On the weekend the ABC News reported on the excitement about Bill Henson being given permission by a primary school principal to trawl for photography models. The news then covered the various photo ops put on by Kevin and Malcolm telling us how disgusted they were. (Malcolm who is the proud owner of some Hensons - having played the 'free speech' card last time the issue blew up).
Yet if you read David Marrs article in which this dastardly deed is divulged what it does make crystal clear is that Henson goes to great lengths to try to ensure that there is fully considered, untroubled consent - from the models and their entire families and that throughout the numerous photo shoots the models feel entirely comfortable, and that if they don't the process stops. If he agrees to do a show, the gallery owner must acknowledge that it may not go ahead if the photoshoot is not sucessful for this or any other reason.
As Marr points out, there are no ex-models coming out of the woodwork reporting their bad feelings about the experience. None of this means that one mightnt object to what Henson does, or to the school principal allowing him to trawl for models in a school. They are difficult matters which would give any decent and sane person pause.
And as far as Kevin and Malcolm are concerned, pollies will be pollies and they will go in search of headlines. But for the ABC News to report the story in such a way as to leave out the most central fact - that Henson goes to great lengths to obtain what consent can be got - for the ABC News to cover the story in such a way that someone watching the story would most likely associate Henson with paedophilia?
Its an outrage. The usual outrage.
And it just goes to show the emptiness of contemporary news values (now theres an oxymoron if ever there was one). Though not a lie was told, a moments reflection on behalf of the journalists putting the story together would have led them to realise how completely it would mislead its viewers and defame Henson and the school principal involved.
Yes and Glen Milne in his confected outrage does the same thing in this mornings paper.
Personally, I see enough outrage in the principal letting him wander around the school in the first place. I would be absolutely livid if my kids' principal did that, at the principal, the people that gave him/her the job, the photographer for even asking, etc. And that's without even counting with my wife!
Note that you aren't focusing on the same consent that everyone else is talking about, ie the consent to actually being looked at not to the modelling bit itself.
Sorry, further, who gives a rat's arse who this guy is - what would be your immediate reaction to the principal of your kids' school saying,
You would think: 'what the f*** planet is this principal coming from', wouldn't you?
But Turnbull actually took a principled stand in round 1. I don't for a minute believe he's changed his mind. So is it really politicianly original sin, or just plain old cowardice in when face to face with the idiocies of Australian media and population?
Or different facts???
I suspect that Marr chose to showcase the incident as a pre-publication teaser precisely because the image of Bill Henson trolling a playground looking for models is like touchpaper to the newscycle flame given Henson's preferred photographic oeuvre, his previous adventures in artistic controversy and the hypersensitivity that attaches to any potential whiff of child exploitation.
And I'm sure that Marr "reflected" on that at length Nicholas. His book goes on sale today.
FWIW, I think it's entirely reasonable to acknowledge Henson's right to artistic expression while recognising his model recruitment strategy, in this instance, to be singularly ill-advised - consent notwithstanding. Possibly nearly as ill-advised as discussing it with David Marr.
Geoff: True enough perhaps. But there's a big, big difference between a considered position against schoolyard talent-spotting (which has nothing specifically to do with Henson, who was just making use of an apparently routinely-used facility) and the kind of reflexive outrage that the politicians feel pushed to simulate, and which the much of the population apparently is easily herded into feeling.
Patrick: I don't believe Turnbull's "outrage" for a minute. His liberalism seems genuine (and a genuine liberal just couldn't be outraged at this innocuous affair). But I could be reading him wrong.
The most useful outcome of this episode would be a discussion of the role of journalists in providing information as distinct from editorial comment or what amounts to the same thing, highly selective reporting. The intrusion of commentary into what is supposed to be reportage has reached the point where the facts of many situations can be quite hard to find and often turn out to be roughly the oppposite of the first impression that was conveyed.
It is apparently irresistable to press the "child molester" button to generate excitement and interest in a story but the sorry end point is things like restictions on parents taking photos at swimming events and the hyseria spreads far and wide so parents don't want their children to walk around the block to play with a friend or buy an ice cream.
Patrick would you be livid if the principal of your children's school gave permission for say, a casting agency, to look for potential young actors or actresses? How about a choir looking for new recruits (I was recruited into the VBC at about the age of 7)?
What on earth is so different about wanting to take photographs?
Indeed, what possible risk does Henson's sheer presence at the school present to the children?
My 3 yo will be attending kindergarten next year. Even at that age, I can't imagine being anything but disappointed if the supervisor there point blank refused to allow in Bill Henson or any other notable artist looking for potential subjects for their work.
Having said that, it would perhaps have been more sensible for Henson to examine photographs first, and then contact parents before actually interviewing the children.
But that's exactly the kind of critique I might expect from someone socially liberal. I don't suggest that the issue is obvious or unarguable; I'm just canning the reflexive, show-me-no-details, "it's all disgusting" response.
I suspect most reactions are going to be related to dumb preferences. I'm interested in and value art, so my reaction to artists talent-spotting is mildly positive. I'm somewhat hostile to business, so would probably have an initial prickle at the thought of an entirely commercial equivalent. But we would surely hope to be able to do better than allow views to be dictated by initial reactions.
crispin, I think we'll shortly discover - via Premier Brumby's hastily summoned inquiry - that the Victorian Dept of Education never, ever envisaged that their school visitor protocols should incorporate an artist scouting for the sort of artfully undraped pubescent photographic talent that has made him celebrated and more than a tad controversial.
I can understand the sense of disquiet engendered by images of the sort of playground appraisal upon which Henson's oeuvre is predicated - I can also understand that it is a separate issue to Henson's right to artistic expression.
Ms Gillard's words were apparently: "That someone has been allowed to go into a school to look at children, I think would send a shudder through people's spines".
To which my reaction is "so what? Body piercings send a shudder through my spine - but it's really none of my business". The only possible justification for politicians getting involved in this issue is if there is genuine evidence that children are being exploited. As it is, there's a fair bit of evidence that the children Henson has worked with have benefitted from the experience (certainly that seems to be the opinion of the parents involved).
Good one NPOV! I was going to propose the hypothetical of recruiting for a choir!
This debate has been dogged by hyperbole on both sides. There are people who assert the right of the artist to follow their vision and get in the face of society and there are people who think that works of art should be censored the moment they cross some of moral decency, defined by themselves.
A plague on both your houses!
The first group need to be asked: What are you trying to achieve, is it really a good idea and do you think that your work is going to progress it (whatever it is).
The second group needs to be asked pretty much the same questions.
"To which my reaction is so what? Body piercings send a shudder through my spine - but its really none of my business."
To which my reaction is, you're obviously not the Deputy PM, NPOV.
Of course she - and they - were going to react in the way they did (as David Marr shrewdly assessed). Bill Henson has achieved fame/notoriety for photographing young adolescents "in their states of despair, intoxication and immature ribaldry" as the gallery blurb has it and he went to a Melbourne primary school to source more talent.
This is not a debate about artistic freedom. It's more a case of whether your average primary school parent would be OK with some middle-aged photographer dude canvassing the playground to see whether your kid might wash-up OK in the back-lit nuddy.
I absolutely accept that there is no indication that Henson's motivation is anything other than artistic but there is every indication that the guy has displayed the most breathtaking naivete in not realising that his actions might be open to misinterpretation.
Since when has grooming taken on its new PC moniker "scouting"?
'As David Marr says...' FMD.
And if the events in question had taken place after the recent storm of controversy about his work, I'd agree Geoff. But it happened over a year ago.
FWIW were I a politican with high media exposure, my position would simply be "I do understand why some parents feel uneasy about this incident, but at this point there is no reason to be concerned that any child is at risk of being exploited in any way, and we will work with schools to ensure that no such risk eventuates".
NPOV
In other words, the community's outrage over his photos was underdone given his nefarious sniffing around playgrounds for grooming talent!
Australia's most irksome haute bourgeois Luvvie - David Marr - exploits for profit Henson's trawling - again for profit - for 12 year olds to pimp to haute bourgeois Luvvies and ephebophiles.
What sort of moral universe do these freaks live in?
NPOV, this isn't a debate about Bill Henson in the sense you seem to think it is. The subject of the actual debate (not the one mis-framed by NG) is people running around primary schools, and specifically whether anyone should be allowed to do so.
Only if you answer that in the positive (which you and NG may well but not many do) can you sensibly pose the question whether Bill Henson should be allowed to do so.
My bet is that 99 per cent of the population answer the first question in the negative and so have no need to consider whether Bill Henson has some special artistic quality that exempts him from the punch in the face most parents would probably think was his due.
FWIW if you were such a politician it would be in the Pauline Hanson/Bob Brown mould and not the Gillard/Rudd/Turnbull/serious ambitions of actual leadership mould, judging by the comments you would hypothetically be making.
Patrick, what do you mean about "running around primary schools"? The Victorian Boys Choir sent representatives to my primary school when I was 7 and "ran around" class rooms auditioning pupils. I don't even believe my parents had to consent to that (of course they had to consent to my eventually signing up).
If choirs are allowed to "run around" primary schools scouting for talent (as are numerous other organisations and individuals that they represent), why shouldn't Bill Henson be?
And note also, the photos he took in this case involved no nudity. Indeed, if Henson's name had never been associated with nude teenagers I don't believe for a moment we'd even be having this conversation.
"Indeed, if Hensons name had never been associated with nude teenagers I dont believe for a moment wed even be having this conversation."
Indeed. So what's your point?
That people are somehow assuming that because Henson photographed nude teens that his motives in scouting for talent in a primary school are suspect.
Even if he was explicitly looking for primary school children to photograph nude (which he wasn't) I wouldn't have an issue with it. The moment there is the slightest evidence that being photographed nude by artists such as Henson can be potentially damaging to children (of any age) I will happily change my mind.
I'll accept that if there is a democratic consensus that artists should not be allow to scout for talent at primary schools, then so be it, but I'd like to think that society would eventually come to regret such a move.
BTW JG, I agree that if Marr's primary motive for bringing yet another Henson controversy into the public idea was to help boost sales of his book, then he has a lot to answer for - the poor principal in question may well end losing her job over this. But I don't know enough about how exactly the story made it into the media to make that accusation.
Er...public "eye", not "idea" (very weird "thinko"!)
Listening to Marr on RN this morning, I understand completely where his argument comes from, however, I do not believe that schoolgrounds are the place for an artist to be touting for talent. Schools are, or ought to be, sacrosanct
Niall, what on earth does "sacrosanct" mean? And "tout" is a deliberately loaded term. Again, I'll stick with my example - were the VBC "touting" for talent when they auditioned at my primary school?
Ultimately this surely comes down to the fact that people can understandly feel uneasy about the thought that there's an older male on schoolgrounds wondering what their child might look like naked. I would be lying to state that such a thought doesn't make me instinctively uneasy too. But I'd like to think that in this day and age we can step beyond that and use a bit of rationality to determine whether such "uneasiness" is actually grounds for governments determining who can and who can't be safely trusted to accompany school principals around the playground.
The real issue is why the hell hasn't the taxpayer been dealt in? If we're going to let commercial interests SCOUT for talent in primary schools, why aren't we getting a cut? Since when do we value a principal's time so lowly?
BBB
Patrick, re your "99%", online Age readers must be an extremely rare bunch, as only 50% of them think that the prinicipal acted inappropriately:
http://www.theage.com.au/polls/results.html
I'd actually be quite interested to see a wider poll done. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if over 75% felt the principal acted inappropriately, but I think it's fair to say your 99% figure is unwarranted.
Ok, NPOV, I'll cop that.
Jacques, what do you mean by this:
My understanding was this:
As I pointed out above, I'd want permission prior to any scouting. And that is what, pace NG's misrepresentation, is driving the controversy.
Btw, NPOV at 24:
Ok so not nude. The distinction is not one I would harp on in this case.
Patrick, how could permission "prior" to scouting be achieved - the school would literally have to contact every parent, and then what would happen if all but 1 parent objected?
I ask again, do you think that schools should gain permission from every single parent before allowing choirs in to recruit possible members?
Bleh...that is, "if all but 1 parent consented"...
BTW, I will say I that would accept that schools could at least announce such events in school newsletters etc., in order to give parents a chance to object or withdraw their child from the school (either just for the day, or permanently if they feel strongly enough about it).
I agree with your last contribution NPOV. I have to say that I actually think that much should apply even to the choirs.
Which is not to say that I can't see a qualitative difference between choirs and photographers.
Patrick, OK, can you clarify what you think the qualitative difference is?
Statistically I'd be prepared to wager that your child is more at risk of abuse and/or exploitation in a choir than in a photographer's studio, for a start.
I note that the Age poll is now 55-45 in favour of the principal (and I suppose, by extension, Henson), with over 1000 votes counted. Which I have to say truly surprises me, even accepting that the sample is obviously not representative of Australia as a whole.
Re #36: the bit about the interest being voices and the interest being bodies, NPOV. Re #37: I always did mistrust Age readers. I'll have to bash any of them what comes wandering out near our school too, I guess :)
Ok, so why is interest in bodies problematic whereas interest in voices not?
And if that's your distinction, then how about sports coaches, who obviously are look at bodies as much as anything?
BTW, it seems that if you have anybody to worry about, it's the lifesafers wondering around the beaches wondering what your kids look like naked (assuming they aren't already):
http://www.theage.com.au/national/exlifesavers-massive-child-porn-stash-20081007-4vdy.html
(and yes there's at least 3 typos in that previous post...please can we have post editing or at least a preview feature?)
I actually know for a fact what the majority of those lifesavers are interested in, and it is certainly not my pre-pubescent kids. I'd be more worried as to whether they actually were watching my kids at all!
That said we often do go to lifesaver-free beaches, maybe I've just got good instincts :)
PS: We live in the cancer age, our kids are very rarely naked on beaches, they are usually decked out in long sleeves, 'boardies' and a cap.
I note you didn't answer my question Patrick...
I seriously hope the worst that will come out of this is that schools will be required to send home notices to parents before allowing anyone who isn't a parent or school employee/regular contractor on to the ground. Personally, I still think *that's* unjustifiable, but if it's needed to placate the masses then so be it.
I'll try and make a more reasoned contribution in the next day or so if I get time, but I'll just observe here how terrific it will be to have another piece of red tape for schools. I have to go get police checks to do any volunteer work for my kids' schools. It's enough to seriously demotivate one to be suspected until you prove your innocence. And of course Bill Henson could get a clear police check couldn't he - as indeed he should be able to.
Here is my summary of the issues. .
1) Henson is clearly not a pornographer.
2) His work could be viewed by some who are seeking to look at child pornography as pornography. This doesn't seem to me to have much significance (at least at this stage of my argument) because those who wish to view such pornography can go get it on the net any time they want.
3) Whether or not it's pornography, one might want to outlaw what Henson does. I don't want to, but wouldn't find it troubling in any way if the society decided it didn't want Henson doing what he's doing. The reason one would object is that one cannot get meaningful consent from a child and that is that. We have plenty of other constraints on children's legal capacity to consent.
4) If it was illegal it would obviously be wrong for the primary school principal to invite Henson into the school to scout for talent.
5) If it is not illegal, and it is not, then it is hard to think of a better way for Henson to find his talent than in the arrangement that has been reported. That is, he is under supervision when attending the school, the parents (not the kids) get a call (not from Henson). They get his phone number and if they want to take it up, they do. If they don't they don't, end of story. All the alternatives that I can think of are worse.
6) So I can't find fault with the primary school teacher.
But I actually didn't start the thread to discuss these six points - though I'm happy to have been challenged to think it through. I made the claim that the ABC coverage was outrageous in presenting the story pretty much as if Henson was your local paedophile and obscuring the extensive consensual process that is involved in any child being involved with Henson.
I'm not sure why what I wrote was, as Patrick alleges, misrepresentation.
Well I for one would find it quite troubing if "society" decided it didn't want Henson doing what he's doing. While it's true photographic artists don't really make up an underprivileged minority, it still whiffs of "tyranny of the majority".
The "meaningful consent" argument doesn't really wash with me because where are we drawing the line as to what sort of activities require "meaningful consent".
Why is it OK for a parent to take their child to a shopping-mall portrait photographer, but not OK for them to take them to Bill Henson? Where's the evidence that Henson's work and the process of creating it is somehow more damaging or dangerous to children than any other form of photography?
Actually it must be said that the moral panic over this issue has now meant that these children are being exposed to something damaging. But I don't know how you can justify a poistion that the best response is to make it illegal for children to participate in any activity that *might* spark outrage among politicans and certain sections of the public.
BTW, I have to ask - where is the outrage over the media visiting the school in question, and not only looking at the children there, but actually taking photographs and TV footage, all without parental supervision, and (at least indirectly) for commercial benefit? Indeed I would be quite willing to bet that reporters deliberately kept an eye out for the sort of children that when seen on a news bulletin would provoke the most reaction out of audiences (i.e. vulnerable but reasonably pretty looking girls). Are they not "scouting"?
NPOV,
You're quite sure that there are no issues about informed consent from primary school children are you?
(And I agree with you about the hypocrisy of the press - which was where I came in!)
Oh - and the analogy about the shopping mall portraitist is silly.
Unless you think this is a realistic thing for someone who's aged thirty to say to their parent.
"Actually Mum, I know you meant well, but that portrait that we got done in the Burke St Mall - it was a huge mistake. It's bothered me for long periods of my life, and when I saw it had turned up on the internet on a peadophile's site it has creeped me out even more."
Ok, but I also think it's a relatively unlikely thing for someone who's aged thirty to say to their parent that an artistic photograph that may involve partial nudity was a huge mistake. And there really doesn't seem to be a good case for not accepting that the parent and child together are the best people to make such a decision.
Well, I've told you that my own preference is the status quo - that Henson can continue doing what he's doing. But I certainly don't see how you can say that "there really doesn't seem to be a good case for not accepting that the parent and child together are the best people to make such a decision"
How so. Should parent and child together decide whether the child might like to have a bit of carnal knowledge on the side? Incest, bestiality? Why not? Why is the state involved?
Because communities will sometimes say "we don't do that here".
Partial nudity. Well that depends doesn't it.
NPOV (28) Sacrosanct - 1. extremely sacred or inviolable: a sacrosanct chamber in the temple.
2. not to be entered or trespassed upon: She considered her home office sacrosanct.
3. above or beyond criticism, change, or interference: a manuscript deemed sacrosanct.
Fairly clear, I'd have thought. Schools are schools, not the talent pools for aspiring artists of any calibre, especially without the knowledge or consent of parents with children at a particular school.
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.
But we have oodles of evidence of the damage caused by parents engaging in incest with their children, and, sadly, lots of examples of them doing it anyway. We don't have any evidence of the damage caused by parents and their children jointly agreeing to be subjects in an artist's studio, regardless of their state of undress.
In the case of bestiality it's pretty clear that animals *cannot* consent in any way, so if the threat of government intervention is needed to prevent people taking sexual advantage of animals I don't have an issue with that.
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.?
NPOV, I don't see a lot of logic in your argument. "oodles of evidence of the damage caused by parents engaging in incest with their children" bears absolutely no relation to artists touting talent on school grounds without the knowledge or consent of parents of children attending.
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.
Niall, my answer is in response to Nicholas, who appeared to claim that my argument that the decision is best left to the parents and children in question could logically extended to incest.
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.
So be it, NPOV, and I apologise if I intruded into a response which didn't concern me. In my day, parents decided what did & did not happen with their children in school, and so I believe it should remain. However, considering your postulation re: VBC, which I gather is music oriented, I don't know your vintage but if you're of mine, your parents would have been advised of the visit by this musical promotional body and permission sought for that body to speak with you or at least involve you in whatever activities they were promoting.
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.
I'm sorry you don't believe the children who participate in artistic photography projects don't benefit from them - statements from parents of some of his past subjects would strongly indicate the opposite.
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!
BTW, Nicholas, I might be prepared to accept something of a compromise position: that the child must be 18 before consenting to having the nude or partially-nude photographs sold and displayed in a gallery.
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.
NPOV, I have to say that at my schools, and there were buckets of them, I don't think we ever had mass try-outs for any external event, rather, people were informed of them and invited to go along if they chose.
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?
Patrick, my memory is that the VBC reps came to each class one at a time and actually gave preliminary auditions right there in the classroom. Now, that might be wrong, but it certainly wouldn't bother me if it were the case today. It doesn't strike me as significantly different to auditions we did for school musicals and the like - no parental consent was involved there.
I don't see any similarities between people coming to see children in a school play or choir or sporting event and approaching a child's parents in relation to their performance, and someone wandering around a school ground assessing children's looks. Auditioning or choosing children on their talents is a totally different process to judging them on their physicality.
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.
Patrick,
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.
"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"
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.
NPOV, you just read what you wanted to read, not what I said. I wasn't suggesting for a second that any of the children knew - or cared if they did - who Bill Henson is.
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.
"Im saying that there are children who...would have known exactly what his gaze meant and exactly how they were being judged"
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.
Oh tut. Reading what you want to read again NPOV. Where did I say it was a serious problem? I said it's not how children should be judged or looked at.
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.
Ok but a statement like "it's not how children should be judged or looked at" is merely your opinion. I would agree with it if there was actually demonstrable evidence of the psychological damage inflicted upon children because of such acts. And as a principle, it surely wouldn't just apply to what goes on at school grounds, but also when parents take their kids to advertising agencies etc. etc. So if it's a principle strong enough to guide government legislation, it would potentially lead to banning a lot of activities that go on currently all the time.
Also vj, do you accept that children getting physically hurt (scrapes and grazes) at school is a necessary part of growing up? If not, why not psychological "scrapes and gazes", such as a they are? Having your feelings hurt seems to me just as much a part of life as getting physically hurt: take it too far and it can inflict serious lasting damage. But if you never experience it growing up, you're going to be in for a tough time as an a adult.
NPOV, you're going to have to trust me on this one. It's not a matter of it being 'merely my opinion'. Were you ever bullied as a child? Did you have to wait until there were studies and court cases and policies and procedures in place before you accepted that bullying hurts children? I repeat again - children are not objects to be gazed at and rejected simply on the basis of their physiology.
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.
vj, yes I was bullied at school. Yes I was sensitive about my appearance, though only really as I approached year 11. I'm not "just going to trust you". If parents were coming forward stating that they didn't believe it to be fair for their children to be subjected to the judgments of a photographer, I'd accept they had a legitimate point, and would, as I said previously, support government legislation that required schools to forewarn parents of such activities, or even legislation that required schools to formulate their own policy on whether they allowed such visitors and ensure that parents were aware of them before they signed up their children.
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".
Errr....maybe take a look at the photos NPOV??
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.
"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 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."
vj, I fully agree the children in the photograph are beautiful...but are you so sure that Henson couldn't have used you as a subject and made you appear beautiful?
Oh Nabakov. Yawn. You didn't even write that tired old put-down correctly.
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.
The only way that grown adults - especially those with children - can continue to use the obscene euphemism - "scouting" - is that they know quite well this creepy trawling is wrong, but cannot face the possible banishment by The Luvvies!