I'm surprised no one has posted anything about Bill Henson and the ongoing debacle surrounding his photographs. I don't want this to turn into a flame war or a major argument, but rather a constructive discussion about the boundaries of art and where art ceases to be art.
Looking at the case as objectively as possible, here is a basic summary: Bill Henson photographed a naked 13 year old girl and a naked 12 year old boy and those pictures were then exhibited in Sydney. After preview viewings, a complaint was made to the NSW Police who proceeded to confiscate the paintings and are yet to officially charge Bill Henson over the photographs.
Since then, many facts have emerged. For example:
- Both the parents and the children themselves gave consent to the photos being taken.
- The two children were photographed separately, and parents were in attendance for both photo shoots.
- Most politicians, including Kevin Rudd and Brendan Nelson, have voiced their disgust at the pictures. Peter Garrett has been noticeably quiet about the whole affair.
The main issues, as I understand them, stem around:
- A 13 year old girl and a 12 year old boy are legally considered unable to provide consent for the photos to be taken
- Their parents cannot provide this consent either, making the consent immaterial
- Whether or not the images are "sexual" and therefore considered porn
- The possibility of the children developing emotional distress and regret later in life.
Now for my personal opinion. The pictures in question are in no way what we would typically associate with pornography. They are lit and displayed in such a way that highlights particular aspects of the body. There is no question that some people mind find these photos sexually appealing, but no more so than if they were to go to the beach or have a doctors examination. Yes, it is more public and more overt, but many different people find many different things sexually appealing. To use that argument is like saying we should pan all pictures of cows as people my find them sexually appealing, or that dogs must be neutered so there is no public display of testicles. The consent issue is an important one. If all parties are in agreement and the original intentions are good and distribution is carefully monitored, I fail to see how these pictures will cause offense or humiliation. In fact, if the right-wing, church going do-gooders had've kept their trap shut, the amount of people that would've seen the work would've been very, very small compared to how many have seen the pictures now that they have been published in The Age and other media. They have, without a doubt, done more harm than good. It is also hypocritical of our justice system to say that consent is immaterial, when just last week a 12 year old girl was granted the right to have a sex change operation, despite her father opposing it. This has gone relatively unnoticed by the media due to this (much, much lesser) issue. I've attached the image of the 13 year old girl published by The Age for discussion and for the information of people who may have not seen it.
I think this is an
I think this is an interesting example of the relativity of interpretation. To a pedophile, this image is porn, but to me it is a challenging and haunting work of art.
The reaction should not come as a surprise however, and I also suspect Bill Henson will benefit from this more than he will suffer.
See a full article:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/the-controversial-career-of-bill-...
PS: Flaming this subject will incur deletion and a possible ban. Constructive debate is welcome.
buried shame
I think it is sad that we should associate nakedness whether it be of children or adults with perversity, and by that inference, as being wrong. Essentially, this image is of a naked girl whose introverted gaze, is clearly demonstrative of a lack of intent to titilate. Each viewer must ultimately decide for themselves whether sexuality is even the issue. In my opinion, her nakedness communicates vulnerability and uncertainty. My imagination tells the story of a girl at her first funeral. I'm sure there are many possible stories we could tell about this girl. What one sees, is ultimately a reflection of the eye of the beholder. The question is not whether it is porn as that opinion changes with every person you ask, but why so many people associate the image of a naked teenager with perversity, rather than a celebration of female development. Why is the mainstream culture, so ashamed of what nature has created?
The deeper issue which is being unmasked in this debate is our level of comfort with being ourselves. So much so that so many appear to be alarmed at seeing a girl just as she is without any mask. Apparently, the truth is controvertial and shameful to some. Is it pedophiles who frighten us or is it the vulnerability of being psychologically and physically naked for all to see? In my opinion, there is a widespread fear of looking at the truth. The truth is girls that age do have sexuality and yes they are vulnerable. And yes it is beautiful but the most important message comes next, should we be ashamed of it and hide it away as if it is a perversity, or should we allow it to be celebrated YES/NO? It is a question of adopting a stance of shame and denial or openness and celebration. There will always be pedophiles, rapists and murderers in our world. This is unfortunate. But should we let them dictate our actions and attitudes? In my opinion, to do so would be to empower them and give integrity to their acts.
I'm sure we will never stop studying the romance of Romeo and Juliet in which two fourteen year olds have consensual sex or stop watching blue lagoon, in which teenagers of the same age engage sexually on the big screen. The issue is not about the sexuality or innocence of this image, it is about the distorted fears which are driving people to want to hide it, which I find most disturbingly detrimental to young girls and their view of themselves. If the common concern is children and protecting them and their self-image, then I'm confused at how banning images of them as they are is doing that.
For the sake of arguement
The question is not whether this is porn or art. In fact the subject matter is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that a child is used at an age where consent is (as you have stated) irrelevant.
It is about whether society decides to accept it or not. I agree that it is a beautiful image that is not sexual in nature but in a society that has pedophiles and deviants by allow it to go unpunished given the publicity it has received is a dangerous precedent to set for those in the future who would (with the same intentions of creating art) execute something far less skillfully. Create something that may have lasting effects on the child and in extreme cases may even put the child in danger.
To determine the fate of Bill Henson based on artistic interpretation is to expose the fate of children in the future to weakened legal protection. In this case and any other cases where the fate of a child is at stake there should be no grey area. Bill Henson needs to be convicted. His sentencing might be lenient but the State needs to deliver a clear message that even the slightest possibility of child exploitation should and will not be tolerated regardless of how skillfully artistic the execution is.
I have to disagree that the
I have to disagree that the subject matter is irrelevant as this has been the focus of the current outrage and debate. If the subject matter was not relevant and the outrage was by your claim purely focused upon the questiion of consent, this same reaction would be given after watching blue lagoon in which teenagers of the same age interact sexually without clothing, or in henson's case, to his earlier work, which is far more "explicit" than this collection and has and continues to be proudly exhibited in international collections all over the world.
If the question was merely about consent, then why then aren't we investigating whether children within film/art which contains violence (pick any action movie) underwent the proper avenues of legal consent before they participated? Should we take them out of movies with violence on the off chance there might be (and there most probably is) people out there who fantasise about putting children in violent situations or training them to be murderers? If so, what's next? should ethnic people paint their faces white so that racists will not attack them? Censorship of who you are in my opinion, is not the answer in silencing those who cannot accept you or a piece of art. You cannot be safe living in fear. You provide safety for children by celebrating who they are and hiding nothing of the world from them, so that they can make choices with self-awareness and self-confidence.
Therefore, it is the subject matter of this image which is at the centre of this debate and the effect has been, for police to investigate whether the legal avenues of consent were partaken. Should Bill Henson be prosecuted if found to have not secured consent from the child's parents? Like anyone else subject to our laws, the answer is yes. However, should Bill Henson's work be seen as exploitative and perverse in its intent and taken off the gallery wall because some member's of our society see it that way, despite evidence to the contrary which is clearly delineated in the work itself- no.
Whether society decides to accept the image or not, it is essentially an image of a girl just as she was born to be and I can't see one rational reason why that should be hidden from the world. I reiterate my point that what is most concerning is not the paperwork details of this case, but the ignorance and fear it has exposed, which has defamed a young girl who right now most probably does not understand what she did wrong. And she would be right, she did not do anything wrong and that message needs to get to her and we have a responsibility to do that by honouring her image, rather than hiding it, as if it is pornography, which it clearly is not.
Child Models Grow Up and Speak Out
I think this lends some voice to the so called 'voiceless victims' of Bill Henson's work: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/05/25/1211653846181.html