I am furious. So angry. It doesn’t happen to me very often, but how could I not be?
Bill Henson was due to have a new exhibition open last week. Before the opening, the gallery was RAIDED and some of his works confiscated. (You can read a precis of events here.)
Are we really so sick as a society that we have lost the ability to distinguish between art and pornography?
Have we become unable to appreciate beauty when we see it? So terrified of our own potential that we see perversion where there is none?
How can this happen and yet our department stores are still full of lingerie for six year old children?
We will have to agree to disagree on this one. My concern with the photos relates to the process of asking boys and girls aged 12 and 13 to take off their clothes, have their photo taken and then exhibit the pictures for all to see. Why do we need to see children this age naked? I am certain there is a more appropriate way to catch their innocence in a photo.
I have a 13-year-old son and I wouldn’t want anyone to take photos of him naked no matter what the circumstances are. I don’t think my 13-year-old son is mature enough to understand that it’s art; he’s just too immature to understand the process. Whether the artis or family’s like it or not, people will judge the person in the photo. And once again, whether we like it or not, there are disgusting elements of the community that would be turned on by the pictures.
I see beauty in young children; I see beauty in a newborn baby laying naked on a bath towel but naked photos of 12 and 13 year old children makes me very uncomfortable. I think the problem that people have with the exhibition is that it’s just not necessary to take photos of children this age naked. I don’t think the world needs to see them naked.
I presume the artist wanted to show the vulnerability and innocence of children this age, and how they are verging on adulthood. But it stepped over that invisible line into an area that is appropriate. Call me a prude, sure, I am.
By: Maddy on May 26, 2008
at 9:57 am
Thanks, Maddy! You are right – we will agree to disagree. I was thinking about what you’ve said here and it occurred to me that the word “prude” implies that there is titillation or suggestiveness or the like. And in this case, there isn’t. That’s the point.
By: kirsty on May 26, 2008
at 10:08 am
The issue for me is whether a child can really be able to give considered consent. Is the child model able to reflect on the possible consequences of being photographed (positive and negative) and then able to be resilient to the public reaction (positive and negative)? At the moment our legal system says the a person cannot give consent until the age of 18. That legal position either needs to be altered or upheld in order for these photographs to be legitimate. As it stands now the photographer would have had to ask consent of the parents/guardians. Do we have the right to consent to something like posing naked on behalf of our children?
By: peppermintpatcher on May 26, 2008
at 10:24 am
I feel the same about the lingerie too. Does the decision to purchase it rest with the child or the adult?
If it rests with the child – then what have they been exposed to. If it rests with the adult – then what are they thinking!
By: peppermintpatcher on May 26, 2008
at 10:28 am
I can see beauty in lots of places so I doubt the photos would have offended me.
What DOES offend me is the case we have in NZ where twin babies were murdered 2 years ago and apparently no-one was responsible. The father has been acquitted, the mother is a P smoking slut who’s had 6 kids to 3 different men, abandoned the older 3 and hah had the 4th taken from her care, and is now saying “I won’t rest till I know who killed my babies”. The extended family who lived in the house were all on welfare and spent their time boozing and drugging, and they all refused to co-operate with the investigation.
What the hell is our country coming to? End of rant.
By: Shirley Goodwin on May 26, 2008
at 10:50 am
I think all those evil child p0rn0graphers/p3d0ph1les basically have ruined it for the rest of us, artists and parents etc. I heard a mum saying almost apologetically the other day that she still loved to squeeze her 4yo child’s bottom and I wondered how this could possibly be wrong?
By: Stomper Girl on May 26, 2008
at 1:39 pm
Hmmm…with you on this one, Kirsty. Naked bodies can look either beautiful or ugly. To me, a mutilated body in a war zone carries greater disgust. But the photographer who took the picture is lauded.
Exhibitions showing human nudity will always attract a (probably) disproportionate level of voyeurism.
Next month, I’m participating in a small showing of nude figures, to be hung on the walls of a friend’s cafe. We don’t anticipate any problems, but, as far as I know, none of ours will be of pre-pubescent girls!
So far, I haven’t heard that the police have raided the family home or laid charges against the parents/guardians., who, under law, are ultimately responsible.
(Oh! I guess you have a keyboard now!)
By: dinahmow on May 26, 2008
at 1:47 pm
You can’t use “It’s art” to justify anything you want to do. No matter how artistic the photo, there are some images that should not be created and disseminated. Naked teenagers comes into that category for me, along with children engaged in sexual acts and quite a few other things, I guess. For me, this applies whether or not the subject or parents gave their permission.
It’s not that we can’t distinguish between art and pornography, it is that we don’t want the porn, no matter how artistic it is.
On another aspect — While Henson’s practice may be aesthetic and the subjects are not overtly sexualised, who was the idiot who decided to promote the exhibition using a photo of a naked teenage girl? !!! What does that say about our society, that hoards are leaping to the defence of the artist and the gallery?
With a nice touch of synchronicity, I was at the Australian Museum yesterday and saw a very attractive large b+w photo of a girl naked from the waist up. From the headdress and leaf skirt, it looked like an old ethnographic photo, and her budding breasts suggested the girl was just at the beginning of puberty. Part of me thought, that it was just as inappropriate as the Henson photos, nevertheless, I was glad that the Museum didn’t feel it had to whip the photo out of sight for a month or two.
I probably felt more comfortable with this image because the girl had probably not undressed for the photo, indeed, she was probably wearing her ‘best’. Also because the Museum was not using it as a hook to promote the Museum shop.
By: Gillian on May 26, 2008
at 2:57 pm
“it occurred to me that the word “prude” implies that there is titillation or suggestiveness or the like. And in this case, there isn’t. That’s the point.”
Art evokes emotion, we look at a painting and we either like it or we don’t. When the subject matter is a naked child the emotion that I felt was anger, I immediately thought “no way”.
I completely understand that for some people, like yourself and the artist, these images are beautiful art, to be admired with no sexual conertations. For others, not you or I, they would be considered suggestive and sexual. For me they are of children, vulnerable, innocent, children who’s image needs to be protected untill they are old enough to understand the consequences of showing their naked body to the world.
I just asked my 13 son what he thought about this and he said “it’s wrong, it’s just wrong, naked kids shouldn’t be looked at”, hmmm maybe that’s the point.
The debate goes on…
By: Maddy on May 26, 2008
at 4:56 pm
Good point, Maddy. Thanks for the continuing discussion
By: twolimeleaves on May 26, 2008
at 6:02 pm
Thanks for your comment, Gillian – I respect your viewpoint, especially given your close awareness of the vulnerability of teenagers.
Obviously, this is not a simple question and there are many points to consider.
On the news tonight I heard that a 12 yr old girl has won the right (through the Family Law Court) to begin hormone treatment to prevent puberty because she is trans-gendered and wants to become male. Adds an interesting thought to Tracey’s comment about consent.
As I stirred the dinner around the fry pan tonight I wondered how it is that we can be so stirred up about these works and so flippant about the horrific images in the movie “Se7en” (which I wish I had NEVER seen). A “blockbuster” starring Brad Pitt somehow manages to be a more acceptable vehicle for the nastiest of images than work made by an artist who shows us beautiful images that to me say “Look at these children. How beautiful. How fragile. How vulnerable.”
I guess this a discussion that will never end…
ps: I really appreciate that we can be civilized and respectful even when we disagree. Thank you
By: twolimeleaves on May 26, 2008
at 6:55 pm
Interesting and difficult discussion. I would like to ask all mothers if they would allow their young adolescent children to be photographed naked? Even if for artistic reasons…? I guess I wouldn’t. I agree with Gillian that ART doesn’t justify everything.
I think in this case there is a thin line between art and exposure. You can wonder if we are sick in our minds to even consider it might be pornography or that we have become so uncomfortable with our own nudity and the innocence and vulnerability of young bodies.
On a bit different issue, there’s a huge discussion going on here about (teenage) girl models that are so skinny that they look like having anorexia. They are roll-models for a lot of young women and the number of young girls wirh anorexia is appalling.
By: nicolette on May 26, 2008
at 9:50 pm
As we all know, sometimes freedom of expression (at least here in the US) is not always free. Take for example an exhibit in NY that mixed dung and religion some years ago….yuk, but considered art by whom or what I don’t know.
These days we’re more aware of perversion because of the internet and the easy access to all things of that nature. Men, in particular, (hate to say it, but highly charged testosterone brains and other yuk) will bend rules to suit whatever turns their crank and statistics say they’re reminded of that fact hundreds of times a day. So, some morons will go home from a naked art exhibit and get off on it. Like they say, genitals have no conscience or discretion.
I’ve been around for quite some time, so personally, I tend to question all motives, as I’ve learned from personal observation. Case in point: (Not art related, but an “Oh my God” situation.) I worked for a car dealership back in the ’60’s when our showroom was surrounded by the FBI. Turns out the guy, a used car salesman, whose hand I shook and did paperwork for, the guy who got coffee for me occasionally, was placed under arrest. This was in NJ, 20th century, the man was short, fat and balding. Deceiving, understatement of the year. He was arrested for “white slavery”. Living off campus of a mult-national university at the time, we discovered all these young females were being lured by promises of money, wardrobes, and a host of other things, when in reality polygamous husbands were buying them to stock their harems with “blondes”. I had heard him say something out of character once, but really didn’t connect the dots until that fateful day. Thank goodness my parents raised me with a decent bs detector. This is the darkest thing I could think of that goes to motive and being misled.
Considering all the blatant child porn, sale of children, children being offered to wealthy traveling corporate types, the pictures were a bad choice of expression, unless he wanted controversy. What the hell was he thinking anyway; the rest of his work is mostly landscapes.
By: Lilian on May 27, 2008
at 3:27 am
[...] Henson…, In response to the Bill Henson controversy, Henson a Victim of Abuse of Process, What is Wrong With This Picture?, ethics – when freedom & responsibility clash, Sex change for a 12 year old “adult”, Has [...]
By: hello.com.au » The blogosphere reacts to Bill Henson #2 on May 27, 2008
at 6:01 am
I saw the Bill Henson retrospective at the NSW Art Gallery, and while there were many things to admire, I found the photographs of the young children and early adolescents quite creepy and disturbing, and in my opinion quasi pornographic. I came away from the exhibition feeling very uneasy about it all – they were certainly sexual, and made to look that way rather than the subjects being innately so. Interestingly, others I spoke to about the exhibition had the same reaction, and thought that ‘a line had been crossed’. Art does not justify exploitation. I am amazed that the curator of that exhibition could not see any basis for this reaction, and I wondered about her capabilities and sensibility. It is a pity that the debate seems to arouse so much ranting and hostility.
By: Margaret Healy on May 27, 2008
at 11:42 pm
This is a tricky issue. Most art is much more than an image or art piece that appeals to everyone in the same way. In fact, I may gain a different perspective each separate time I view something. So it certainly stands to reason that each of us could have a great multiplicity of views concerning one photograph or a collection of them. It certainly seems that some people can see these images as simply representative of the adolescent state of life and the changes that come during that time, while others may see something more exploitative. I have mixed feelings. It’s definitely not a black/white issue but lots of shades of gray.
By: Melinda on May 28, 2008
at 2:56 am
Thanks, Margaret, for your input. It’s good to have the perspective of someone who has seen some of the work.
Melinda, that’s an interesting observation, too, that your perspective can change with seperate viewings.
By: twolimeleaves on May 28, 2008
at 10:46 am
OOh! I’m totally with you on the selling of lingerie to six year olds, the thing that really really gets me is the selling of little girls mags in the supermarket, featuring lots of pics of very young children plastered in makeup, and posing inappropriately for their age, which are known to be used as porno for sick people….. totally legal, totally available, and wrong on so many levels…
By: crafty on May 28, 2008
at 4:00 pm
you crack me up after reading your comment and every body elses….. i have been thinking about this all day…………… don’t do this to meeeeee.i am on holidays…………. no thinking right x
By: Margie on May 28, 2008
at 5:43 pm
So now are we going to censor what we let young people draw and paint?? Will life drawing now mean that models are clothed? Are people over 18 going to be the ones allowed into Art Galleries for fear there could be flesh?
Should we not then censor every magazine that we let our kindergarten kids cut up ?
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/news/local/news/general/no-nudes-please/780629.aspx
It is all wrong and really annoys me!
By: shelly on June 1, 2008
at 10:44 am
We had a similar scandal here in Finland this year, a female artist who exhibited photos of children she found on-line on child porn sites, was arrested and the exhibition was taken down. The photos were not nudes. She wanted to raise a discussion about child porn on the Internet and how easy it is to find it. Instead she was arrested and accused of being a pervert. It is sick and crazy and very, very sad.
By: Kajsa on June 13, 2008
at 1:12 am