Pages

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

the minefield that is art photography

If you want more Henson-esque things to think about, have a read of this. Blimey.

7 comments:

Amanda said...

Am I going illiterate? It talks about and names the artist -- a Google search confirms its not a pseudonymn -- and then there's the bit about not naming her in the present tense and starts to refer to her as "the Perth artist." Is it another Perth artist? Which one? I've read it about five times. Me is confused.

Mindy said...

So taking photos of your own kids nude could get you charged? They'd have to charge almost every parent in Australia in that case. FFS.

tigtog said...

I think it's fair enough that the case was examined in light of the report from the film-developer - most sexual abuse does occur within the ambit of family & friends, after all. But for the case to be pursued so vigorously when the shots obviously had a strong and coherent artistic context for a project that could be checked out with the faculty is just absurd.

Nudity does not always mean sex, and nor bloody should it, FFS.

tigtog said...

Oh, and to answer Amanda's question: I would imagine the answer lies in the link being to an archive and the original article being from 1998. Back when it was written they couldn't identify her because of then current legal advice, presumable the legal advice of the position now has changed.

Amanda said...

Yes I assumed that tigtog but proof reading can be an art in itself!

tigtog said...

Too true!

worldpeace and a speedboat said...

that's sucky. I'll add my FFS to everyone else's.

I do feel a bit conflicted about some of henson's work (past and present), though.