First Prev
of 5
Next Last

“No carbon dioxide tax”

Since: Feb 10

bullet-proof tiger

#1 Aug 16, 2010
PHOTOS of a naked teenager by artist Bill Henson are part of a taxpayer-funded exhibition teaching students about art and adolescence.
The Monash Gallery of Art touring exhibition features photographs of a naked teenage boy, with his ribs protruding, and his pubic hair on display.

The educational resource provided to students and teachers said the exhibition dealt with themes such as the human body, adolescence and suburbia.

Should Henson's photos be used to teach art to students? Have your say below

Students are also invited to look at Henson's body of work via a weblink to the Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery, which was raided by police in 2008.

This site depicts teenage girls naked and wrapped in tinsel or topless.

It ties the photography to VCE subjects ranging from art to philosophy and asks students how successful Henson is at capturing youth and adolescence.

The Burrinja Gallery, in Upwey, said they did not have an age restriction on the exhibition and they had only received positive feedback from visitors.

Their education resource brochure suggests contacting gallery staff to determine "the suitability of exhibition content for the year levels you wish to bring".

"There is a cover fee so people obviously have to opt in," a spokeswoman said.

"We've actually had really positive responses."

Secondary students have visited the exhibition to see a selection of Henson's work done between 1977 and the early '90s. But Family Council secretary Bill Muehlenberg questioned the value of exposing children to photographs of naked teenagers.

"Most parents would be rightly aghast," he said.

"Why do children have to be exposed to this. It's just softening them up to accept worse things."

He said it may not be the artist's intention, but there were those in the community who would use this type of art for more sinister means.

"I think it's very irresponsible, very poor taste," he said.

The MGA, which has one of the largest collections of Henson's photography, said the exhibition featured some shots of a naked teenager, but "there is nothing there to be offended by".

"It's up to individual galleries to place a warning like that if they think it is necessary," a MGA spokesman said.

The exhibition is sponsored by the City of Monash, MGA, Arts Victoria and the State Government.

“No carbon dioxide tax”

Since: Feb 10

bullet-proof tiger

#2 Aug 16, 2010
He should be in jail.
Did you know, If you wanted to take photo's of beaches, buildings, bridges, people or train stations, the form you have to fill out has 17 more questions than a gun licence.

Victorian government supports pedo's..

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#3 Aug 16, 2010
SupaAussie wrote:
He should be in jail.
Did you know, If you wanted to take photo's of beaches, buildings, bridges, people or train stations, the form you have to fill out has 17 more questions than a gun licence.
Victorian government supports pedo's..
Its you who should be in jail, you display that by your depraved accusations representing what is actually in your mind. There's nothing wrong with tasteful depictions of the human body as we are all born the same. Your problem is you're so inferior in intellect, you can only think others would have such a warped degeneracy for a brain.

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#4 Aug 16, 2010
Palawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Its you who should be in jail, you display that by your depraved accusations representing what is actually in your mind. There's nothing wrong with tasteful depictions of the human body as we are all born the same. Your problem is you're so inferior in intellect, you can only think others would have such a warped degeneracy for a brain.
Echoes of Roman Polanski!!!

Shame on you, Palawa, for supporting child porn! Because that's what it is, someone profiting from, i.e., the exploitation of the taking (or the appearance/innuendo, of taking) of a child's innocence by showing them in a sexual scenario. Do you think the "artist" was being completely altruistic in his selection of subjects?
inflammatory

Melbourne, Australia

#7 Aug 17, 2010
Palawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Its you who should be in jail, you display that by your depraved accusations representing what is actually in your mind. There's nothing wrong with tasteful depictions of the human body as we are all born the same. Your problem is you're so inferior in intellect, you can only think others would have such a warped degeneracy for a brain.
some people don't think bill henson's depictions of the human body are tasteful and they are created for ADULTS to view. supa is trying to look after innocent kids.

“No carbon dioxide tax”

Since: Feb 10

bullet-proof tiger

#8 Aug 17, 2010
Palawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Its you who should be in jail, you display that by your depraved accusations representing what is actually in your mind. There's nothing wrong with tasteful depictions of the human body as we are all born the same. Your problem is you're so inferior in intellect, you can only think others would have such a warped degeneracy for a brain.

I'm against child porn and you are against me being agaist it.
Your self interest will not save the pedo's. Dabbled in it a bit your self Palawa?
Angry Aussie youtube

Australia

#9 Aug 17, 2010
hmmmm teenie poonani
inflammatory

Melbourne, Australia

#10 Aug 17, 2010
SupaAussie wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm against child porn and you are against me being agaist it.
Your self interest will not save the pedo's. Dabbled in it a bit your self Palawa?
pedos are gonna look at material such as the controversial pictures bill henson takes - why do some people not care about that?

“No carbon dioxide tax”

Since: Feb 10

bullet-proof tiger

#11 Aug 17, 2010
inflammatory wrote:
<quoted text>pedos are gonna look at material such as the controversial pictures bill henson takes - why do some people not care about that?
I care.
There are MANY art collections that would teach the kids the same thing.

Look how many there are with no child pornography.
http://www.onlymelbourne.com.au/melbourne.php...

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#12 Aug 17, 2010
inflammatory wrote:
<quoted text>some people don't think bill henson's depictions of the human body are tasteful and they are created for ADULTS to view. supa is trying to look after innocent kids.
I'm sure the people you are talking about don't like depictions of truth either and probably have so many hangups and suppressed deranged fantasies, they are to scared to look at the art, rather than the body. As they have no control over their minds, then they know anything outside their programming will release their real selves. We all know where the vast majority of child and women abusers come from, the god cult.

Innocent children are never negatively effected by reality, only by the indoctrinated programming they get from ideologically debauched wankers like you.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#13 Aug 17, 2010
SupaAussie wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm against child porn and you are against me being agaist it.
Your self interest will not save the pedo's. Dabbled in it a bit your self Palawa?
It's always nutters like you who see the worst in natural art, you're just scared of your inability to control your depraved mind. So like a good doggy nutter you have to try and push your own insipid feelings and inadequacies upon others.

As usual you get it wrong and your pathetic accusations just reflect how deep your own guilt and denial is, along with inability to get your mind of the most depraved acts and thoughts which constantly flood your mind any time you see a bit of flesh, or think about it. I bet its the same when you see a pig as well, lust fills you primitive mind.

It's a known and accepted psychological and criminal fact, the worst perpetrators of sexual crimes, all denounce and blame everyone else, until they are caught. Your turn may be just around the corner nutter
Alien from earth

Australia

#14 Aug 17, 2010
It's only a matter of perception..if you view a picture of a child in her early teens with no top on as sexual, then it is sexual for you. For the rest of us, we just see it as nature and the portrait of something that is normal and natural. Sorry but it's not disgusting or embarassing.

I would consider suggestive perspectives, postioning and genitalia in the photographic medium as offensive material.. What would people be saying if Bill Henson was a sculptor and produced a perfect duplicate of a nude child's form in granite? They would just applaud him and compare it to Da Vinci or Michaelangelo.

If you can't view a human body, no matter whom it may belong to, as the subject of art work, then I really do feel sorry for you, as you've had your brain washed in the PC brain washing machine.
inflammatory

Melbourne, Australia

#15 Aug 17, 2010
Palawa wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure the people you are talking about don't like depictions of truth either and probably have so many hangups and suppressed deranged fantasies, they are to scared to look at the art, rather than the body. As they have no control over their minds, then they know anything outside their programming will release their real selves. We all know where the vast majority of child and women abusers come from, the god cult.
Innocent children are never negatively effected by reality, only by the indoctrinated programming they get from ideologically debauched wankers like you.
there was no need to get so nasty, get control of that.

but I disagree,'innocent children HAVE been negatively effected by reality' of being abused by a pedophile and some peoples concern is that some pedophiles will look at those 'depictions' and go grab themselves an innocent child on their way home through the park ... don't make this about religion, it isn't about religion, you sound exactly like the religious nutters you're always putting down.
inflammatory

Melbourne, Australia

#16 Aug 17, 2010
Alien from earth wrote:
It's only a matter of perception..if you view a picture of a child in her early teens with no top on as sexual, then it is sexual for you. For the rest of us, we just see it as nature and the portrait of something that is normal and natural. Sorry but it's not disgusting or embarassing.
I would consider suggestive perspectives, postioning and genitalia in the photographic medium as offensive material.. What would people be saying if Bill Henson was a sculptor and produced a perfect duplicate of a nude child's form in granite? They would just applaud him and compare it to Da Vinci or Michaelangelo.
If you can't view a human body, no matter whom it may belong to, as the subject of art work, then I really do feel sorry for you, as you've had your brain washed in the PC brain washing machine.
Palawa, next time try this guys tactic, he didn't feel the need to be offensive!! or a nutter.
mumbo

Ellendale, Australia

#17 Aug 17, 2010
inflammatory wrote:
<quoted text>there was no need to get so nasty, get control of that.
but I disagree,'innocent children HAVE been negatively effected by reality' of being abused by a pedophile and some peoples concern is that some pedophiles will look at those 'depictions' and go grab themselves an innocent child on their way home through the park ... don't make this about religion, it isn't about religion, you sound exactly like the religious nutters you're always putting down.
I agree with him, you seem to over dramatise something which is entirely innocent, while putting pretty stupid connotations on it and not the reality. How can you claim seeing a young person in a carefully planned and excellently shot photo will make all these misfits run out and grab kids of the street. The facts remain that 98% of child abuse is carried out by people close to the child and in most cases within some form or organised activity, most cases revolve around people of faith as statistics prove.

More than 95% of child abuse is verbal and psychological, carried out by parents and peers. The word nutter as used by the poster to describe people of god like you, is excellent as it fits the psychological profile of someone with that disposition. Do a bit of study into psychological illness stats and you'll find more than 85% of people on psychotropic and antidepressant medicine, are all associated with a religious ideology. In the case of teenagers it's very high, especially within the USA where more than 67% of teenagers are medicated and more than 74% of adults.
inflammatory

Melbourne, Australia

#18 Aug 17, 2010
mumbo wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with him, you seem to over dramatise something which is entirely innocent, while putting pretty stupid connotations on it and not the reality. How can you claim seeing a young person in a carefully planned and excellently shot photo will make all these misfits run out and grab kids of the street. The facts remain that 98% of child abuse is carried out by people close to the child and in most cases within some form or organised activity, most cases revolve around people of faith as statistics prove.
More than 95% of child abuse is verbal and psychological, carried out by parents and peers. The word nutter as used by the poster to describe people of god like you, is excellent as it fits the psychological profile of someone with that disposition. Do a bit of study into psychological illness stats and you'll find more than 85% of people on psychotropic and antidepressant medicine, are all associated with a religious ideology. In the case of teenagers it's very high, especially within the USA where more than 67% of teenagers are medicated and more than 74% of adults.
I said some pedophiles not all misfits.

I used the word nutter because it's one of Palawa's favourites.

I don't care about the people who aren't affected by this so-called art, I care about the ones who will be and who will act on it. aren't you?
mumbo

Ellendale, Australia

#19 Aug 17, 2010
inflammatory wrote:
<quoted text>I said some pedophiles not all misfits.
I used the word nutter because it's one of Palawa's favourites.
I don't care about the people who aren't affected by this so-called art, I care about the ones who will be and who will act on it. aren't you?
Paedophiles are misfits, unless you are one of them, then it's normal in their eyes and the word nutter fits very well to those who can't live in the real world as with the religious. These photos and millions like them have been around for a long time and there has been no increase in child molestation to my knowledge. You probably don't understand or a to naive to realise people with warped minds will turn any innocent depiction of their target demography into a sordid illusion. You prove that in what you say, so I would assume you are probably someone who believes in religion and your target demography is all who don't agree with you and your beliefs.

What I find hard to accept is how people like you can come up with such ridiculous sordid assumptions and connotations, which in my eyes and any reasonable thinking persons, would never think of when viewing art or photography in general.

I care for the state of society when people of your type try to impose your unwarranted religious morals on everyone because you don't seem to be able to cope with life as it is. Body covering was first used to cope with climate conditions and was only imposed on most pf the peoples of the world by religious invasion. Religious people seem to be unable to control their minds from drifting to debauchery, as you so clearly demonstrate and that's a big problem for our future..

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#20 Aug 17, 2010
inflammatory wrote:
<quoted text>Palawa, next time try this guys tactic, he didn't feel the need to be offensive!! or a nutter.
Unlike you I'm not a programmed clone, god nutters are offensive by definition and implementation of their lives. It's not my problem but their's and I'm not prepared to condone their behaviour, demands or outcomes as you so fervently do.

Your claims regarding these photo's shows how panicked you are by reality and probably how scared you are of the reality of innocent things like this will effect your mind. Maybe you should see someone who can help, like a funeral parlor.
TBA

Gymea, Australia

#21 Aug 17, 2010
As a parent of teens, I would never allow them to be photographed naked.
The parents who gave permission are wackos.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#22 Aug 17, 2010
TBA wrote:
As a parent of teens, I would never allow them to be photographed naked.
The parents who gave permission are wackos.
Neither would I, but I don't have the right to make judgments for others.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Australia Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Sonya Kruger is a transvestite and big brother ... 3 min ant-i-big ears 6
Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 shot down over Uk... 25 min TERRORIST RUSSIA 1,130
Beheadings of Aussie infidels at Lakemba mosque 31 min piggs 19
Australian Liberals Urge Expat Kiwis To Favour ... 38 min No More Kiwis 2
Adult breast feeding ANR/ABR Victoria Australia. (May '12) 51 min Greg_c78 256
Africans replace Europeans in USA. What happens? 54 min piggs 2
jewish conspiracy to destroy white races is rub... 57 min Anti-Bigot 3
Why should Australians fear from Muslims? (Dec '07) 1 hr Jim Barnesy 44,913
Indian Girls vs White Girls, Whose More Attract... (Aug '13) 1 hr Jim Barnesy 1,078
WAR India v Australia, who will win? 2 hr Jim Barnesy 4,724
How much of Australia is inhabitable? 9 hr charADES n FKWITs... 61
badi behan ko nangi nahate hue dekha. Aur usne ... (May '12) 16 hr charADEs n FKWITs... 1,382
•••

Australia People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••