Naked Teens - Art or Pornography?

[parsec]

In the Australian news in the past week, police have raided an art gallery exhibiting the works of artist and photographer Bill Henson, with the works depicting (a?) naked teenage girl(s). The art community defends the artist in this (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/23/2253585.htm) news report, with those defending him claiming that the artwork is about "the vulnerability of life" (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/26/2255460.htm).

This (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/24/2254653.htm) report explains how it is unlikely that the artist will be charged: The Crimes Act requires two things - an intention and an act. The act is usually fairly easily established but if the intention is to produce a work of art and solely to produce a work of art, then I cannot see how a crime has been committed.

Quite interestingly, Australia's most prominent politicians are weighing in on the debate (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/28/2257747.htm).

I guess we just know pornography when we see it, but can we do any better than this? It may not be the artist's intention but couldn't pictures of a naked teenage girl be used as pornography, if it weren't set in the context of an art gallery? Or, can the demarcation between pornography and art be seen so decisively without reference to any explicit markers or reasoning, such that Henson's images simply are art and not pornography?

[Parody of Language]

I think this is another case of intention versus function. An object can function in a certain way, without that being the intention of it, what it was designed or put in place for.

Now, pornography I always thought was exclusively the depiction of the actual act of intercourse, not just photos of nudity. But, maybe I'm not up on my terminology :)

[parsec]

Originally posted by Parody of Language:
Now, pornography I always thought was exclusively the depiction of the actual act of intercourse, not just photos of nudity. But, maybe I'm not up on my terminology :)
If that were the case then a softcore magazine like Playboy (which does not depict explicit sexual intercourse) would not be pornography, even though that is its intended purpose. Nobody actually reads it for the articles. :)

[Parody of Language]

If that's the case, then is pornography anything that titillates?

[Oneiromancy]

It seems to come down to a practical matter whether anyone will be charged with a crime or not.

Humans are weird when it comes to things like sexual fetishes. People are capable of being aroused by things other than actual human beings, so I suppose almost anything can be considered porn as long as someone is aroused by it.

And isn't porn also art?

Whether someone is going to be charged with a crime is really up to the collective attitude of the society/culture we're talking about here.

[Pgalaxy]

And what about all the lovely naked statues throughout the history of the arts?
and the lovely naked angels with hardly anything sexual to show?

I have loaded a couple of kinky pictures of statues myself, recently, without realizing their potential controversy until this thread was started. Now I feel like the sense of shame that Adam and Eve must have felt in the garden of eden after eating the apple and realizing that they were naked for the first time (nice allegory, if nothing else)

Anyway in classical arts the private parts are stylized, minimized, no detailed showed, rounded off, and sometimes made smaller (except paolinas bottoms which seems in good proportion). It the expression, the context, the pose.

David's in florence is HUGE, but there is a disproportion between his hands and some other parts of the body, a notable paradox that must have reflected the hypocrisy of the times

I think pornography shows when some body parts are portrayed to portray sexuality in an exploitative way, or perhaps as the focus of the picture, as opposed to just to express sexuality as a personality trait and part of the whole character

I initially thouht that reclining lady was paolina bonapartes statue of canova, but now I have some doubts, as I have compared it with other pictures on the web and it looks much different, not sure exactly what statue that is

sometimes pornography is the eye of the beholder,


from etymology online


1857, "description of prostitutes," from Fr. pornographie, from Gk. pornographos "(one) writing of prostitutes," from porne "prostitute," originally "bought, purchased" (with an original notion, probably of "female slave sold for prostitution;" related to pernanai "to sell," from PIE root per- "to traffic in, to sell," cf. L. pretium "price") + graphein "to write." Originally used of classical art and writing; application to modern examples began 1880s. Main modern meaning "salacious writing or pictures" represents a slight shift from the etymology, though classical depictions of prostitution usually had this quality.

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [hard-core pornography]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." [U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, concurring opinion, "Jacobellis v. Ohio," 1964]

[nivenkumar]

I personally found it hard to decide if we should be up in arms against Henson's exhibition. It seems, those who found it clearly a exercise in pornography were more concerned about the girls in these pictures. That is a fair call, and if one of my daughters were asked by Henson to pose for his pictures, I would not be buying tickets for everyone to go to the show. I also appreciated Henson's theoretical preoccupations. But that is just it. When you try and marry theory and praxis, that's where the problems begin. Theoretically, I am intrigued by henson's work. But crossing the line into praxis calls for a lot more than just theoretical justification. Society I don't think, is capable yet to deal with the psychical challenges Henson's work puts forward.

I don't think he should have been put in prison, that was a little harsh, a bunch of provincial bourgeois conservative law makers and a middle class mind-set trying to clamp down on one man's theoretical explorations. But then again, I don't blame them.

Where am I bloody going with this? I suppose I just don't feel he should have been put in prison. It reminds me of Ibsen's A Doll House, and the outcry over it. When performed in Germany, the actress playing Nora refused to act in it unless Ibsen rewrite the ending so that Nora remained with the children instead of leaving them. Similarly, O'Neill's Desire Under the Elms was meant with public outcry and the cast and crew were out in prison.


Niven

[Angakuk]

Several years ago the cover of our denominational magazine, The Lutheran, featured Michelangelo's "Creation of Adam" from the famous mural on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Subsequent issues contained a number of letters to the editor from outraged readers who objected to the presence of such "homo-erotic pornography" on the cover a church periodical. :scratch:

Angakuk

[Pgalaxy]

Yes I agree Anga

A artistic interest, when exposed, may become the subject of vouyerism and predation for repressed crowds

I agree that the teenage nudity may risks to become a sexual object , but so are lovely children, pedofiles look at a naked child in a way that a normal person would not

I wonder if the parents gave consent (being a minor this would have to be done) and what may have brought a teenagers to pose naked, teenagers are genreally very shy

tough one

[Bitter Crank]

Anyway in classical arts the private parts are stylized, minimized, no detailed showed, rounded off, and sometimes made smaller (except paolinas bottoms which seems in good proportion). It the expression, the context, the pose.

David's in florence is HUGE, but there is a disproportion between his hands and some other parts of the body, a notable paradox that must have reflected the hypocrisy of the times

sometimes pornography is the eye of the beholder

Thank heavens pornography is the eye of the beholder!

What I understand is that Greek sculptors established the practice of minimizing the size of (male) sexual organs as a matter of taste. The Greek critics thought that large organs (as in, "hung like a horse") were ridiculous. Funny. Laughable. So diminutively displayed marble gonads were thought to look classier.

What the average man in the street, his boyfriend or his wife, thought about the size of a man's penis did not get extensive coverage in the documents that survived. Alas. Though one might get some hints from Lysistrata. It should be noted that the Greeks and Romans did not favor small phalluses when it came to depicting Priapus. (You can look it up.)

What hypocrisy, PGALAXY, is revealed in the statue of David? David's body was supposedly proportioned so that it would look normal when viewed from [whatever the intended viewing angle was]. The Greek idea of putting a small phallus on an adult man was continued on through the centuries into the renaissance and beyond. Only relatively recently have normal size penises started to appear in art.

I think pornography shows when some body parts are portrayed to portray sexuality in an exploitative way, or perhaps as the focus of the picture, as opposed to just to express sexuality as a personality trait and part of the whole character

Suppose a photographer was commissioned to produce an attractive portrait depicting the erotic and spiritual love of two naked men kissing and embracing, and arranged the bodies to show, as a central fact, that each man was possessed of an erect penis. Some additional elements reference the spiritual quality of their shared love.

Now, I could supply such a picture, I suppose, but just use your imagination and put together something in your mind.

Is this picture pornographic? Is it exploitative? are the erect penises (touching, no less) at the center of the composition, proof of pornography? What changes would move the picture closer to, or farther from, pornography?

Substitute an adult man and a woman for the two men. Lets say the man's hand is cradling one of the woman's breasts. he also has an erect penis. Would the photograph be closer to, or farther away from, pornography than the picture of the two men?

Substitute 2 16 year old boys: same pose, same background. Closer to or farther away from pornography than the picture of the adult men?

Substitute 2 65 year old women: same pose, same background. No erect penises, in this case. Closer to, or farther from pornography than the photo of the man and the woman?

I think the whole category of pornography should be tossed into the dustbin. In the first place, it is very difficult to define "pornography" so that everyone understands what everyone else means. In the second place, the term "pornography" is wielded as a weapon in attacks on depictions of physicality that the attacker does not like. Frequently what the attacker of pornography does not like is ANY depiction of physicality that involves nakedness, sexual arousal, etc.
The attack on "Pornography" often becomes an attack on sexual lives that do not fit into the boxes of "respectable society."

For what purpose do we need this term?

In a public health context, I prepared a poster showing a bull in a pasture. It was clearly a bull, and not a cow. The caption said" "Safer sex is no bull." The poster was attacked (by a lunatic fringe) as pornographic because the large, pendulous testicles of the bull were visible. Well the balls were the point: This is a bull.

Physiography might be a better term. Let it cover all depictions of human appearance and physical interaction. If the act of intercourse is not pornographic, then the visual representation of intercourse should not be pornographic either.

Nakedness is a (not "the") natural condition of human beings. There is nothing about our bodies that should not be seen, or which it is a shame to see.

We may not want to look at every representation of nakedness or sexual arousal, or physical behavior. and that's fine. Personally, I dislike observing the act of flossing and would not enjoy watching videos of people flossing their teeth. It isn't that it is shameful, or too private - I just don't like it. But I don't have to demonize dental floss just because I find other people doing it at the dining table annoying.

Ummm. PGalaxy, I could go on. And on. Pardon. I'll stop now.

Bitter Crank

[Bitter Crank]

I think this is another case of intention versus function. An object can function in a certain way, without that being the intention of it, what it was designed or put in place for.

Now, pornography I always thought was exclusively the depiction of the actual act of intercourse, not just photos of nudity. But, maybe I'm not up on my terminology :)

Don't worry about catching up on your terminology. Pornography is too crude a term to be useful.

Why should either the depiction of an act of intercourse or the depiction of nudity be considered pornographic? Why can't it just be a visual representation of human behavior? (I'm assuming, of course, that everyone will sign a photographic release form if they want to appear that way.)

The thing that makes nakedness dangerous is the taboo against nakedness. etc.

bitter crank

[Pgalaxy]

Hi Bitter Crank

me too, could go on and on.

I could describe the way I see the naked body being portrayed offesively (to me) and the way I dont.

I could even talk to you about what images have what effect on me, in as much detail as you would like, and what I like when, and why, and what I dont like, when and why.

But pardon me, if I will not :-)

Animal insticts are a long story, better discussed on my shrink's couch
(what am I letting myself into)

Just let me share only one small experience
A couple years ago when I arrived in Italy there was what I suspected to be naomi's cambell backside on huge posters all over the country in what must have been a very big campaign for something.
Oddly, I do not remember what the campaign was for, but I remember the ass.

I found having to look at a womans bottom wherever I cast my eye, in all dieretcions and at all times, very disturbing. Not pornography perhaps, but something that bothered my enjoyment of the landscape nonetheless
I was really glad when it ended

PDM

Re David, his index finder is many times as long as his thing.

Michelangelo also uses an ingenious technique, giving authority to his characters through lack of proportion for some parts: the hands, knotted and extremely beautiful, the face which with the neck is bigger than half the chest. It is in the hands and face that the virtues of universal man are to be found, in other words, physical strength and the intellectual reasoning of man

http://www.italyguides.it/us/florence/michelangelo_david.htm
Sounds a tad hypocritical to me - The virtues of the universal man, god bless him...

[parsec]

I found this site (http://www.answers.com/pornography) to offer a comprehensive group of definitions and etymologies, although as the first line of the second reference says, "Pornography is notoriously hard to define." More importantly, with regards to this topic, the final line of interest notes: At the beginning of the 21st century, concern about paedophilia in both the USA and elsewhere has created a climate in which photographing children or adolescents (even by parents) may lead to conflict with the law.

[My sensationalist 2 cents]: Perhaps I'm too influenced by the latest fashions or laws, or maybe I'm a moral conformist prude, but I tend to side with the aforementioned "climate" and believe that children and young adolescents should be protected from this possibility for exploitation, and that the possibilities for exploitation should be limited. Does (or should) art have a special status in society which exempts artists from the legal and/or moral responsibilities to which all non-artists should adhere? I'm guessing that an artist couldn't kill a man and get away with it, even if it was in an art gallery under the guise of "art", so how much can an artist get away with?

Then I tried to find out what Henson's work was "about" and came across some interesting points on both sides, although I didn't read it all:

After reading some points in support of Henson, this (http://www.sauer-thompson.com/junkforcode/archives/2008/05/bill-henson-bio.html) is probably the most succinct summary I found: The potential harm of misinterpreting this work of art is greater than the potential contribution it makes as a critique of the portrayal of child sexuality in the mass media. To elaborate a little, as another more extreme view (http://www.sauer-thompson.com/junkforcode/archives/2008/05/bill-henson-6-u.html) (imo) propounds: But why pick on an art, when trainer bras and sexy lingerie for 6 years olds are hot items, when 5 years olds go to beauty parlours and have makeovers to celebrate their birthdays, when the advertising industrys' use of very young "models" is morally questionable at so many levels, when ads for jeans are shot like pornography, when ads for lipstick are shot like pornography, when ads for cars are shot like pornography, and when 75% of the internet is pornography.

However, the ascription to Henson's photos as being "a critique of the portrayal of child sexuality in the mass media" conflicts with his proclaimed philosophy that his art is about "the vulnerability of life," although I doubt that Henson is or was naive to the former intent.

This blogger (http://viv.id.au/blog/?p=1763) has an in-depth commentary, quotes and links on the matter, including her view that: [Henson] is examining the awkwardness and awareness of change rather than posing the minors in sexy adult positions.

So, the question for me now is: was any of this furore premeditated by Henson, perhaps to be part of his exhibition?

[Parody of Language]

Why should either the depiction of an act of intercourse or the depiction of nudity be considered pornographic? Why can't it just be a visual representation of human behavior? (I'm assuming, of course, that everyone will sign a photographic release form if they want to appear that way.)

The thing that makes nakedness dangerous is the taboo against nakedness. etc.

bitter crank
I think what it comes down to is that the arousing sexual organ doubles as the foul organ that we urinate with; and this produces in us all sorts crazy, conflicting emotions that it would just be easier if we can just choose one and run with it. And that's what most people do.

[Angakuk]

What I understand is that Greek sculptors established the practice of minimizing the size of (male) sexual organs as a matter of taste. The Greek critics thought that large organs (as in, "hung like a horse") were ridiculous. Funny. Laughable. So diminutively displayed marble gonads were thought to look classier.

And here I have been thinking all along that it was because the studios were unheated.

Angakuk