File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/henson-exhibition-shut-down/2008/05/22/1211182997068.html

discuss?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0PhotographerAdam HollingworthImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:05:21 19:02:47Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width600Image Height410
>> Anonymous
fap fap fap?
>> Anonymous
pedos posing as photographers? cp = insta-art
>> Bunny !4geHgd7wog
she's naked in background...
>> Anonymous
Puritans afraid of innocent nudity in art. Nothing new.
>> sv !!vC9KZM3Ch/H
>>187542

THIS is why I got into photography. .. >_>
>> Warren !!JL+uuUHRNlZ
Bill Henson is one of the most talented contemporary fine art photographers out there. I can understand the controversy to a point, just like I can with Jock Sturges, as most people can't seem to be bothered with taking the time to actually understand the work instead of just condemning it without question. This cancellation is absurd and sadly indicative of the sort of ignorance that seems to be ever more commonplace among those claiming to be acting in the name of morality.
>> Warren !!JL+uuUHRNlZ
Oh, and this from a related article:

"A NAKED girl emerges from the darkness, eyes downcast and hands clasped before a barely pubescent body.

The image is one of several unsettling depictions of adolescents in the latest exhibition by Bill Henson, the celebrated yet sometimes controversial Australian photographer."

Unsettling depictions? Fucking ignorant writers are making it worse.
>> Anonymous
>>187567
>Unsettling depictions?
Don't be so stupid. Obviously it's unsettling to some people or else there wouldn't be controversy over it. It doesn't mean they're right. l2journalism
>> Warren !!JL+uuUHRNlZ
>>187570
The point is that the "journalists" writing about it are doing a shit job of providing objective coverage of the incident. They're just adding fuel to the fire using wording like that.
>> Anonymous
If nude images of underage children are deemed to be illegal in a country than posing them as art shouldn't change that illegality, no matter how (dis)tasteful that art may be.
>> Anonymous
>>187576
No, the point is you're ignorant, and you don't understand the concept behind writing an informative article of a news event. You're only finding extra weight behind the phrasing because you're looking to be offended by the entire premise of the controversy, since that's the prejudice you have in your mind.
>> Anonymous
>>187581
>If nude images of underage children are deemed to be illegal in a country
There's no country in the world where that's illegal.
>> Anonymous
>>187581
I disagree. I think context and purpose is important. Say you've got a an erotic nude photo hanging in an art gallery. In that context its art as you study the aesthetically pleasing curves of the female. Say you see the same photo on /s/ and fap to it thinking "omg great tits". In that context its porn.
>> Anonymous
>>187584
There is absolutely nothing objective about that language. Whether truth is best served by journalism being strictly objective is another issue- stuff like this makes a case for "yes" pretty strongly- but there is nothing objective about the prose there. It clearly is designed to shock the reader that such pictures even exist.'

Now, the pictures very probably are unsettling, they're probably supposed to be. But that doesn't excuse the sort of blatant outrage-baiting those lines are.
>> Warren !!JL+uuUHRNlZ
>>187584
How is it ignorant to take issue with writing that is clearly biased being passed off as journalism? I have no trouble understanding informative writing of a news event, especially because I'M A FUCKING WRITER TOO. But I also understand bias and can pick up on it when news articles that are supposed to be journalistic veer off into editorial land.
>> Anonymous
>>187593
Again, you're an idiot who has never taken a compositional course beyond high school. That writing is very adequately objective, and you're just putting weight behind the words. I mean, I'm on your "side", even. It's just that you don't know what you're talking about.
>> Warren !!JL+uuUHRNlZ
Also, anyone who is not familiar with his work should go look at as much of it as you can find, so as to actually become familiar with his subject matter and the way he handles it. That alone sheds a lot of light on all parties involved in the controversy.
>> Anonymous
>>187595
>writing that is clearly biased
Because it's not clearly biased, lulz.
>I'M A FUCKING WRITER TOO
Either a fictional writer or a poor writer, choose one.
>> Anonymous
>>187593
>But that doesn't excuse the sort of blatant outrage-baiting those lines are
And guess which hot-headed fool used the bias in his own head and took that bait? And you think the problem lies with the writing...
>> Anonymous
>>187598
It is clearly biased. That you're calling people idiots because you say it's not is rife with irony.
>> Anonymous
>>187596
Save the stupid assumptions about my background. I've actually got a much stronger background in writing than in photography, academically and otherwise.

Those lines are designed to play to lurid public interest in the topic of pedophilia. It's so obvious.

It isn't so much the words "unsettling depiction" but how they follow from a description like that, and the description itself.

OP article is an example of good, objective journalism. That copy isn't. It's sensationalistic, plain and simple.
>> Anonymous
>>187604
>It is clearly biased.
No, it's not. Really. Point out what's biased about it. Is it:
>>"unsettling depictions"
So you're telling me that the depictions aren't, in any way, to any number of people, anywhere in the world, unsettling? Why is being unsettled a bad thing? Isn't "shaking things up" good sometimes? Why don't you look at it that way? Because YOU'RE biased.

Is it:
>>"sometimes controversial Australian photographer"
Is that not true? He is controversial on occasion? He's Australian? Is he a photographer?! Point out anything "clearly biased" in that article, I dare you.

Hey guys I like the word irony too but you shouldn't use it when the situation doesn't call for it. Especially if you don't even know the definition of editorializing.
>> Anonymous
>>187600
No, baiting the outrage of people who have children and thus get emotional about anything resembling sexual abuse of children.
>> Anonymous
>>187608
That's the offensive angle, you're the one who took the defensive bait, which clearly outlines your own bias.
>> Anonymous
>>187607
>So you're telling me that the depictions aren't, in any way, to any number of people, anywhere in the world, unsettling? Why is being unsettled a bad thing? Isn't "shaking things up" good sometimes? Why don't you look at it that way? Because YOU'RE biased.

It's supposed to be JOURNALISTIC COVERAGE. That's the fucking point. The writers of these articles are clearly trying to bring on more controversy - they do so because they know its good for their business.

Yes, I am biased in my opinions. That's what opinions are, after all. However, journalistic integrity dictates that the kind of blatant baiting used in these articles NOT be used. If these were editorial pieces, I wouldn't give a shit about the bias. But, they're not, and a photographer whose work is totally valid is being led to the fucking gallows by a hysterical public and an irresponsible media. Shit, even the Australian PM has jumped on this now, and I can guarantee that he knows shit about Henson's work. Bias and ignorance abounds in this debate, and it's totally out of hand.
>> Anonymous
>>187607
Learn to fucking recognize tone. The description of the piece in the first sentence coupled with the description of them as "unsettling" is supposed to flick off alarm bells in people's mind. It's much more the first sentence than the phrase "unsettling depictions."

I addressed the bit about unsettling being good in an earlier post, but here goes again: yes, this photographer's work is probably supposed to unsettle people. That's not the point here. The point is that the copy was clearly written to make people feel there's something amiss with the situation.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>187605
The part that was quoted seems pretty straight-forward descriptive. The girl is naked. Her eyes are downcast, she's emerging from darkness, and she doesn't look very old. Pretty basic. Just looking at the photo, it clearly isn't a happy image, even if it isn't pedophilia as such. You're the one who seems to be placing undue emphasis on the word "naked".
Now don't get me wrong, I'm sure this guy is entirely aware of the possible interpretations. He's probably banking on that for attention. But I don't see it emphasized in your quote, or in the photo.
>> Anonymous
>>187609
Do you think that journalist cares what some random people interested in photography as art care about, or their biases? They're far outnumbered by the number of people with children they care about who aren't very educated on art in general, Western art history, photography, or pedophilia.
>> Anonymous
>>187609
Just stop it already. You're proving my point exactly. That the article is baiting proves that it is biased.
>> Anonymous
>>187612
>Learn to fucking recognize tone.
Expository news journalism has no tone. That's the point. The tone is all in your head.
>yes, this photographer's work is probably supposed to unsettle people.
So then what's the problem with an article saying that same thing?
>That's not the point here.
lol yes it is.
>The point is that the copy was clearly written to make people feel there's something amiss with the situation.
And again, you're wrong. It wasn't "clearly written" that way, and the tone you're perceiving is all in your head. You can't understand objective journalism that doesn't read like an instruction manual.

>>187611
>Yes, I am biased in my opinions.
Then your words cannot be counted as relevant. If you're unable to see both sides, you cannot make comments on an article exposing the controversy between both sides.
>Bias and ignorance abounds in this debate, and it's totally out of hand.
lmao, all this exaggeration and defensive inter-whining from literally two words in an article? Don't you realize you're the thing that you claim to hate, only on the other side? You're like a murderer that only kills petty thieves, since they're criminals after all.
>> Anonymous
>You're the one who seems to be placing undue emphasis on the word "naked".

Just a technical note: the capitalized "naked" in the quote earlier on is how it appears in the article. Just a matter of copy and paste, not undue emphasis.
>> Anonymous
>>187617
You're absolutely right, but this thread has gone into a discussion over the tone that people claiming to know all about journalism find in an article, not who the writer's potential audiences are or what their knowledge base is.
>> Anonymous
>>187625
>Then your words cannot be counted as relevant. If you're unable to see both sides, you cannot make comments on an article exposing the controversy between both sides.

You're a fucking idiot. Being able to see both sides has nothing to do with whether or not you are biased in your opinions. Opinions ARE bias. I am biased. You are biased. Every person with an opinion is biased. THAT'S HOW OPINION WORKS.
>> Anonymous
>>187613
No, it's not the word "naked." It's charged, emotional, vivid language like "eyes downcast," "hands clapsed." "Naked" is a literal, appropriate adjective.

>I'm sure this guy is entirely aware of the possible interpretations. He's probably banking on that for attention.

That's the point.

>or in the photo.

The photo's fine. I wish the paper had been allowed to reprint the actual work (though on newsprint... ugh) so people could judge for themselves, but the photograph is pretty straightforward: it shows you who the artist is, doesn't make him look like a freak, and shows you as much of the work as the legal department and photo editor could stomach.

But the photograph in the OP came from a different media source than Warren's quote.
>> Anonymous
>>187630
Christ this is getting out of hand. The source for
>>187567
Is here: http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/he-calls-the-shots-and-lets-audiences-decide/2008/05/21/121118288749
5.html
>> Anonymous
>>187629
>You are biased.
No, I'm not. Bias is not opinion. Bias is the inability to see the validity in contrasting opinions.
>Every person with an opinion is biased. THAT'S HOW OPINION WORKS.
Aside from the fact that you're wrong in your correlation of opinion and bias, that's not how expository journalism works, which is the point of this "discussion" we all are having. News journalism doesn't have opinions, bias, or tone. That's the entire point that you're too ignorant to see. The tone is all in your head.
>> Anonymous
>>187625
You really think the copy Warren quoted lives up to that standard of not having a tone?
>> sage sage
>>187632
And with that, we begin saging
>> Anonymous
>>187633
The text he copied an pasted in this thread, over which a couple people got so outraged, is not biased at all, and is what I'm basing my end of the discussion on.
>> Anonymous
>>187632
Goddamnit, yes it does. It shouldn't, but it does. Coverage is shaped all the time by a variety of forces, conscious or not, for a variety of purposes. I can't believe anyone could be such an uncritical reader of media.
>> sage sage
>>187636
You're either blind or retarded
>> Anonymous
>>187636
The only thing I'm outraged at is your stupidity in taking the media at its word that it is objective and untoned.

The stupid copy is par for the course. I'm inured to it.
>> Anonymous
>>187640
Good argument.
>>187637
No, it doesn't. You're wrong. Once it does cross that line, it becomes editorial. The fox news Iraq reports and other coverage like that over which you're probably reminiscing are editorial. That's why they get a whole network, to insert their own opinions into their coverage and garner viewers with a similar mindset.

But there's none of that going on in the quoted text you're so outraged over. You've 'over-trained' yourself to find tone in the smallest thing so your can become passively confrontational about it, and it's not working here.
>> Anonymous
>>187631
The copy gets much better and balanced in the meat of the piece, but it's clear the opening bit was an irresponsible and cheap way for the writer to reel in readers.
>> Anonymous
>>187642
Read:
>>187645
>> sage sage
>>187645
I maintain my argument, and that you're either blind or retarded.

Your concept of bias, tone, and journalistic vs editorial writing, as well as your evaluation of the quoted copy, are so warped as to be laughable.
>> Anonymous
>>187645
1) It's not always marked as editorial, because the writers aren't even always aware of it themselves, because they're human beings with their own biases and motivations. Tone is pervasive, no one, no matter how objective they try to be, can escape it.

2) >'over-trained' yourself to find tone in the smallest thing so your can become passively confrontational about it, and it's not working here.

There is no such thing as being too critical of a text. Sorry.
>> Anonymous
>>187626
>>187633
>>187637
>>187640
>>187646

You all DO know that it's an EXTREMELY common practise to capitalise the first two words of a news article, right? You don't think they're actually capitalising "naked" out of their own preference, or are you that stupid?
>> Anonymous
>>187651
I think everyone here knows that. The "opening bit" is the first few sentences, not the words "A NAKED." I wouldn't even make a fuss if it was "A NAKED GIRL." That's nothing.
>> Anonymous
>>187650
>There is no such thing as being too critical of a text. Sorry.
When it makes you descend into irrational, overreacting argumentation, sure there is! Your inability to speak calmly is your own downfall.
>> Anonymous
>>187652
Right, but for a while now, I've been having my discussion over just the text that was posted in this thread. That's what everyone seems to have a problem with, and its supposed tone.

For what it's worth, though, I'm reading the article and I don't see any bias.
>> Anonymous
>>187653
I'm pissed at you for being so stupid as to believe journalism is or ever has been perfectly calm and objective. That's where all the emotion comes from. The copy gets a sigh, you get prolonged and sustained frustration and anger.
>> Anonymous
>>187654
>For what it's worth, though, I'm reading the article and I don't see any bias.
Same person here, I would also like to add that, hilariously enough, no one has managed to actually copy and paste anything explicitly that they feel conveys overt tone in the linked article. So, obviously I'm winning.
>> Anonymous
>>187656
Warren did, in>>187567

>>187567.

That's the bad, baiting opening copy we're discussing. The rest of the article is at the very least decent. The opener is not.
>> Anonymous
>>187655
>I'm pissed at you for being so stupid as to believe journalism is or ever has been perfectly calm and objective.
First of all, lol @ your constant overreactions. Second, there are probably billions of examples of unbiased journalism, including the text quoted in
>>187567
There's nothing biased about it, and you've failed to successfully point out anything that is biased, and that's the whole thing everyone got their panties into a bunch in the first place, and now you're changing your story over what you're mad about just to save face.
>> Anonymous
>>187658
>Warren did, in>>187567
Oldddd news, I've already been accounting for that. I raised issue with it, and no one was able to explicitly detail what they found offensive about the quoted sentences.
>That's the bad, baiting opening copy we're discussing. The rest of the article is at the very least decent. The opener is not.
Again, I know, but I don't see anything biased in the opener, and no one has yet to paste something there they find offensive AND explain, successfully, why it's biased.
>> Anonymous
I think it is very disrespectful and potentially harmful to show these children naked in a public place for everyone to gawk at. They are not old enough to give consent.
>> Anonymous
>>187659
No, I said the same thing in an earlier post:

>>187642.

Journalists have biases like everyone else. Sometimes they have their act together. Sometimes bias slips through and the journalist doesn't even realize it. Sometimes some other motivation has them write prose that plays to a bias they don't even have.
>> Anonymous
>>187661
I know you're trolling for fun because you want to get involved in the group, but if you'd read the article, you'd see that the parents gave the childrens' consent as their legal guardians.

>>187662
Journalists have biases like everyone else. >Sometimes they have their act together. Sometimes bias slips through and the journalist doesn't even realize it. Sometimes some other motivation has them write prose that plays to a bias they don't even have.

And sometimes the read implants his own bias in the writing, as is the case here.
>> Anonymous
>>187667
Dumb shit. So because the parents give consent, it means child pornography is okay?
>> Anonymous
>>187680
If the child is not being abused, emotionally or physically, how is it any different from any other sort of child acting, in terms of the affect on the child?

There's issues raised by child acting in general, but they can be dealt with.
>> Anonymous
>>187680
Hey "Dumb shit", read your own post:
>children naked
Nudity is not inherently sexual, and if it's not sexual, it's not porn. Have a nice day, troll.
>> Anonymous
>>187680
Have you even looked at his work? It's not pornographic. Not remotely. Henson ? CP
>> Anonymous
>>187685
I didn't call it CP. I merely stated that parents giving consent doesn't make it okay. As for the picture, I'm just saying that a child doesn't understand that their naked body is being used as a showcase and they might regret it later in life. I certainly wouldn't want nude pictures of myself circulating around the internet. If they were of age when they let these pictures be shown, then I'm ok with it.
>> Anonymous
>>187693
But it's not porn, so you have no case, so stop posting.
>> Anonymous
>>187690
Many CP pics are not pornographic. They are just naked children. While I don't believe that these pics should be illegal, they are.

I remember a news story of a Dad who took a photo of his two girls mooning him because they were just playing around and he thought it would be cute and got put away for 20 year just because their genitals were showing.

I'm sure everyone has pictures of themselves or their children in the bathtub, but these pictures can be considered CP if they show genitals (or nipples) and the child is not a baby. Kind of funny really.
>> Anonymous
>>187699
>Many CP pics are not pornographic.
>Many CP ... not pornographic.
>CP ... not pornographic.
>Child pornography not pornographic.
>pornography not pornographic.
WHAT

>I remember a news story of a Dad who took a photo of his two girls mooning him because they were just playing around and he thought it would be cute and got put away for 20 year just because their genitals were showing.
Link or it didn't happen. I'm sure there were mitigating circumstances.

Naked children != pornography, ever, in any country, anywhere.
>> Anonymous
>>187667
Is basically right.

As a PJ with a degree in Journalism and someone who's written several published articles in reputable newspapers, I'm going to say that the phrase, "unsettling depictions" is wrong and he/she should've instead said, "depictions that some have found unsettling" instead. By using the adjective "unsettling," the journalist is incorporating his/her own view which is something we're not supposed to do. Every view in an article is from somebody else, not us. We're basically supposed to be machines used to record history.

And don't ever compare broadcast journalism to written journalism as they are two extremely different animals.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>187704

So Anne Geddes is porn ?
>> Anonymous
>>187705
>As a PJ with a degree in Journalism and someone who's written several published articles in reputable newspapers, I'm going to say that the phrase, "unsettling depictions" is wrong and he/she should've instead said, "depictions that some have found unsettling" instead. By using the adjective "unsettling," the journalist is incorporating his/her own view which is something we're not supposed to do. Every view in an article is from somebody else, not us. We're basically supposed to be machines used to record history.
Then your degree is unwarranted or you're not representing it properly. Linguistically there is no difference between "unsettling depictions" and "depictions ... unsettling". Both ways use the adjective "unsettling". There's no technical difference at all, only the tone that you want to inflect from the writing.
>> Anonymous
>>187706
I think you quoted the wrong post or didn't think while typing.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>187713

I personally think the whole closing is a load of BS, but it's late, i'm tired, and what I saw is this:
"Naked children != pornography, ever, in any country, anywhere."
>> sage sage
>>187711
You may, in fact, be one of the biggest idiots I've ever seen on /p/. You know shit about what you're talking about and it shows.
>> Anonymous
>>187711
There's a huge difference between saying something is something and saying some people think something is something.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>187711

No, sir. The fact is that saying, "unsettling depictions" is without a source and therefore either your opinion or a well-known fact. Since I think we can all agree that it's not a well-known fact, then it shouldn't be in there. ANYTHING that controversial should be sourced or at least given the questionable "some say" (which is considered extremely unprofessional by most print journalists, despite how often that shit's used by broadcasters).

L2Journalism before you think that all writing is the same. Just because your high school English teacher liked your fanfic of The Real World doesn't mean you know anything about a highly specialized, unique, and demanding branch of writing you fucking fucktard.
>> Anonymous
>>187704
If the genitals are displayed prominently, it might be considered CP. Just like regular porn. Even if no sexual act is involved. Regardless, I'm not talking about CP. I'm saying that these children were exploited for art. Just like that one lady who made children cry and took pictures of them. I personally disagree with it.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>187732

That makes sense. Thank you for clarifying.

I just find this whole thing interesting, since the parents clearly gave consent for their children to be in the photos, if the kids had a problem with it, then i trust they would have told their parents- or at least put up SOME sort of protest! (kids are good that way).

What amazes me is how butthurt everyone ELSE gets over implied, nudity, anything. It was the same damn thing with the Miley Cryus picture, and everyone saying that she didn't consent, the parents didn't, etcetc when they did. Society is too taboo. If you don't like it, don't look at it.

JMHO.
>> Anonymous
>>187737
Personally, despite what I said in earlier posts, I think that children past the age of 12 can consent in the majority of things. If taught right, they will no by 12 whether what they are doing is good or bad and if they weren't taught right then they won't change by the time they are 18 or 21. Besides, living with things that you regret is part of life.
>> Anonymous
People seem to forget how long he has been doing the same shit for

technically he is amazing
conceptually he slays it

i fail to see why people get cut over 13 yrs of age and not 16 yrs of age

if people had any rough idea about Henson's exploration into adolescence and the idea of innocence they wouldnt be so fucking teary eyed about it
>> Warren !!JL+uuUHRNlZ
Anyone else here remember when the same sort of shit (and worse) happened to Jock Sturges in the early '90s? The FBI even got involved, raiding his home and destroying a bunch of his film and equipment. Similar things have happened with the likes of Sally Mann and David Hamilton as well (though even though his work is good, Hamilton was kind of asking for it). Unfortunately, this sort of thing isn't new.
>> Anonymous
'Piss Christ'

Brilliant fucking photo, deemed unsuitable by 'those in charge'

censorship occurs far too often

personally, i dont find Henson to be a dirty old perv for his photos, unliek a certain famous pedo author who seems to have stood the test of time
>> Anonymous
>>187781

sorry who are you talking about?
>> Anonymous
>>187781
>famous pedo author

Nabokov? L Ron Hubbard?
>> Anonymous
>>187781
who!? I need to know. for... research...
>> Warren !!JL+uuUHRNlZ
>>187804
Research? Hahahahaha.

My guess is that he's referring to Vladimir Nabokov, who wrote the novel "Lolita." I'm not going to get into another debate over the novel itself (it's been controversial since it was written), but I will say this: it's written brilliantly. Nabokov was amazing.
>> Anonymous
>>187807
I don't think Lolita is a pedophilic book or the author a pedophile. It was supposed to be a somewhat humorous situation novel.
>> Warren !!JL+uuUHRNlZ
>>187815
I agree completely, but a lot of people haven't seen it that way since it was first published. To many, it's totally pedophilic. Stupid, but true.
>> Anonymous
how come the biggest flamewar on /p/ in ages is about journalism and writing?
>> Anonymous
There's a couple of Bill Henson at my local gallery, from the opera series. Awesome photos.

Also: ITT BAWWWWWWWWW!!!!
>> WetShirt !n21TE7QU8U
>>187843
Because the HDR shitstorm is over.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
also BANNED IN CANADA.

Art has generally being about stiring up a shitstorm, all publicity is good publicity.
>> Anonymous
>>187816
>>187815
>>187807
>>187804

Funny thing: I haven't read his critique, but Kingsley Amis considered Lolita "not pornographic enough."

And again, since I haven't read the essay it's in, I'm not sure how serious he was being. But it's an awfully funny thing to imagine Amis saying.
>> Anonymous
He was only trying to entertain my fellow /b/tards but he got party-vanned.
>> Anonymous
>The future of the exhibition at the Roslyn Oxley9 gallery, which featured images of a girl and a boy, aged 12 and 13 - some of which also appear on the gallery's website - is now in doubt.

>images of a girl and a boy, aged 12 and 13 - some of which also appear on the gallery's website

>images of a girl aged 12 on the gallery's website


GOD DAMN IT THEY TOOK THEN DOWN!!!!! T_T
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/1135236554989
>> Anonymous
i hope i'm not the only one fapping to the blurred picture in the background...

first thing i did when i saw this thread was take that photo into photoshop, crop out the dude, and sharpen and enhance the background image.
>> Anonymous
>>187530

He looks like he's just seen Chris Hanson in the OP's image. Like "Awwwww shit, I've been busted".
>> Anonymous
art or not, the real question is if he had a raging hard-on while working with them and the photos or if he diddled the kids
>> Anonymous
>>188037

I would imagine the parents were there.
>> Anonymous
He looks like a classic pedo. Lock him up and throw away the key. CP is illegal so I don't see why he should not be in prison.
>> Anonymous
>>188039

with raging hard-ons or wet panties?
>> Anonymous
>>188039

parents should be locked up too for child abuse.
>> Anonymous
>>188041
Child Pornography is illegal but photographs of nude children are not.
>> Spades !!byXwIH+F+lH
>>187567

Welcome to Australia, the NEW fascist state of the millennium.
>> Anonymous
>>188053
It's not abuse you idiot, there is no abuse involved. It's probably less acceptable to take a photo of your child in the bath, at least this has artistic merit.
>> Anonymous
All naked images like this should lead to prison sentences.
>> Anonymous
>>188098
I hear Australians say this all the time, but why, when the same negative changes are happening all across the industrialized world and when they're still far from true fascism?
>> Anonymous
>>188098

yeah, the rise of fascism, wars that killed millions and the holocaust are just the same as you not being able to take pedo photos. fucking moron.
>> Anonymous
a question about this photographer. ive seen some of his work at a show in london but i could never work out if he used flashes or really bright static lights.

anyone know?
>> Anonymous
he uses special pedo-lights.
>> Anonymous
>>188150

i loled.
>> Anonymous
>>188041
>>188108
God you're ignorant.
>> Anonymous
>>188180

I bet you are a member of NAMBLA too, pedo. I hope you die in prison when they catch up with you and stab or beat you to death. I despise you.