Comments on: DOES BILL HENSON photoshop TEEN PORN ?

By: tonigondomar

tonigondomar — Tue, 28 Dec 2010 15:20:48 +0000

noveu sur la toille

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:24:41 +0000

Hi Matt,
Thanks for your comment. I agree… his work is often deeply beautiful. I feel however that this does not retract the serious issues regarding his use of young, naked, and highly sexualised models.
Best,
Ilana

By: matt

matt — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:56:52 +0000

no mate, your effort does not compare…could everyone stop focussing on the controversy, and just recognise the beauty of his work?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 23:11:46 +0000

Another thing – it’s ridiculous that the prime minister called the pictures “absolutely revolting.” He’s just another immature politician who can’t appreciate art, and takes everything at first glance.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 23:09:07 +0000

Just because he takes photos of nude children doesn’t make him a pervert. I find his work to be very artistic.

I find it offensive that you suggest he’s just trying to be controversial. He’s not just trying to get publicity.

Here’s a third option for you: maybe it’s just nude art. I believe nude art should be allowed to portray models of any age. It’s not like he’s trying to get Playboy to publish his pictures.

People don’t care when babies are naked (or at least shirtless) in public; why is teenage nudity in art such a big deal?

By: Bri

Bri — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:07:53 +0000

Anyone anywhere can see, ogle, take pictures of nude children at any naturist camp so why go nuts over artistic pics like these? David Hamilton’s books were sold in every bookstore in Toronto back in the 70s and 80s. Have we moved backwards here? Art is art and I think anyone who is familiar with art can pretty much spot the difference between art and smut. I guess it depends on the colour of your neck and how far right of center you are.

By: Johnno

Johnno — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 01:39:09 +0000

You suggest portrayal of girls on the brink of puberty, as a subject in Art, was only okay in the sixteenth century . . . . If you cared to do your homework, it was also okay in the seventeenth, and eighteenth, and nineteenth, and twentieth centuries.

The new wowserism is a very recent development that has resulted from media hysteria and the confusion between two entirely different things.

The models of Bill Henson were not abused, harmed or mistreated in any way, and likewise neither were those of Piloxi Papapetrou, Lisa Thomasetti, Sally Mann or so many other artists targetted by this campaign of ignorance.

The models and artists have every right to sue these fools for such blatant false accusation and innuendo.