Tuesday, October 07, 2008

I could have ignored this Who am I kidding?

I'm pulling myself back into the Henson drama, after reading this article.

Look, people, I could almost understand the righteous indignation that leads people to get libellous*, or cast the debate in new and interesting ways, IF Bill Henson was actually a paedophile, or some kind of proven danger to children.

But, love or hate his art, he isn't trying to do anything illegal. He isn't trying to take photographs of minors without parental consent. I've yet to see one report of a minor who he's taken photos of say they feel "exploited", or hear a negative reaction of a parent or subject who has dealt with Henson.

On the contrary, we've heard from quite a few parents and minors (or former subjects who were minors at the time) saying they're upset by the fact there is a furor in their name.

So where, ladies and gentleman, is the threat? Has there been any suggestion that Henson has so much as laid a finger on any of his subjects? Have there been any complaints from either parents or former subjects saying they felt exploited, felt co-erced?

No? So there's no actual threat?

Now, I've heard the argument that schools are for education, and that no-one should be permitted to scout for talent on school grounds, regardless or what it involves, and if that's your view, I can understand it.

But, if like some, you are objecting on the grounds that this is Bill Henson, can you explain to me why, if it's clear that he always obtains parental consent?

What are you actually afraid of? What are you actually protecting your children from?

* It wasn't until it was pointed out several times to Iain that he was actually being libellous that he amended his original post to add the words "could be seen as" to the sentence "who has aided and abetted him in what could be seen as stalking and grooming". Of course, he still wouldn't admit that what he'd said was wrong, or unfair, but that's Iain for you.

3 comments:

Ross Sharp said...

And why is it that these parents refer to their adolescents/teenagers as "children" in a way that suggests they're still suckling at the teat like 1 year olds? I wasn't an idiot when I was 13-17 yet nowadays, adults seems to think anyone under the age of 18 hasn't got a brain in their arse and are incapable of figuring out what shoe to put on what foot on any given day. I've seen greater displays of emotional immaturity and infantilism in Parliamentary question time than I have from any teens on a train. I've never seen a 14 year old sniff a chair, that's for damn sure.

Thanks for the link, BTW.

Keri said...

Yes, Ross, that gives me the screaming shits as well. As if you wake up the day you turn 18 and not only are you now fair game for sexualisation, but you all of a sudden are capable of making those decisions independantly.

After all, maturity is just a number, nothing more.

Kartar said...

@Ross Sharp - But you see there is no good in you being sensible. Here is the response to that argument:

"But the only reasons young people are so mature is that they have been sexualised by evil people like Bill Henson! O why o why can't we let children be children! Think of the children! Oh please god will someone think of the children!!!"

*sigh* Idiots.