3 Comments

• 

  Bovinus at 01:37 PM JST - 7th June

  Art is intended to make people think, which is what happened in Australia, so a success for the artist?

  It's only porn if people view it as porn. Artists aren't responsible for how people view and react to their work.

  Young girls are used as models, cheerleaders etc all the time. This is because they are expected to be viewed sexually. How is this better to photographing young girls? It's not, and that's why the immediate reaction to Henson's was 'porn', not 'art' because we live in a society where teenage girls are sexualised and it's considered normal.

• 

  tclh at 09:08 PM JST - 7th June

  It is porn when people view those pictures with sexual intentions. It is art when people can explore through " pure,clean mind" the beauty of human female body when it is just about to develope fully. But as a commonsense in today society, you should keep thousands meters away from nude pictures of under age girls(children) if you don't want to be misunderstood(or worse) by many people.

• 

  presto345 at 02:00 AM JST - 8th June

  Pornography is the representation of the human body with the intent of the artist/photographer to arouse erotic/sexual urges. The artist/photographer can sometimes predict what the effects of their work can lead to, but is not responsible for how their work is (mis)interpreted. Censoring the display of nude images, from adults as well as from children, puts severe restrictions on the freedom of expression which did not even exist in the late middle ages. Sadly for Australia their PM was very much out of line with his personal judgment of a form of art he apparently has absolutely no understanding of.

Register or login to add a comment!