Page 1



BIL L HE N S ON Unt it le d # 18 , 2 011 /2 01 2 A rc h i v a l i n k je t pi g ment pr i nt 1 27 Ă— 18 0 c m

p g. 1

titillating. I don’t actually find them beautiful either, I am not drawn to them and rather find the bodies ribby and unattractive like greyhounds in unnatural poses.

with abuse etc, there is still a degree of exposure here (no pun intend-

ed) that may just undermine later on. It is only in relatively recent

years that we decided to protect children from adult concerns and

SEPTEMBER 19, 2012, 9 :50AM


the photographs are particularly sexual or exploitative nor are they

and although we are not talking about the kind of damage that goes

adult decisions but we did it for a reason.

Bill Henson is arrogant and self interested. I don’t, however, think

“To dismiss that tiny bit of doubt is easy for adults who know it all

p g. 1

S A L LY M A NN Fa m i l y P ic t u r e s , 19 8 4 /19 91

they’re probably thrilled get access to one..”

does a breathtakingly good job, and there’s a lot more to recom-

But if pornography is about viewer’s intent, then yes, sometimes. If

print of hers in my house on a bet, not the way things are now.

JULY 23 2008


kids, I gotta believe they can get off to Sally’s pics too, and that

seeing her as a pornographer. The few images I’ve seen of hers she

mend the pics than nekkid kids. Still, I wouldn’t have a book or

there are really pedophiles who can get off even on pics of clothed

“Is pornography about creators intent? Then I’d have a hard time

p g. 9

JOCK S T URGE S R a d i a nt Id ent it ie s , 19 9 2

p g. 10

thorny, outside of moral relativism, which is a whole other can of worms. In your work I truly do have a sense of each person being an entity unto him or herself, which partly answers for me the

Sturges’ images. This objectification is largely why I find his work

feels so sexually charged in a disturbing way–I want to be honest

about this, which is the reason I don’t shy from giving my perspec-

JANUARY 2 2011


overall question you raise of the ethics that are involved in the pho-

individual is tantamount. Thus the age question feels particularly

the way) I don’t get the same sense of objectification that I feel in

tive from the what creates sexualisation of childhood. This is also

why I discuss the issue of beauty in that it belies his claim that the

“Another difference is that in your pictures (which are beautiful, by

D AV ID H A MILT ON T he A g e of I n no c enc e

plainly indecent. The content cannot be described as artistic and is

He argued that the images, including those by Hamilton, “are

JUNE 2005


of the lowest indecency rating - category 1

raided as part of Operation Ore, after receiving a tip-off from the

US Postal Investigation Service.

plainly of a sexual nature.” The court heard the images seized were

“Prosecutor Simon Connolly told the court that Loam’s home was

A Lament for Lost Innocence  
A Lament for Lost Innocence