused about the issue here. It's not about whether his photos are art or not...no one disputes he is an artist and has been for a long time..regardless of who thinks he's good or not. Its about the exploitation of children based on some of his pics.
I corrected Galley on the photo issue...the link i posted clearly shows the young girl is being sexualized...forget lighting and mood..look at the pic..clearly the make up is used to make her appear older..sexy...even the pose and lighting..total focus is on her budding breasts...and her face...i feel so much saddness for her when i look at this pic..she seems..sad, embarrassed and resigned. This photograph sends the wrong message about the sexualisation of children..it says it's ok..cool...acceptable...and its not. Children should be protected at all costs even for ART.
Btw, I didnt post that link to offend or make anyone gang up on Galley. We, as adults, should be able to hv clear, open debates without resortng to name calling. That doesnt help to enlighten anyone.
By anonymous, on May 29, 2008 15:46:14
"Taking pictures of naked children is illegal for a reason. Some people call it art, some people get off on it. Either way, the law is there to protect kids..."
Some people get off on infants, too, as sick as that may be. So why do I keep seeing babies' asses in advertisements?
After all, if you're not going to "protect" all of the children...
By sanguinivorous, on May 29, 2008 16:08:36
Not cool Cate. Not only should Mr. Henson recieve criminal charge against him but also the parents. These poor children. No child should be photographed naked ESPECIALLY for public viewing.
By britegray, on May 29, 2008 18:36:55
16:08:36 you're an idiot. Bananas are sexual to some people, obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere!
By anonymous, on May 29, 2008 19:24:27
Oh jesus christ, so I misspelled "philistines". It was a fucking typo. I can see the irony in misspelling "philistines" (hilarious!), but i was so enraged by the ignorance of the people who have obviously not seen his work or have the first understanding of art that i couldnt type fast enough. Doing a spell check wasnt exactly my main concern.
By Louise, on May 30, 2008 01:37:46
You can't scar a banana emotionally for life, moron. You can go can to the store and buy a bunch of bananas to f-ck. You can tell people about it later and not get arrested for it (well, maybe in the Bible Belt...). Hardly a valid comparison.
I have serious doubts that a lot of you people who become rabid every time someone says "pedophilia" really care about children (with the possible exception of your own), anyway. It's a hot, "trendy" subject you can all gab about around the water cooler at work, or be entertained by in the evenings at home (thanks to his holiness Chris Hansen). It also gives you a flimsy legal pretense for possibly actually going out and lynching people! Won't that be fun?
A line may need to be drawn, but kneejerk, reactionary hotheads like you are not qualified to do it.
By sanguinivorous, on May 30, 2008 02:09:37
"I corrected Galley on the photo issue...the link i posted clearly shows the young girl is being sexualized...forget lighting and mood..look at the pic..clearly the make up is used to make her appear older..sexy...even the pose and lighting.. total focus is on her budding breasts...and her face...i feel so much saddness for her when i look at this pic..she seems..sad, embarrassed and resigned. This photograph sends the wrong message about the sexualisation of children..it says it's ok..cool...acceptable...and its not."
Thank you for sharing your OPINION. I'm sure we all enjoyed reading your OPINION. I also admire your apparent ability to read people's minds and tell others what they were thinking just by seeing them in a photograph. Amazing. You should get an act in Vegas.
Personally, I find it disturbing that you can look at a picture of what looks like two people carrying a corpse and find it sexual.
No working at the funeral home for you!!!
By sanguinivorous, on May 30, 2008 02:21:34
galley jr., now just because your dad gets elbow deep in your shitpipe doesn't give you the right to be so bitter. just rub some neosporin on it.
By anonymous, on May 30, 2008 03:10:01
"ART is a painting of flowers or a house ,and not 13 yrs. old kids!! Muther'fuck'n sicko!"
Wow.... this is an open mind!
It is interesting how a lot of people here are getting all angry and mobish about pictures they haven't seen or if so, they see through their own TWISTED eyes! And then there is this process of transference on the artist and HIS perversness... somehow funny, somehow not.
I can't believe how hypocritical a lot of the posters are! A lot of girls are beginning to explore their sexuality in this age. I do not say it is good, but it is a fact, that the 13 year old "child" is a myth. And I don't think that 13 or even 16 year olds (or 30 year olds) can always understand the consequences of their actions.
But I'm pretty sure they will learn from their experiences and develop. Unlike a lot of people here.....
So you people who protect "the parts" of your one year old baby (because it would be sooooo indecent to see your own child in your photoalbum naked...) or you, who think they have to tar and feather someone... think for a moment about one of the implications of art... you got provoked. He won!!!
By coexxi, on May 30, 2008 03:23:55
Thora Birch was underage in her topless scene in American Beauty and I don't remember anyone getting all huffy about that.
By anonymous, on May 30, 2008 07:05:02
um, you dont know what the fuck youre talking about, like the hordes of others screaming kiddie porn about an internationally acclaimed artist. If you or the rest of the pig ignorant moral majority (read neo-fascists) had actually seen Bill Henson's photographs, you wouldnt be weighing in on a campaign aimed at destroying a renowned artists career. Or maybe you are too dumb to tell the difference between art and child porn. Do you remember what Kurt Cobain said about the crazy assed Christians who wanted to censor the cover of Nevermind? At least Cate has actually seen the photos in question.
By JND, on May 30, 2008 07:48:02
bill henson sucks, always has. end of story.
By ladyguitarstar, on May 30, 2008 08:55:51
"It was a fucking typo."
No, it wasn't. The "I" is not located near the "E" on your keyboard. You knowingly spelled the word with an "E", because you did not know how to spell the word. Without the help of spellcheck (a device which cloaks the stupidity of millions of people every day), you would have continued to spell the word with an "E". Therefore, it is not a typo as much as it is an act of ignorance. An ironic one, since you did refer to someone as an idiot in your post.
By Dr. Logic, on May 30, 2008 09:47:53
wow, so much has happened in my absence. i'm glad to see that there are some people out there with the capacity for critical thought posting in this thread now.
sad to say, but i honestly feel that if you find these pictures perverted or sick, then it says a lot about your state of mind.
why didn't it matter when thora birch was topless in american beauty? why does nudity = pornography to some of you? art is meant to make people think. score one for the artist.
people who are following this story might be interested to know that the girl in question in the photo in question refuses to speak to police, as does her family. could that possibly mean that they find this to be a witch-hunt as well? we'll see, i guess. in the meantime maybe some of you should gear up to do some book-burning, just to get rid of this excess anger you're carrying around. lolita's a good one for that, i hear. plus nabokov was russian, so you can fit the whole godless commie pinko act in there too, if you want.
oh, and ladyguitarstar? you didn't even know who the hell bill henson was before this post was made--as if you follow art and not the national enquirer to salivate over the latest pictures of brit-brit's fat ass.
By galley, on May 30, 2008 10:32:12
People having a fit over this would consider book outlets like Amazon to be kiddie porn distributors for selling books by photographers Jock Sturges and David Hamilton.
By anonymous, on May 30, 2008 10:36:38
Pictures of naked 13 year old girls shouldn't be in art exhibits. If you can't understand why it's inherently inappropriate in civilized Western culture then that's your problem.
Re: the people who have a problem with the Chris Hanson/Dateline "To Catch a Predator" series. Most charges have stuck and many of the people have been thrown in jail for an average of a minimum 4 years. If you don't like what this show is doing, then you're obviously one of the sick fucks trying to meet and have sex with kids.
By anonymous, on May 30, 2008 10:47:46
@ galley: Nobody is impressed with your art knowledge. I fell asleep during all those classes in college and only took them because I needed to fill my course schedule with something easy. Easy A. Get off your fucking high horse about this photographer who isn't nearly as talented as his fans think he is and STFU. Next week this hack will probably have his own hour on HSN like Thomas Kinkade and what will you think then?
By anonymous, on May 30, 2008 11:25:07
To sanguinivorous,
The pic u mentioned wasnt the pic i was referring to. I posted the link of ONE VERY YOUNG under-aged girl he photographed. I know it's difficult for you but try to keep track. You want to call that art, fine. To each his own. My point is the exploitaion of children for the sake of ART or anything.
So many ADULT women hv bodies like young girls..look at ellen page...Mr Henson could use them instead of ACTUAL CHILDREN...thats my point..i mean really when do we draw a line here? children should be protected at all cost. I still stand by that.
By anonymous, on May 30, 2008 12:55:29
The art posers need to STFU, get a fucking life and stop trying to justify child porn just to feel relevent. You know as well as I that if you were indeed so enlightened with art, you wouldn't be here killing time on a celeb gossip site.
By anonymous, on May 30, 2008 15:19:02
Post all the pictures first and then we can have an informed oppinion. So far she is right.
By anonymous, on May 31, 2008 07:46:23
NUDITY DOES NOT EQUAL SEXUALISATION
This is not about art you fucking morons, this is about you looking at a naked body and seeing it as sexual.
This says more about you than it does about Bill Henson.
Also, films=art, photography=art, therefore Cate Blanchett can say whatever the fuck she wants.
By anonymous, on June 1, 2008 23:57:49
<< Continue Reading IDontLikeYouInThatWay.com