My point was that I wasn’t talking about the art. I was talking about the process. Clearly I do have an appreciation of art as something that triggers discussion, because I’m discussing it on this forum…..

NPOV, my point exactly. I’m sure he could, or could have. The point is, he doesn’t because that’s not the prime purpose of the photos.

What I really, really dislike is that so many people seek to explain them and why they enjoy looking at them by discussing that what they see in the photos is an adolescents nascent sexuality, the borderline between childhood and adulthood, vulnerability etc.”

So what is your definition of art then? Something that shouldn’t trigger discussion and attempts at explanation.

“I don’t know much about art but I know I what I don’t like.”

The subjects of the photos are why I ended my first post with the comment that the photos aren’t what the photographer and his admirers say they are. I have no issue with the photos and I have no views on whether they constitute art.

What I really, really dislike is that so many people seek to explain them and why they enjoy looking at them by discussing that what they see in the photos is an adolescent’s nascent sexuality, the borderline between childhood and adulthood, vulnerability etc.

The adolescents in these photos are overwhelmingly beautiful, and not just because they are so beautifully photographed (in fact, I’d be more impressed if he took unattractive adolescents and brought out their beauty by the way he lit and photographed them). They really are beautiful children. But people who defend Henson’s work won’t use that term and won’t admit that the primary reason for enjoying the photos is because you are looking at beautiful children. Furthermore, you are looking at them in a way you are not usually allowed to look at adolescents or children, especially girls. To seek to dismiss that beauty as being peripheral to the supposed ‘main points’ of the photos is – well, I think disingenuous is being polite. It’s actually really quite deceitful.

My default position on bullying is that yes, it hurts children and needs to be actively held in check. But if researchers hypothetically came up with overwhelming evidence that most bullying actually benefits children in the long run, then I’d change my position, however uncomfortable I might feel about it initially.

“But do we not seek to make a playground as safe as possible, without actually using cotton wool?”

Sure, and my feeling at this point is that not allowing anyone on the grounds who’s primary purpose is to assess the physical attractiveness of students is bordering on “cotton wool” territory.

I would also be interesting in hearing those more familiar with Henson and his work re the degree to which Henson is actively looking for “attractiveness”.

Parents taking their children to advertising agencies or for auditions is a totally different situation. Presumably the parents know how the system works and know their children may be hurt by the process. Therefore they support them and commiserate with them if they are rejected. They discuss with them why directors and casting agents pick some people and not others and why they might not have been suitable for that ad or that part.

Of course getting scrapes and grazes is part of growing up. So is coping with bullying and dealing with unkindness. But do we not seek to make a playground as safe as possible, without actually using cotton wool? That’s because we want our children to have a haven where the possibility for physical harm is minimised. And so it should be for psychological harm. And as far as possible school should be one of those havens.

Evidence. Uh huh. I told you I was writing from the perspective of someone who was an ugly child and who knows how keenly children understand and perceive the adult gaze. The ugliness actually isn’t the issue – it’s the perception by the child of the gaze. A child can tell the difference between someone who is, say, watching them play and just enjoying them playing or judging them on their physicality. You’ll have to believe me on that, as perhaps you’ve forgotten what it’s like to be a child.

I don’t think we should all be banned from looking at children in case we hurt them through their perceptions of our gaze. But I think we need to be aware of how unspoken judgements can really, really hurt a child – not just someone whose job it is to make those judgements, like a model scout or Mr Henson, but all of us. And it would be nice if children could feel a little safe in an environment meant to be a haven for them. School is hard enough, what with bullies, and other children judging you, without having outsiders doing the same thing.

Children wouldn’t have identified to their parents how they felt about being looked at in the school ground. Of course they wouldn’t. Children rarely articulate that kind of feeling, particularly if they’re used to it. Children don’t go to their parents and say ‘it makes me feel sad when Sally, who’s pretty, gets all the attention and everyone ignores me’. If you’re used to it, you accept it as your lot in life. Doesn’t make it hurt any less.

Hmm, if it really was a problem, where are the parents of the children who were negatively affected by that experience? Surely at least one would come forward and object on those grounds.

FWIW, I think your hypothesis is reasonable enough, but I’d like to see some evidence that the problem is as serious as you claim.

I’m saying that there are children who would have known they were being looked at by an adult – doesn’t matter who the adult is – and would have known exactly what his gaze meant and exactly how they were being judged. Nor do I think that 300 odd children would have felt hurt or rejected because they weren’t picked as his model – even assuming they knew that’s what happened.

I’m talking about being looked at as objects then and there. Seeing eyes glaze over, or pass over you then and there. Knowing that you are being judged – then and there – as not good enough. Or, maybe just as difficult, seeing that adult look interested and being scared because you don’t understand your burgeoning sexuality or your beauty and the looks you intercept from adults confuse and scare you.

I go back to my starting point – a school is not a lost puppies home. You don’t let people wander around a school ground assessing children on the basis of their looks.

You seriously think so vj? I’d never even heard of Henson until earlier this year, nor had my wife, who recently did an Open Uni artistic photography course. How many primary school children do you seriously think would have recognised him on sight any time before he became news this year?

“Auditioning or choosing children on their talents is a totally different process to judging them on their physicality”

Sure, I accept that as humans we tend to react more strongly to be rejected because of a lack of physical beauty than because of other talents (whether they be mental, musical or sports-related).

However in this case, it seems a stretch to suggest that the 300 odd children at the school that Henson didn’t express interest in are likely to feel rejected just because they weren’t the child that’s now at the centre of the current storm. And had the current storm never occurred, it’s pretty reasonable to suppose that most of them would never have known that anyone had been “picked” at all. If the school had explicitly made it known via the newsletter or whatever what the process was about beforehand (and indeed, what the final outcome was), your argument might have some merit.

My post is pretty clear. It suggests that if you’re going to run a story about Henson scouting at a school and being given permission to do so, you will be egregiously misleading your viewers/listeners if you don’t at the same time make it clear that the scouting is the beginning of a careful and professional process of obtaining what consent can be got.

You can disagree with it, but the way it was presented was pretty much inviting the audience to think Henson was using the methods of a paedophile.

Schools are not a lost puppy home. No-one should be wandering around looking at some and rejecting others on the basis of their looks. I don’t care if that person is a world renowned photographer or a local modelling agency.

Children are very sensitive to the adult gaze. Speaking as someone who was an ugly child, I know what it’s like to see an adult’s eyes slide over you as being of no interest at all, and focus on the beautiful child. All the time you are begging inside ’see me, see me’, only to feel once again the chill of the uninterested, if not repulsed, glance.

There would have been children in that playground who would have known exactly what Mr Henson was looking for and would have known that they were rejected on the basis of their looks. Yet again. Granted he only picked two children out as good-looking enough to be graced by his skills, thereby meaning that hundreds more weren’t good enough, but that logic wouldn’t help a child who knows it is ugly feel any better.

I have always been amazed that people who like Mr Henson’s photos of adolescents rave on about how the photos show emerging sexuality, vulnerability, threshold of childhood and adulthood etc. No, what they show are beautiful young people who look very, very good. And are photographed well.

If you want to examine vulnerability, if you want to see uncertainty about emerging sexuality, if you want to explore the feelings of uncertain young people who are hurting – try photographing ugly adolescents, adolescents with acne faces, overweight adolescents. But that won’t happen will it? Because Mr Henson’s photos are not what he and his supporters say they are about.

Nick, I think your post is mis-representative because your post seemed to me to focus on the relative harmlessness of the actual photography v the public outrage evoked by it, whereas the public outrage seemed to me to relate to the scouting, not the photography that followed it. Maybe that’s a function of the fact that your post was addressing media coverage which itself was mis-representative?

That Henson can still create his art, but it remains in “escrow” until the subject is old enough to legally consent to its release.

I’ve no idea whether that would satisfy the child protectionists in the debate though.

But any rate, the only incident for which permission was not support was that of Henson personally accompanying the principal around the school during (I gather) lunch-hour, looking (and looking only) for a child with particular attributes suitable for his next project. He could just as well have stood outside the school, without even consulting the principal.

As for whether the VBC had parental consent before conducting auditions, I personally doubt it, but I will ask my parents next time I speak to them!

The difficulty with the Henson issue, as I see it, is a complete lack of benefit for the child concerned. Consider…..“Hello parent. We have a prominent photo artist visiting the school shortly and HE would like to review your son/daughter as a likely prospect for an artistically oriented photo shoot, which may well involve full or partial nudity.” How many takers do you think Henson might have had? I’d suggest three-fifths of two-eights of sweet fanny adams. Where’s the benefit for the child in such an approach? What does the child get out of the photo shoot? You clearly experienced a musical adventure which, I gather, has enriched your life, but seriously, what benefit exists in a nude phot shoot for a twelve year old?

This is why Henson acted in what has been construed as a covert manner. He had to, in order to secure the talent for his art that he felt he needed. Let’s be honest and admit that our society, as repressed as some may consider it to be, simply isn’t accepting of such behaviour. That’s no slight against Henson, his art or the society we live in. It’s simply a reality.

Your own position seems at least consistent enough, but I suspect not only rather impractical, but sufficiently draconian to result in significant lost opportunities for the students in question. Certainly if the VBC had not been allowed at my primary school all those years ago simply because some parents didn’t consent to it, I most likely would have missed out on some of the best experiences of my life.

Indeed, you may ‘take it’ that I oppose any form of talent scouting by any person or persons or organisation on school grounds, during school hours without the knowledge or consent of parents with children attending said schools. Sacrosanct means sacrosanct. It’s not a malleable concept.

What I accept is that the shopping-centre photo studio example differs in the sense that it’s photography purely for private viewing, whereas Hensonesque artistic photography is generally intended for a wider audience. However there are plenty of examples of children being involved in projects that involve wide audiences, so that in itself isn’t a satisfactory criteria for legislation.

Niall, so I take then that you oppose any form of talent scouting on schools, including choirs etc.?

Yes, I agree that t’would be ‘nice’ if a society could move past the inevitable fear & loathing of – as you say – “an older male on schoolgrounds wondering what their child might look like naked”, but I don’t see that occurring anytime soon.