Twitter
Facebook
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.
“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.
Dear all, I have not read every single entry in this comment list, but I might as well make my own point here. First of all, I think there is a misconception about the term porn. Porn is the explicit display of intercourse. A naked girl in whatever pose has nothing to do with porn. When somebody like Bill Henson decides to try and capture the beauty of youth displaying a young girl in the purest of ways, the naked body, then it doesn’t mean that every male automatically gets an erection. There are less primitive individuals out their who can in fact distinguish between porn and the act as an art form. I think the problem many Australians have is, that they have a disturbed approach to their own sexuality. Maybe it stirs something in them emotionally that makes them try even harder to ignore it. This might have it’s source induced by the church, their parents or other authorities who proclaim that nakedness is something dirty. I feel sorry for the parents of the young girl who may have thought that she did the right thing in the name of art. Now she might be surrounded by people spitting at her or calling her names while the exact same people secretly keep their “dark desires” in a pile under the bed or boxed in the far end of their WIR.
It’s a strange world…
Good art is powerful because it circumvents cognitive function and goes straight to the soul. As such, Hensen’s work is great art in my opinion, but i still hate it.
I hate it because it dredges up feelings of vulnerability, fear, confusion, and all the stuff that makes me sick. If the images were shot in bright white light, with an air of confidence, poise, permanence…they would have a different meaning to me. These dark images make me feel like my mind is being raped.
So as i say, it’s fantastic art, but I HATE IT…and great artist’s take all deep reactions as a compliment… i’m an artist myself. :)
BTW just want to add that nobody can say that these images are NOT sexualised, or that they ARE. Interpretation belongs to the viewer. And what does it mean for an image to be ‘sexualised’ anyway? Some people perceive sex as a euphoric emotional experience. Other people perceive it as mere physical action.
All I can say is that when it comes to condoning or censoring, art is produced for society. If the majority of society like it, fine. If not, put it away. Art isn’t some magical thing that we should all bow down to.
Standard-issue moral panic. Shame on you all for buying into it when there are genuine problems which demand our attention.
there are some very interesting views on this topic, some of which i disagree to. in terms of bill, in this recent work i believe he has found the line for what is acceptable in society and crossed it. this is not an appropriate representation of how an artist should comment on society. those out there who think this sort of thing is appropiate should be prosecuted along with henson, as their view of what is right is also corrupted. henson should be prosecuted for this work which crossed the line, but continue to make art, as he is still a very well respected artist. this is my opinion. interpret how you may.