Perhaps the issue at stake here is not “what is art?” but “what constitutes child porn?” which is a whole other, tricky kettle of fish. Does mere nudity constitute child porn? Because, from what I’ve read, the photos depict toplessless and nudity but there is nothing that is obviously sexual (although, thanks to the government censorship, I’ll never know, which was the original point of my post).

So why, then, is the child abuse campaigner Hetty Johnson going around saying “the issue is depictions of 12-year-old children within a sexual context, there’s no question about that.” How did she come to the conclusion of a “sexual context”? How did the Prime Minister when he hadn’t seen the photos? Is it simply a value judgement imposed from outside? Or is the intent of the photographer a factor?

What’s being argued is that a person has not created *art* or even *porn* but child porn. And as soon as “porn” becomes “child porn”, you’re into very murky territory indeed. It’s a brave blogger that argues for the right of child porn to exist. And to be honest that feels like where this discussion could be headed which is definitely somewhere I don’t want to go on a lazy Sunday night.

When it comes to CP, intentions do matter, apparently, as do definitions - at least in the eyes of the law. Charges have been laid and people are threatening to burn down the art gallery. There’s lots of talk about “drawing a line in the sand.” Where’s our line?

The idea that whatever happens in front of the camera should be legal and consensual sounds good. Once again I’m in agreement with you. Thus I find myself defending Bill Henson because his photographs were taken legally and consensually (I stated this in my original post). But on top of that I want to defend his intentions because otherwise what I’m defending (in the eyes of the law at least) is child porn. Which, again, is somewhere I’m not so keen to go.

In the end I haven’t even seen the images which means I’m not really not qualified to comment at all and should not hold an opinion on this whatsoever nor write extensive blog posts or comments. It just comes down to the original fact that I’m objecting to censorship, as usual.

I’m would like to read your essay on Ed Gein, although I suspect I’m getting your point already. Just remember that I’m not arguing against you on this topic. Indeed, this wasn’t really what I was originally posting about at all.

In fact, dammit. I’ve wasted all this time writing a long and detailed comment when I could be drinking red wine. I told myself I wasn’t going to write anything else on this topic because it has the potential to be an endless discussion but I took exception to the suggestion that I’m perpetuating “erotophobia” among other things. I can see your point but you’re misrepresenting what I’m trying to say.

None the less, I think your eagerness to defend Mr Henson in the name of art (always should be italicized and probably capitalized too), to ascribe to him only the most noble intentions, (”Maybe I’m just an idealist but I do want to believe that this man has a dispassionate, artist’s desire to capture a human condition - one that does involve aspects of sexuality.”) you are only perpetuating the sort of irrational, erotophobic, elitist nonsense that allows SHORTBUS (”No one got an erection.) or DESTRICTED (”But it’s Art!”) to pass the OFLC with an R-rating or be shown in festivals, while my films and others are banned from public exhibtion or sale.

We all need to stop doing this.

Similarly we need to stop using our financial needs (producers) or our orgasms (viewers) as justification for unhealthy onset practices, retrograde sexual attitutes, shockingly low production standards, and the general shabbiness that characterized the field of erotic art in general, and moving images of sexuality in particular.

I do not know the circumstances under which Mr. Hensen made his art, but that’s where the discusion belongs, not in some airy fairy speculation about how his intentions, his art, justify what we (perhaps) would find contemptable were the camera in someone else’s hands, or absent altogether.

At present I am working on an essay about the art of Ed Gein. Look him up on wikipedia.

Your thought project makes perfect sense.