but are you sure that it’s portraiture? I would think that the purpose of portraiture was to capture the essence of the subject, whereas to me Henson is using the subject as a model to explore something about the human condition.

There not mutually exclusive. If the primary picture is a portrait of a human or humans it’s portraiture. The best explores the human condition thru the essence of the subject. I guess you could argu that Henson’s subjects are ‘typical’ not ‘idiosyncratic’. I’d only have an opinion about specific works in that regard.

Better late than never, I suppose.

Your continued emphasis on how censored/pixellated reproductions in the mass media are a capitulation to the wowsers are not without merit, but the media privacy rights of the minor who is the object of the Child Protection investigation trump that unreservedly in my opinion.

It’s an example of what I was saying up the thread about individuals not being harmed in action intended for the greater good.

The shorter version is “Do no harm!” Especially as a means to doing good, or as collateral. Not always possible, but we should try to make it so.

On contracts, all we did in making films etc in the Education Dept was to get the talent to show up by verbal arrangement, have them fill in a claim form to be paid the standard rates and then sign a release form (one page, not much on it) so that we could use the results.

That’s as I recall it, but I wasn’t involved in the practicalities.

I am surprised that Tigtog has written such an emotive piece (and title) apportioning shame on the images, especially in the light of what I consider to be the rare bravery of the media outlets who published them, ensuring that the gallery would not be an isolated target of the Nazis.

I’ve already alluded to this, but I’ll go into more detail: this post’s title was deliberately constructed with a regard to Search Engine Optimisation and post ranking on searches. I agree that it doesn’t sound like ‘me’. I constructed the title like that because this is a legal issue regarding Child Protection and the privacy rights of a minor with respect to the mass media, it was one that has been consistently overlooked, I wanted people to know what the post was about just from reading the title and I hoped to command attention by the title. That appears to have worked.

I’ve already stated my opinions that the seized artworks by Henson are not pornographic. I have no interest in “apportioning shame on the images”, I am solely concerned with the protection of the privacy rights of the minor involved with respect to mass media. Your continued emphasis on how censored/pixellated reproductions in the mass media are a capitulation to the wowsers are not without merit, but the media privacy rights of the minor who is the object of the Child Protection investigation trump that unreservedly in my opinion.

As to what a “contracted model” should have expected, what exactly do you mean by “contracted model”, anyway? Artist’s models have never had contracts specifying up-front fees and residual arrangements in the way that commercial models do when posing for work designed to be seen in the mass media. The only contractual arrangement for artist’s models is generally a release form if the medium is photography, and in this case the parents’ consent as well. Other mediums don’t even have that. Sure, people who do life modelling for artist classes are generally paid a fee for their time, but there is no award covering artist’s models because the dissemination of the images/works is entirely different from the way in which the mass media publishes images of fashion models.

John, Cooper says:

when you consider that his photographs of the ’80s and ’90s predict and arguably outclass much of the personal, edgy portraiture currently in fashion and ubiquitous in galleries, you have to wonder (or at least I do) whether Henson’s effect on contemporary art isn’t much larger than his reputation in the States reflects.

It’s a superficial comparison. He obviously hasn’t considered the issue of genre in any depth.

BTW, in the face of your persistent use of a different spelling I looked it up. It’s portaiture, not portrature

There, I’ve used that smiley thing for the first time evah. But I agree, I don’t much like it!

On your comment on tigtog’s post, she is saying that it is a firm rule, if not the law, that the faces of children are hidden in child abuse cases. If the coppers have done what they’ve done, then it brings it into that context.

They are making a freedom of expression statement probably, and are obviously supporting Henson and the gallery, effectively daring the cops to sue them also.

I agree with tigtog. First, an exception should not be made here, out of respect for the child. Secondly, if they wanted to publish they should have gained permission. Even if this eventuality was discussed prior to the shoot, which I doubt given their own norms and several decades of trouble-free practice, you can’t predict the particular circumstances and how you are going to feel.

To return to the topic a bit,

The contraversial images of contracted models are in no way comparable to…. “If a photographer stationed outside the family home took a shot of her getting into the family car and the Age purchased it for publication” as tigtog claims in the post. And while on that point tigtog also says.. “These minors are not celebrities with no expectation of privacy from the media simply because their faces are part of an artwork, surely?” Surely, a model contracting and posing for one of the most famous photogrephers on the planet for inclusion in an exhibition could well have had some expectations of media attention and the images appearing on the net and my guess is these issues would have been thrashed out by the models and their families and friends and if henson is as professional as they say he is, especially with him. What was unforseen, uninvited and unwelcome was the police investigation into the lives of the models and their families and the consequent criminalisation of the images.

I am surprised that Tigtog has written such an emotive piece (and title) apportioning shame on the images, especially in the light of what I consider to be the rare bravery of the media outlets who published them, ensuring that the gallery would not be an isolated target of the Nazis.

The only restriction on identifying the models is a direct result of the Nazi legal action and criminalisation of the images and has nothing to do with the rights and interests of the models.

It seems Henson has seen something in either the personality or facial features or life experience of his models and used that something in his constructions.

Quite so, but I believe he is instrumentally using the models to tell the larger story rather than examining the essence of each model, which I take to be the purpose of portraiture, with the larger story then emerging from that examination.

I hope Henson has not technically manipulated facial expressions beyond lighting and texture, I would think lesser of him if he did.

I agree, and in all honesty I don’t think he has. there is an authenticity about the faces that I think could not be preserved if he altered them digitally.

the face is still a/the central element

Just as well that “a” is there. In that case it’s mostly true, even if only half or less is shown. There is one I’ve seen (don’t have the link, unfortunately), which is mostly a full frontal of the torso of a somewhat more sexually developed girl than the one at the centre of the stir, but still a girl. In that case her head is turned to one side as far as it can go so that the profile is lost in the shadows and the dark background. Her nose is represented by a little splash of light and a very faint outline but it’s actually detached from the face. You can’t see any eyes at all. What you see is one cheek and jawline, the ear partly visible.

it is portrature and the models own identity are central to the images.

I can’t quite go there. In each case the model’s identity is there, with truth, respect and authenticity, but I think the treatment is aimed at highlighting and extracting (almost) an aspect of that identity to tell a larger story that is common to all the images I’ve seen. He’s not trying to bring out the uniqueness and personhood of that particular human being. It’s there, but it’s secondary.

Can I put it this way. I think he consistently is highlighting fragility rather than strength, for example, a strength I suspect his models in fact have.

That’s the point I’m trying to make. Whether you still call it portraiture is secondary.

I can’t imagine I’ve got anything left to say on this one.

Do you think this image is being used to portray the young girl and through that portrayal some larger story? Or do you think the larger story is the prime focus and the image of the girl is being used to tell it? This one?

I found this critique by Dennis Cooper interesting, especially the paragraph at the top of page 2. Yes to Henson’s “more forceful, less attenuated pursuit of emotional truth”, but it’s noteworthy, I think, that Cooper has quite a different view of the girls used as subjects and their circumstances than we are getting from the snippets of information coming through. I doubt that the result across the opus shows the girls with any kind of control or involves them acting on their own accord to contribute to the outcome. It doesn’t mean that Henson is simply using his models/subjects and doesn’t respect them. He does respect them, absolutely.

I didn’t see the T.V. show so forgive me if my ignorance has led me up the wrong path.

In the henson photos that I have seen, like most portrature, the face is a central element, if not the central element. The facial expression interprets the rest of the image. In the case of photography the face, expressions and personality, even if staged, are not constructions of the artists but elements that the artist uses to make their broader construction. The face and personality, while manipulated and contextualised by the artist, is a manifestation of the model, it belongs to the model (if not in a legal sense). This is what I meant by the model speaking for themselves on their own terms. You may have noticed I was refering specifically to the face in that comment.

I do not disagree with what I think you are saying about the work being an expression of Henson, not the models. However I dont understand how some other notion of portrature that you have, that does not embrace Henson, may in some way be different, hence my comment about capturing essense.. It seems Henson has seen something in either the personality or facial features or life exerience of his models and used that something in his constructions.

This is why I disagree with pixilation and black bars because it dehumanises and extinguishes the personality of the model, leaving a hollow shell of an image that could well be described as pornography in its new visual imagery.

I hope Henson has not technically manipulated facial expressions beyond lighting and texture, I would think lesser of him if he did. But even so, as with painting where the nuance of facial expression is totally a construction of the artist’s mind, the face is still a/the central element and any attempt to disfigure or disguise it is constructing a completely new image and new story, not modifying the existing one.

Any face in any picture has a life of its own as well as its place in the whole. even those dumb smiley face thingies, as well as the portraits presented by Zoe @ 38.

There is no argument I am trying to win Brian, I think it is portrature and you dont. Such difference of opinion about everthing is what defines the phenomenon of art, from petty disagreement such as this, to questions of minors and sexuality through to basic questions of what is art? Its just fun to have an opinion on it.

But you are still wrong, it is portrature and the models own identity are central to the images.

However, especially in facial expressions, especially in photography, the model speaks for themselves on their own terms which is more likely to be a theatrical presentation or perhaps a natural glimpse at one particular emotion expressed momentarily through body language and face, accentuated by lighting, props and framing.

I think this exemplifies what’s different about Henson’s art. He emphasised that in a shoot he is very precise in the instructions he gives to the model and how they have to concentrate really hard to do what he is asking. Kim from personal experience told how long and gruelling these sessions can be. I’m sure he takes heaps of shots to get what he wants. Then he does a lot with backgrounding, lighting, props, framing etc and I suspect uses filters and alters colours and contrasts. We don’t even know, in fact, whether he alters the facial features as Steve suggested he should. We don’t know what the models actually look like. Sometimes there is hardly anything of them to be seen at all.

So with respect, I think you are on the wrong track. Remember on the TV program it was emphasised over and over that he wasn’t so much a photographer as an artist who uses photography. I think it’s particularly mistaken to say “the model speaks for themselves on their own terms”. As far as I can see with Henson that’s way off the mark.

While admitting that I could be wrong.

I think that the portraiture you linked to captures the essences of those guys, but wait until they reach puberty: they will acquire sexual connotations and become the butt of coarse humour….

I would like to nominate this post for best LP title EVAH

I confess to being cold-bloodedly Web 2.0 about the way it’s phrased, search engines the better for the ranking of.