Since the dawn of the civilised world, humankind has been asking the question What is art? This week has prompted many Australians to ask the same question, with the controversy surrounding Bill Henson’s latest photographic exhibition.
The photographs were due to be exhibited at Paddington’s Roslyn Oxley Gallery, and depicted nude teenagers. Some people say the images are thinly veiled child pornography. Even our Glorious Leader, Kevin Rudd, has slammed the images as ‘absolutely revolting’. “Whatever the artistic view of the merits of that sort of stuff – frankly I don’t think there are any – just allow kids to be kids.” he told the Nine Network.
The question is: do the photographs carry a sexual flavour, or are the anxieties of an alarmist media colouring the works with a darker, unintended hue? It would be naive to endorse such a view with confidence; Bill Henson’s photographs are unmistakably dark and have a creepy, voyeuristic feel to them. The children in question appear awkward and embarrassed. There is a sense of irony in that the exhibition has been closed, and yet media outlets continue to fling around lightly censored versions of the images.
But John McDonald, from the Sydney Morning Herald, says there is nothing sexual about the photos. “To me, the big shame is that the only time that we start looking at art and talking about art in the mainstream media is when it’s banned, when it’s supposedly pornographic, when it’s doing something that’s taboo,” he told ABC Radio’s AM
All these arguments aside: putting these kinds of images into the public arena is not sensible. Could it attract paedophiles? Perhaps it was a good idea to close the exhibition until these questions can be answered.
Tags: bill henson, children, exhibition, nude, Photography, Roslyn Oxley Gallery
Hi Lou, my appologies! Seems I got the wrong end of the stick!
Well, Bill Henson isn’t going to be charged as the DPP doesn’t think they can make a case.
However, I do think the issues deserves continued debate so that artists may continue with some measure of confidence that they wont end up broke from legal fees and hailed pornographers; destroying potentially years of intellectual asset.
Anybody who is against Bill Henson’s images and thinks they can post a definition for pornography is invited to post such a definition.
BTW I doubt Bill Henson will have a case for damages as I think GG is right. These images will become in-famous and more valuable probably due to the exposure.
But I do think the young lady called repulsive might still have a case for damages. Wouldn’t that be a wonderful thing to see the PM marched before the court for his poor judgement! LOL
Kind Regards
Paul
Lou
“I was simply pointing out that you ask others for arguments to support their statements but that you yourself also make statements which have no support.”
No, you were questioning the position that there is no basis for considering the Henson photos harmful. I had already showed that it is extremely difficult to demonstrate how the pictures could BE harmful. You still haven’t noticed that the onus for providing evidence is on the person who makes a positive claim. Henson’s photographs were simply sitting on a wall and were not making any claims to be anything but photographs of a nude girl. It is for those people who would characterise the photographs as indecent to demonstrate how that is so. No-one has done this, and all my critcisms have been directed at people who have condemned Henson – even at one point asserting he has broken the law – without reason. There actually isn’t even an argument about Henson until such reasons have been proposed. I have gone to the trouble to show the – to me obvious – basis for NOT considering the photographs obscene or harmful. This basis exists both in the applicable laws as they have been written and in the content of public statements that the artists, his models and their families have made. Feelings just aren’t good reasons to publicly denigrate Henson. Despite the complete lack of legal authorties’ interest in her bizarre claims, Hetty Johnston continues to vilify Henson in public, I hope prompting the general conclusion in the public mind that she is a fool. However, she has still succeeded in her aim, which was to oppress individual thought and decisionmaking about Henson’s images through spreading mindless fear, suspicion and disgust. The Henson exhibition at Oxley9 remains closed to the public and available only ‘by appointment’.
Hi William,
Hetty Johnston plays a vital role in the process. Hopefully by non-harmful means, but ultimately by whatever means to succeed. Lest we not forget! No-one knows what was going on in Bill Henson’s mind. He may well have got his jollies in this.
What should be the minimum outcome of this public debate is a fair and reasonable process for a legitimate peice of art to see the light of day.
If I were a parent that had given consent, I would certainly not want to judged by my neihbour as a bad parent just because some do-gooder cried foul.
And to be the young person labelled in all the media as “repulsive” for all my freinds to poke fun at, would be shocking.
As a father I would be screaming from the tops of mountains for a public appology as big as the original “repulsive” sentiment.
Perhaps an AFL tibunal sort of thing, where qualified minds that are in the business of developing the arts for all to enjoy are able to develop sensible steps by which a Bill Henson may proceed without falling foul of the law.
Don’t get me wrong, I admire Bill Henson’s work, but am not here to support his rights so much as protect the freedoms we enjoy in an open minded society.
Regards
Paul
Hi William,
Yes, I understand that both rights are connected. However, my reason for making the distinction was to not support an intention that I can’t know. In other words, Bill Henson might well have been up to no good, but none of us will ever really know. So I support the right to his freedom to express, but not his right to use his expression as a means to gain other undisirable satisfactions.
That he got his jollies or not is uninteresting, unless it can be shown he has caused harm in doing so.
I’ve hedged my bets in other words. I believe from all the evidience so far available that Bill Henson has carried out his work with good intention and should be valued as such.
However, in the event anything comes to light proving he did not have good intention, I would not like that to be the means by which the nay-sayers close down artistic expression. Rather they should focus on the wrong doer not the class!
Regards
Paul
William, I think I know best what I was doing!
It’s been interesting to argue, thank you.
I leave with this little story.
Many years ago I accompanied a class of 9/10 year olds to the British Museum. One young female muslim pupil was making a fuss; I asked her what the problem was. She told me that the statues of naked men and women in the museum were disgusting and should be covered up. Granted she was known for her extreme religiosity; but we adults were shocked nonetheless by such extreme culturation at such a young age.
Cheers, Lou
Well all, it appears the time to continue monitoring this discussion has come to an end.
So on that note I say thankyou to those who participated and bid you all well in the future.
Kind Regards
Paul
Lou,
I can only agree that if your intended meanings could not be derived from your words, then your intended meanings must remain a secret known only to you.
Your parable is interesting as it highlights the lack of opportunity young pepople have to think freely in a culture that operates on ’serious concerns’ and fantastic beliefs, not reasons.
What’s wrong with Muslim girls being affected adversely by naked stuff, isn’t that normal, why did you bring her there? Henson’s stuff is the child pornography version of adolescent heroin chic, it is illegal in London. So she should be spared that degenerate filth at least.
“Nobody has the right to work with kids is a hugely open statement.”
It is also true, as a point of law.
“Bill Henson has brought happiness to so many art lovers with his work over many years. Let us all leave him in peace to continue his artistic achievements.”
So long as it is in prison and he is getting treatment, that’s fine by me.
“Are you aware that you are calling Henson a criminal in a public forum? Your own conduct may be legally actionable on that account”
What, here is what I know, pimps, strip club owners, pedophiles and Bill Henson, will not risk going to law, they only have to lose once, and Bill has already been more lucky than his circumstances warrant. bill will be more interested in staying out of jail and hoping his LA, NYC and London visiting rights are repairable, he’s a lost cause for Cambodia.
So long as Bill is kept in Oz, that will be something, we just have to live with fruitcake jurisdictions allowing kooks to flood the net with photos of naked 13 year old girls, doesn’t Oz have socialized medicine, is it not possible for Henson to be put in a clinic?
We ur schoolgrrrls in Oz, we want to cut our pimp (Bill) out of future biz,
I would have to guess that anyone to come up with the idea to say that naked human bodies are a form of art expressed by any artist, has had some connection to an immoral or sex crime act somewhere. They are guilty for something. Just, a good guess, from a former police officer.
[...] be an idea, at first, to keep your child’s age quiet (children and art have been quite a sensitive area on the creative scene lately) as Kalashnikova did, a decision she defends even now the cat is out of the bag. As she points out, [...]
hi everybody. um i came across this website as im doing some research on an art essay. after reading through all these posts im shocked and horrified at how narrow minded the majority of them seem. please consider the following before being so stuck in your ways-
:has anyone stopped and realized that this is art? art is about making people question. whats right or wrong? where does one draw the line? whats the purpose? what is it representative of?
:what is it that makes one decide that henson’s (beautiful and haunting) images are pornographic and exploiting the human body, and yet pornographic industries out there are legally thriving, mostly without reprimand, on selling images of people actually being violated.
:has anybody bothered to ask henson his conceptual reasons? or better still, asked the models how they feel?
:i am a 19 yr old girl. i have been awed by hensons imagery and technique since about grade 10. i dont see that they are violating or exploiting young people. they are amazing and inspiring creations that have succeeded at what they do. they have confused so many people out there with what is and isnt real. don’t you understand that hensons photographs are staged? and therefore dont you understand that the models are giving henson permission to ‘exploit’ and immortalize their bodies in this way.
:there have been much more confrontational artworks that have received much less public attention
So therefore i beg you, please don’t be so quick to be so negative. dont beat the messenger. because that is what henson really is. he is only triggering what is already in your own mind. in which case, where does the shame really lie? personally, i raise my hands to freedom of speech and freedom of imagery. i applaud the fact that i can go to an art gallery and experience a whole range of emotions, just through looking at different types of works created by different types of geniuses. these pictures have harmed nobody. they have merely added to a wealth of art history. and no doubt are more innocent than what many australians get up to in their own homes. you want to stand up and fight against something immoral? picket pornography. petition politicians. make business honest. scream out about violence against women. fight for freedom within our community.
ps. spend some time with children of the age of the models in there natural surroundings. you will be shocked at the things they get up to. im not getting into wether thats right or wrong, but how can one reprimand an artist for reflecting reality? these images are more tame than what i’v seen of children of the same ages in school. and christ, its just nudity. what are we teaching the younger generation. one minute we’re rioting against images in the media teaching children that they have to fit into a mould, the next we are teaching them ourselves to cover up and fit into a mould. will you start censoring your child in shower? sorry… im ranting and getting carried away. it just shocks me though to see people be so definite and closed minded.
pps :)
some of the most revered art works employed very young models. michaelangelo’s ‘david’ was prepubescent.
In case no one was looking, Maurice O’Riordan (editor of Art Monthly Australia who published the provocative Papapetrou cover photo last year) has just published a blatantly pro-Henson promotional piece by the ubiquitous Canadian naturist Paul Rapoport together with a set of images of nude girls (excerpted from Frank Cordelle’s ‘The Century Project’ of which Rapaport is the publisher) in the April edition of AMA.
According to O’Riordan’s somewhat cynical editorial, Rapoport generously paid for the submission of the images to the Classification Board to facilitate their publication in his magazine, which he states (tongue-in-cheek) also conforms to new Arts Council protocols.
Apart from the article comprising little more than pseudo-libertarian naturist apologetics posing as arts journalism, it is disappointing that images of vulnerable young children are still being disseminated by individuals in service to their own interests and agendae – whether it be to flog naturism, or photo-anthologies, or art magazines, or to fulminate upon some imaginary new era of art censorship. Gratuitous publication of juvenile nudity merely normalizes fetishistic, voyeuristic or paedaphilic appetites that seek to erode amenable social boundaries and structures in place to protect vulnerable children.
What adults get up to together is one thing and what children get up to together is another, but (harmless and eccentric naturism aside) when an arts community sanctions the ghoulish exploitation and abuse of children (which is in turn sanctioned by the wider community), then what faith can these kids have in the adults they rely upon to protect them?
What has been so often conveniently forgotten in this debate are the predatory conditions surrounding the making of these images that require the co-operation of parents and adults: the perverse grooming of children and that of their families over time, the incestuous character of art world and school networks, the frankly irresistible character of glamour and celebrity, and the distorted notions of adult freedoms and rights invoked to justify carte blanche access to kids.
Are children not entitled to be free from adult invasions of their psychological integrity?
Child experts are now identifying a trend they call “the grooming of the community”.
As a gay artist friend commented during the Henson affair last year: ‘Apart from the usual cant that “he is one of Australia’s greatest artists, blah blah”, I think the arterarti held back in defence of Henson’.
‘So he can take a good photo? Patrick White could write, but if he took young boys back to his house in the name of research for his next novel, are we then supposed to say “but just look at the prose and he does have a Nobel prize, so get back in there boys and be thankful he chose you!?”.
skankymac, does your artist friend’s homosexuality endow him with special credentials in regards to this topic?
Skankymac writes: “Gratuitous publication of juvenile nudity merely normalizes fetishistic, voyeuristic or paedaphilic appetites.”
Apart from the spelling, Skankymac seems clueless about paedophilia. There isn’t any reputable research in the past 40 years to substantiate such claims. There certainly is some to suggest that the opposite results.
Skankymac is implying that most Australians either are or are potentially pedophiles, that photos of nudity of minors increase crime against them, and that censoring such photos out of existence protects them.
Experience in other western countries not afflicted with so much of his baseless fear-mongering proves all that to be nonsense. His rant, to quote a well-known writer in this field, is just so much “propaganda from the sexual disaster industry.”
Australia’s erroneous and dangerous dalliances with censorship as in the Henson case of 2008 exceed those of even the deeply fearful and censorious officialdom of the USA.
Well I in turn wonder what endows a Canadian professor of music with special credentials to review The Henson Case…
Given that Professor Rapoport is also the publisher of such naturist gems as ‘The Funny Side of Going Naked: The First Nudie Toons Collection’ by Ron Coleman and Jan Crimmings, ‘Au Naturel: The History of Nudism in Canada’ by Jim Woyke, ‘Theatre Au Natural: A Collection of Naturist Plays’, edited by Mark Storey, ‘Bodies and Soul’, and ‘The Spirit of Lady Godiva’ by Harvey (sic!), certainly his impartiality seems questionable.
Professor Rapoport pounced upon a simple typo as a sign of my “cluelessness” about paedophilia and distorted my meaning, substituting “increases” for the word “normalizes” so as to have something to refute and to depict me as a fear-monger “from the sexual disaster industry”. The observant reader may observe that I have not asserted nor implied anything remotely like “most Australians either are or are potentially paedophiles, that photos of nudity of minors increase crime against them, and that censoring such photos out of existence protects them”.
I was trying to make a point about normalization, that I regard it as being inherent in the gratuitous publication of child nude photography.
‘David’, who blogged on this site on May 24th, 2008 understood the concept of ‘normalization’, a term in the psychiatric and child protection literatures associated with the psychodynamics of child abuse. It refers to an idea, concept or behavior that is sought to be an accepted part of societal culture.
‘Normalization’ is probably more insidious than ‘grooming’ because it seeks broader social acceptance of adult/child sexual relations, often couched in pseudo-libertarian language. It refers to a category of strategic behaviours (intentional or otherwise) that seek to undermine social, psychological, generational, familial, ethical, and professional boundaries established to protect children from violations of their physical, sexual and psychological integrity and safety.
While ‘grooming’ is the thin edge of the wedge and full of predatory intent, ‘normalisation’ is a rationalizing, sectarian strategy seeking general acceptance after the fact.
My assessment of The Henson Case is that it amounts to little more than an elaborate attempt to normalise child sexual abuse. Marr re-exploited the child in the republication of her exhibition photographs (whether passed by the Classification Board or not) in service to Henson’s defense (who had somehow transmogrified into a hero of the libertarian left) among other liberties taken.
With no special credentials to qualify him for the task, Marr’s hastily compiled, sensationalist book was a provocative and contemptuous “two-fingered salute” to anyone whose primary concerns happened to be for a child.
Similarly, Professor Rapoport’s inclusion of the Cordelle images in his partisan review was in service to the normalization of Henson’s enterprise in a disingenuous and fallacious comparison with an ‘ethnographic’ naturist context. There is no escaping the fact that, whatever their motives, both The Henson Case and Professor Rapoport’s AMA review incorporated photos of child nudes in service to their own agendae. They certainly were not, by any stretch of the imagination, published in the interests of the child. As such, the publication of these photographs was ipso facto exploitive and normalising.
What Professor Rapoport conveniently failed to mention in his review was thatThe Henson Case was commissioned from David Marr by Michael Heyward (a buddy of Henson) – while Henson was still under Police investigation – as part of a larger, normalizing public-relations enterprise (catocounsel.com.au). Marr and Heywood’s re-publication of the child’s photographs was thus part of a larger overall strategy integral to an elaborate defense of Henson’s child art and constituted, by logical extension, endorsement and normalisation of the abusive conditions of their initial production, exhibition and dissemination.
Ergo the collapse of just about every ethical and protective boundary you can name.
Sadly, I am not clueless about paedophilia. People I love were sexually abused as children by adults entrusted with their care and education. Priests, judges, parents…ingratiated themselves into these vulnerable children’s lives, violating their trust and devastating their fragile, fledgling selves. The traumatic impact was so ruinous to their lives and those closest to them that, decades later, it remains incalculable and ongoing. As a psychologist specializing in the treatment of adult survivors of child sexual abuse, I am familiar with their stories from the inside, stories that emerged through the reliving of the terrors, fury and overwhelming pain of their destabilized and isolated childhoods. I have worked in the prison system and have encountered the murderous rage felt by criminals towards their abusers. I am therefore only too familiar with the trail of broken hearts and broken minds these ‘lovers’ of children leave in their wake.
But out of all their painful experiences the most devastating cause of intractable despair was the failure of families and communities to protect them – the parent that turned a blind eye and the community that failed to intervene. Although nothing at all felt okay, those they depended upon to keep them safe insisted that they were.
It was this final abandonment that broke their spirit.
To William L: you are too disagreeable. Please learn to loosen up.
This debate could go on forever. I am a year 12 student (and aspiring photographer) studying censorship and the commentry on this site, considering diverse opinions, has been extremely helpful.
I belive art is and has always been subjective; it invariably provokes varying and conflicting ideas due to the diverse perceptions of humankind. Just as some may find Henson’s work creepy, art lovers can understand the aesthetic beauty and reasoning for the explicit imagery captured by Henson; art is often created to raise questions within society – just because some may not understand this, is not a justifiable reason to terminate Henson and his art.
Nudity is not obscenity. The law is very simple; if you display a child in a sexual context, it is classified as child pornography. These photographs did not do that. The law still provides a framework for the expression of ideas thus Bill Henson should be allowed to continue taking photos as he has done for the past 30 yrs.
To place restrictions of Henson’s expression through art is the puritanical repression of healthy and natural occurances within the lifespan. When did the naked body become a bad thing? As a teenager myself, I believe we should be accepting of external appearences, including the human figure, not deny the right to reveal such normalities.
Bill Henson: “I’m not interested in making art about art. For me it’s about the essential and important things that effect out lives; I’m interested in the sense of ageing, desire, attraction, beauty, love and death. These are at the centre of everyone’s lives and these are what drive the work.”
For those who do not have a creative mind or whose aesthetic nature doesn’t come naturally, often intentions, descriptions, objectives, details, explanations and metaphors regarding subject matters need to be outlined and elaborated. For Kevin Rudd to comment critically on Henson’s work without background research into the artists or his works, simply isn’t fair. The work is mild and justifiable by context and is not sexualised to any degree.
Each to their own, I say. ART is about diverse interpretations. That’s what makes it so powerful.
I think that Bill Henson ought to know better than to exhibit these kinds of images, child pornography is NOT Art, and not justifiable in the art community in any way shape or form, or representation. Pedophiles are attracted to these kinds of imagery. To exhibit and display this kind of pornography only normalizes fetishism and pedophilic perversions. I think that all photographers and artists for that matter should be heald to the same standard of conduct that we all respect: Child pornography, or even imagery that is suggestive of child sexuality is illegal. I dont quite frankly care for liberal attitudes that try to pass it off as being “art”, its obvious to me that Henson is making a statement with this type of imagery. Intent is the underlying issue here: naked photographs of teens and pre-teenage children that are obviously meant to arouse the viewer; I think that Henson stands on a slipperly slope, and I believe he is pushing the boundaries, which in turn will give him the exposure that was his intent in the first place. I see it as a means of exploiting these children for serious profit, and the fact that they are nude, makes it not only a crime, but a sad commentary about where we are headed as a culture.
[...] in the media for weeks after Henson was cleared of any wrong-doing and Design Federation’s coverage of the story continues to draw interest to this day. But after examining Audrey Kawasaki’s illustrations, one [...]
Charlie Louise – you have not understood what people have been writing and from your ideas you do sound like a young person. Please remember what you wrote here and see if you still agree with it in 20 years.