Bill Henson image from the Victoria and Albert Museum in London.
This post starts a thread which continues general discussion of the Bill Henson controversy, and replaces what had become a very long thread. Please note that there is now a specific post on the politics of the Bill Henson brouhaha, and comments on that aspect should be made on that thread. This one is for the broader issues canvassed by my previous post.
Update: Brian has a new post up on the issue of the age of consent.
Elsewhere: Very interesting posts from Jason Wilson at gatewatching and Rachel at Mentalization-Positive.
Further update: This thread is now closed, and discussion on the general aspects of the Henson controversy can be continued here.
Hi Tigtog,
I really value the stuff you have said on this post. And I thank for answering me with such a valuable honesty, given your experience. Im trying to work out everything I feel too. I also really appreciate Su and Sublime Cowgirl’s posts. They have been courageous in the face a determined attempt to make them appear reactionary, even when they both have been manifestly reasoned. I also wonder if a girl can consent at the age of 13. If a parent can consent on their behalf. Also, as I said,
Im a fan of Henson’s work. I shall tell you why. He has the most intense visceral effect on emotions, every single time. When I saw the shot of the girl at the centre of the storm, sans black bars, when I saw one breast curve, a little side on, still yet to fill out, only just beginning to swell and when I saw the other breast full frontal, the nipple swollen, budding painfully out of a once very recent flat chest, and then the look on her face, (is she mourning for what is going? or for what is coming?) it shot me back in time to the sheer discomfort of that sudden change, and the utter physical pain of the growing breast as the nipple buds through, a hard painful lump reminding you of something tremendous, something portentous, unready, more than ready, and so, just so embarrassed all the time. Collisions of desires, longings for returns, and the wonder of whats coming. Instinctively I raised my hands to my breasts to protect myself from the memory of being 12 years old and the pain of dealing with the physicality of the awakening and the emotions they invoked. No photo has done that to me ever. The discomfort and the power of the visceral return to that time, is for me, art, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
So why am I nagged by the question of consent? Why do I refuse to damn Hetty Johnson? Why wont I damn Henson, who I see exploring not only the liminal spaces of adolencence in all their complexities, but also hooking into the white imaginary’s fear of lost children in the Australian landscape which holds a primeval menace somehow sexual in nature. I think of Picnic at Hanging Rock here and feel the same mix of menacing landscape and the young bodies that that are finally lost to its lures. This for me hooks into the anxieties felt by European settlers far away from all that was England. (see Peter Pierce, The Country of Lost Children).
There is so much to think about….but I want to say one more thing. I dont think its helpful when you get questions posed to Su for instance, imputing some kind of motive of jealousy to her, because she may or may not have had a happy childhood and this somehow explains her stance This is not good. She has provided a sustained and eloquent inquiry into issues of childhood and the rights of the child and should be accorded more respect that that lousy shot.
OK. Now I might try again since Laura has promised to keep her pointless harping about artistic inviolabilty to herself.
On the previous site I had the recurrent problem of others paraphrasing my words and using them to imply that I had said Bill Henson is no different from a pornographer. This is not true.
I am seeking the answer to a question I posed at 11.00 am: What is it that makes Bill Henson different from a pornographer?
See the difference?
That was my question.And considering how many of the users were quick to announce their intellectual and cultural superiority I think they have done a singularly poor job of answering it.
The insults have been mildly amusing. I was sad that Klaus slithered away so early, as I thought being called a “troll” showed promise of further entertainment. And Laura made me realise that someone can be shrill even on a keyboard. So that was edifying.
But I have no real answer to my question because no one has engaged with the question I was actually asking. They wished instead to engage with an accusation they insist I was making. I hope that is clear.
And yes Laura I know that I am a newt-brained neanderthal with an infinitesimal mental capacity and therefore not worth responding to. So you can rest your typing fingers secure in the knowledge that us farm gals ain’t gettin’ no high fallutin ideas about our rights to engage in social discourse with the likes a you, ma’am.
I’ve been really enjoying the discussions about these photos.
Each person who looks at them seems to be drawing on their own experiences and predjudices, then developing an emotional reaction. The emotional reaction these pictures cause is so great people are spending inordinate amounts of time and effort trying to justify these reactions to other people.
They are great art.
Julie, I haven’t read the interchange between you and Laura but we have a comments policy everyone must abide by which calls for commenters to treat each other with respect. I’d ask you - and everyone else - to abide by that. I think on the whole these threads have been very positive - and while these issues provoke strong reactions - it’s important for the quality of the discussion and for civility itself that we don’t personalise them.
Two interesting posts to link:
http://gatewatching.org/2008/05/28/criticism-matters-critics-dont-apologies-to-r-greenslade/
[Jason Wilson at Gatewatching]
http://thementalization.wordpress.com/2008/05/25/projecting-adolescent-inquiry/
[Rachel at Mentalization-Positive]
And here is a link to the Guardian’s Art and architecture columnist/ blogger.
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/art/2008/05/these_photographs_arent_sexual.html
Well, I l looked at he link that murph the surf supplied and those photos were beautiful. I’ve seen very little evidence of Henson’s wrongdoing, but a little bit of ugly inference and unreferenced gossip.
Julie Leaver, I suggest you go to Laura’s website for her explanation of why it isn’t pornography. I’m a bit too tired after a very long day at work to go into it. But may I say, whatever your opinion your sneers and ill humour do your arguments no good. As Kim says, read the comments policy and stick to criticising the arguments, not the person.
This has been a very civil conversation even when people disagree with each other. It would be a pity to see it ruined by rudeness. I don’t think your role is to chase off other posters, which you seem quite proud to be doing.
Thankyou Fine for your contribution - and lesson in etiquette. It might be worth noting that both Klaus and laura began abusing me, belittling my opinions and making sweeping generalisations about my personality and my intellect based upon their own (erroneous) reading of my premise. Which was that children and those under the influence of mind altering substances are a rather grey area when it comes to informed consent. So mind altering substances may or may not have been taken by Henson’s models in the 1980’s Untitled series. This is still up for debate.
There are still lingering questions over his sourcing of models. Is parental consent in this situation adequate protection? Some reports say he has begun seeking models in Eastern Europe. Is this because child protection laws there allow him more lasitude?
Just because the man’s images are beautiful does not mean that they or he are beyond being questioned. If it is wrong for the manufacturers of Barbie and Bratz dolls to project their own mature sexual preconceptions onto children for profit then it just may be that it is wrong for everyone - even great artists.
Julie, however you interpreted past comments (and I haven’t read them all - but I’d be surprised if either Klaus or Laura were abusing you as opposed to disagreeing with you or the premises of your opinions and perhaps expressing frustration), I don’t want any further discussion of this. Please read the comments policy. Meta-discussion of other commenters’ behaviour and of the comments policy itself is also out of order.
As to “Eastern Europe”, Henson discussed this in the program on his work on the ABC last night, I believe (I didn’t watch it but I’ve been told that). And I don’t know whether child protection laws in “Eastern Europe” are more or less stringent than those in Australia. That’s pure speculation.
That’s well put, Fine. I’ve just read the latter part of the thread through. Laura linked ages ago to her blog where she gave a very clear explanation as to how she sees the difference between art and pornography.
In the first thread I’d had a go at illustrating the difference and made some comments about how a refined sensibility in art appreciation is not easily won. But Julie Leaver’s tone makes me disinclined to hunt them up and link to them.
sublimecowgirl, the procedures you outlined back at 182 seem benign and unproblematic. I don’t have any current contacts working in child protection but know a few people who did and worked in social work quite extensively. My impression is that it was always a struggle to recruit and hold good staff. Furthermore the workloads seemed to be such that they had to triage their cases to the point where the current Henson case could be a questionable use of resources. Any comment?
Kim, I saw the program last night and I don’t actually remember the eastern European reference. Several things stood out to me.
One was the man from the AG of NSW saying that Henson was not so much a photographer as an artist who used photography as a means to make art.
Another was Henson saying how crafted the shots were. In some of the outside pics he actually constructed things if he needed them to make the composition he was after. He emphasised that his instructions to his models while posing were often very precise to the extent that they had to concentrate very hard to produce the effect he was seeking.
It came across as very serious business indeed.
I don’t regard myself as having a particularly refined sensibility and hadn’t been familiar with Henson’s art before this all blew up. Nevertheless he came across as a better artist than I thought. His true position can’t be known in this generation, however, as the enduring appeal of an artist can’t be predicted with total confidence.
Julie, if artists can’t earn from their work the main choices are (a) get a real job and do it part time, (b) starve in a garret, (c) find a patron.
None of these is particularly appealing.
No Kim. I am afraid that having lived and travelled in Eastern Europe over the last two or three years I can tell you that the woeful state of child protection in Eastern Europe is well known. Ukrainia and Russia are the countries I have most experience of. I witnessed appalling neglect of child welfare by authorities.
Street children in Russia who are at risk of HIV/AIDS live under a health minister who has stated on record that the sooner they all die the better off Russia will be.
In The Ukraine things are little better. I worked in a Maternity Hospital where girls as young as thirteen were common sights in the labor ward and no official ever visited to enquire as to the circumstances under which they had become pregnant. So I believe I am in a strong position to assert that protections there are less stringent than here.
Fair enough, Julie, but that doesn’t necessarily imply anything about Henson or his ethics at all.
Brian, I might have been wrong about that - wasn’t first hand.
Julie Leaver, I don’t know. To be honest, I’d never heard of the man until this furore erupted, so in some ways I’ve been at an advantage, because I had no emotional attachment to either side of the argument.
My view is that he was a bloody fool to take nude photos of young adolescents, with or without their parents’ approval, because sooner or later someone would be deeply offended and allegations of exploitation and abuse would be raised.
I saw the offending image on the link Kim (I think) provided and I still think he’s a bloody fool and has been lucky to have avoided the brouhaha for so long. The photo struck me as voyeuristic and mildly distasteful. If anything, the girl seemed to be embarrassed, somewhat uneasy and very vulnerable. I felt sorry for her and disliked Henson for putting her in that position.
For me the question is can the child or her parents truly consent to her being used as a model in this context? The child because of her youth and inexperience and the parents because I’m not sure they really have the right to consent to her participation.
And to avoid the usual responses, if her physical, emotional and mental well-being was at stake, then parents have not only the right but the duty to make decisions to protect her.
I’m going to leave aside the question of consent, because I think casey’s right that it’s a complex one, but Jane:
That’s the point. As we’ve said from the outset, that’s what he’s trying to represent - the vulnerability of adolescent bodies. If you read what Brian said:
When he takes a photo he doesn’t point and click. As I mentioned on the previous thread, I’ve worked as both a studio photographer and as a photographic artist. And I’ve worked with nude models and been a nude model. These poses are very deliberate, and very hard to achieve successfully. It’s nothing like taking a photo in passing of a spontaneous pose or emotion (although that can also involve a lot of skill if done well). Henson has an image in his mind that he wants to produce. To get a shot like that, you might be working for a few hours.
It’s significant to note that the models are often (as I understand it), the children of artists and have frequently worked as photographic models in other contexts.
I really wish people would go to the trouble of listening to what Henson himself has said about his practice, rather than making all sorts of assumptions.
Incidentally, from my own experience, there’s nothing all that sexual about the context of the actual production of nude images for artistic purposes. It’s work. As the subject, you veer between boredom and intense concentration half the time. It’s a real joy to have a photographer who actually can engage you. It’s much better to think of this by analogy to life drawing, which I think (from memory) tigtog said she’d been involved in at one point? There’s nothing much sexy/sexual about a life drawing class, or modelling for a life drawing class.
I also want to repeat that there are very good reasons why Henson’s work has won prizes, is known internationally, and has been collected by major galleries to the extent that it has, and why it commands so much on the art market. He’s very good indeed.
That’s one of the reasons why the false analogy between the production of pr0n images or for that matter family snaps is wrong. There’s enormous skill, creativity and work involved in this sort of practice - and the aim is to produce a “painterly” effect, as I said in my first post.
I know it’s strictly speaking a bit OT but it’s more or less relevant: on this issue of exploitation of subjects in general and European drug addicts in particular, I have a question for Julie or anyone else who cares to have a go at answering it. No doubt like many other tourists, I was and remain haunted by the addicts in Vienna’s underground railway stations, particularly those in the Innere Stadt. One in particular, can’t remember its name, was so full of floating, dazed, emaciated, deathly bodies that it looked and felt like some nightmare underworld. Some of them were begging. Some of them were unconscious. Some of them were vomiting and/or incontinent.
If representation of them in photography is ‘exploitation’, would representation of them in painting be any different? What if you wrote a song about them? I have been known in the past to write fiction and I hope to write more fiction in the future; If I put this vision of hell into a story or a novel, accurately describing what I saw, is that exploitation? If I write nonfiction in which this scene is described in a documentary manner, is that better or worse? If I refuse payment for these works, does any of that make a difference, and if so in what way?
Here’s another example: ten years ago Robert Hannaford painted a fabulous portrait of Robert Dessaix when the latter was very ill, with, at that stage, a not-wonderful prognosis. The painting is profoundly haunting. Was that exploitation?
My point, and I do have one, is that the logical conclusion of arguments like these is that all art depicting human subjects is exploitation and should be banned. Given the degree of hostility to art that is oozing out of public discourse as we speak, perhaps that’s the aim. I am so appalled by the federal police’s raid this evening on the National Gallery that I’m now prepared to believe anything.
Well argued and put, Dr Cat!
[Your reverence]
Jane has raised again the question of subject as victim and I see it has made some people quite uncomfortable. Parents DO NOT have the right to consent to naked photography of their children for public consumption or for profit. Because it is not the parents image which will be immortalised. And because it poses far too many questions about what is art? and is this art? which are stupid and trivial when put into the context of protecting children from adults who would exploit them.
And still no one has attempted to answer my question of why Bill Henson should be able to sexualise children when Barbie and Bratz manufacturers are (rightfully) criticised for doing much the same thing in the very forums which now seek to defend him.
As for Bill Henson starving in a garret I think that if his only other option is to exploit the young and vulnerable then that might be a good moral choice. But surely such a great artist could find other avenues of expression?
I strongly suspect Bill Henson might choose to find other avenues of expression by leaving this country, Julie. I’d be tempted if I were him. Choice of subject/theme is not random. There’s a truth in painting and art which is a truth that comes from the self - you create and seek to represent what you are passionate about creating and representing.
For you maybe.
Bless you, my child.
Amen!
It’s not the cops fault. This is a result of society’s collective hysteria about child abuse. Child abuse is bad. But. When we chose, as we did (i dunno - 15 years ago), to fetishise the issue, we will find child abuse where we reasonably should not.
Henson’s current experience happened to school teachers well before this. No touching etc.
Society has decided that, for example, girls should not appear naked before an unrelated man. And, as a general rule, this was the case for sort of ever, but in the climate of hysteria over child abuse, this general taboo has been sharpened to mean that no matter the intention, no matter the circumstances we reserve the right , and even feel it is our moral duty, to get mighty upset about it whenever we are so goaded.
This is not about art versus pornography. This is the end result of a taboo taken too much to heart. It wouldn’t matter how explicitly ‘artistic’ the photo was, the nude girl displaying her body for the male stranger is the issue we can’t quite get over. The assumption is that a man with a nude girl can only have sexual motives, must be classified as dangerous, and that therefore the photos are of a sexual nature unavoidably.
Perhaps you should try quoting the whole sentence.
That may have no relevance to the particular case of Henson but selectively quoting a phrase as if it represents an anti-art stance when it is clearly saying that artistic questions should not come before matters of child protection is intellectual dishonesty.
Thanks, Kim, for both your discussion and the links to many other fascinating posts. I haven’t commented on my blog or here or much elsewhere because I don’t think I’m eloquent enough and because my own response would’ve been too much like the arrogant-sounding “luvvies” decrying Kevin Rudd & co for being idiots. Honestly felt perhaps, but unhelpful in the debate. There are much more useful ways of supporting the thesis that Henson is doing something far removed from child porn or paedophilia-enabling, so - thanks go to you, tigtog and many others I’ve found through these discussions.
Julie, you might want to look at the plentiful discussions of why Bill Henson is not sexualising children and then think about the logic of your request above. That’s the answer you feel you’re missing - Henson (or any other artist) should certainly not be “allowed” to sexualise children, but that’s not what he’s doing, and whatever he’s doing in his art is profoundly different from what these plentiful advertising venues and the like are doing.
I’m sure you don’t like this response, but it’s a bit rich to claim your questions haven’t been answered because you don’t like the answers.
I think the insistence on childhood and adolescence being pure sugary innocence, and children needing protection from an unrelentingly predatory world speak of a determined flight from reality that can only be damaging for all involved. Our politics and activism have to be rooted in reality, not in how we wish or fear the world to be.
(Mind you, I’m sure we all belive that, and will thus only get into arguments about what (the) reality is, so I think I’ll disappear again now… kthxbye)
Amen to that as well.
Julie, I am having trouble understanding the logic of your question - are you saying that the nudity makes the image p**^nographic, or that the age of the girl makes it p8**graphic? I am asking as I routinely give Anne Geddes cards to friends with naked babies on them, my favourite image is the one with the tiny naked baby in the mans hand. Is this p***ographic or exploitative of the baby in your view?
Or is it the the age of the young girl who is just entering puberty, at which my gut reaction is to protect her in her vulnerability the exploitation and possible pornography you are concerned about?
I watched the doco on the ABC last night on Henson’s work and was convinced that what he is doing is not pornographic, although I found some of the images of teenagers confronting, particularly the boys actually. The work that was shown behind the National Art gallery director was far more confronting than the ones currently in question.
I am a mother of four daughters, aged 20 - 9 and I have to say I would take my daughters to see these works and discuss with them what they represent, I would not feel I was irresponsible. I would be happy to have most of them in my home. I would take my mother to see them. I am completely comfortable that they are not p**8ographic. I am not a literati but a middle class suburban lapsed catholic, maybe I was desensitised by all the pubescent naked angels in the windows of the church when I was young?
Peter Kemp ‘#And what I’m saying is that where such complaints are made to DOCs in the case of Henson’s photo subjects, DOCs should ignore those representations, if ever made, on the basis that (1) it’s not prOn, or in such a context; (2) if otherwise, every parent or relative or friend who took a photo of naked children is liable.’
Peter that issue of whether its p..n or not (and i dont categorise the pics i’ve seen in the gallery context as such) are missing the point. DOCS, i imagine are not particularly interesting in Henson at all, except to determine whether there was a breach of parental responsibility which put their child at risk of harm. The pics are simply clues/flags or indicators of possible risk.
None of us watching this issue unfold from a distance have seen all the proofs and other unseen works, or who has possession of them, not do we know what level of supervision or physical contact occured during the process. Furthermore we know nothing of the girls circumstances, and it is is the realm of possibility that her parents regularly let her be photogrpahed by whoever the hell pays the most. We have no idea really , do we?
Now Brian raised the point about huge demand and the ‘triaging’ of reports and notifications. Yes this happens in practice, as it should given teh strategic use of limited resources to focus on the most harm.
Its been a very long time since i worked in this area - well over a decade, and there has been a lot of legislative and policy changes since then. And perhaps progressing this to urgent investigation status seems weird, but like everyone else here, i dont have all the facts, such as the families previous history with DOCS, prior substantiations, etc etc, which could be taken into account. So, unlike so many others rushing to condemn the state for its interest in this case, i chose to keep an open mind at this point.
Julie, I can tell you that you are in danger of silencing people with your aggression. I should right now be preparing a post on the topic of consent. Your approach makes me less inclined.
Sorry, Kim, if this comment is out of line, please delete it.
Remember Christiane F. - Wir Kinder vom Bahnhof Zoo? Was their controversy over that film because of its verisimilitude?…probably…but it got the point(s) across.
Verisimilitude in its literary context is defined as the fact or quality of being verisimilar, the appearance of being true or real; likeness or resemblance of the truth, reality or a fact’s probability. Verisimilitude comes from Latin verum meaning truth and similis meaning similar.
(Wiki pedia)
and this:
http://media.www.dailyvidette.com/media/storage/paper420/news/2007/11/08/News/Photo.Of.Napalmed.Girl.Misrepresented-3086905.shtml
Because one is about wasting the planet’s resources manufacturing trash merchandise for the the sole purpose of gratifying corporate greed with the side effect of rendering grotesquely sexualised prepubescent children as some kind of norm in mass culture, and the other one isn’t.
Furthermore, Henson is not “sexualising children”; he is photographing adolescents. And if, after all your extensive life experience as detailed on this and other Henson threads, you still think adolescents are not already self-sexualised, then there is something very wrong with your eyes.
“there”…not “their”…doh!
Holy f@#king crap. This whole thread seems to be an exercise in how many ways you can miss the f@#king point.
Is it art? Shit yes - and good art if you ask me.
Does this excuse it from well established and highly reasonable laws regarding whether a photographer can ask a 13 year old to get naked, take photos of her, and sell them.
Of course it f@#king doesn’t. No more than “its art” excuses people from any other aspect of the law. Jesus F@#king H Christ people. If this was about any other set of laws we wouldn’t be having any of this discussion. Pick a law - murder, tax avoidance, driving to fast!!!!!
Touching base here and not sure which thread to contribute to, while also admitting not all comments have been read. That said, the traversing of comments has itself been overwhelming.
We can talk about art.
We’re very, very fortunate that what art has sought to speak of, when once it couldn’t, now it can.
Can we set that aside as a point of difference, historically?
To cut the human body, dead, open it up, no longer sends us to hell. You can now sketch the human heart, brain or tendon with no more fearlessness than you yourself bring to the doing. Bit tough, no probs, you can still talk openly about it to your heart or mind’s desire.
You can make pictures in calf blood; for years now.
What part of it all do you want art to embrace? No probs, art can do that.
The thing of course is that art is boundless and always was.
It encompasses not only our human life, but all of life, whatever organism that might be, before we even get there to question it.
So these issues we’re all het up about are not really about art. Art is and forever was and forever will be, and art lives beyond us as it does within us always.
These issues today are about other things. They’re boring, it must be said, from the perspective of art.
But they’re far from boring from a social, or personal, perspective. And so we must, by the artistic imperative, grow into them.
But that’s not to say we - individually or collectively - should let art be rampant.
Whose art should we be allowed to live by? Let alone the art that is yet unsaid! No, art is not the structure by which we cohabit the planet.
But it is certainly a measuring stick by which other conversations can take place.
This is happening brilliantly and beautifully on this thread, and elsewhere all over the place where important things are discussed under the guise of art.
Even for a discussion to be provoked by art, any matters included, howsoever, is not to attempt to define art, or hold art, within that hungry grasp.
Art will always be bigger yet again. It will beseech you to open your hungry grip, or deny not only that grip but who would pretend to hold such a thing.
No, these matters which hold us while including art as it always must, are not only about how we bring art into our and others’ lives (as the discerning will know already, articulately, and the no-knowers to them have already grown beyond), but more practically how we deal with our real-world forces and hungers, such as profit, and voice, and particulars of such.
The art or lack of it will always look after itself.
The perspective we are all striving to impose on these things is not about art. Once we clarify that, we have a chance to begin to understand the many voices and the here-and-now value of what is being said.
I don’t accept the premises of framing this in this way, su. I just don’t. And nor do I think it is dishonest to highlight the words “stupid” and “trivial”. It angers me to think that something I feel very strongly about and the questions I and others have been asking are, well, trivialised in this, and I don’t appreciate the inference about stupidity, or the inference that we’re morally adrift by not seeing things in the way some do.
It might be useful for people to remember that those of us who are passionately defending Henson’s practice are not disinterested in child protection either! And that it’s possible that what we consider to be very serious should not be dismissed as trivial lightly. Just as I don’t dismiss genuine concerns people have, even if I think in this instance they are without ground.
I will repeat what I’ve said repeatedly - the issue of Henson’s photos is incapable of providing the basis for a serious debate about the best approach to child protection.
wbb, Maggie, Peter and Robert - as newcomers (I think!) to these threads, thanks for your contributions - all of which are thoughtful and valuable imho!
But I’d best be getting to bed.
I’m not sure I’ll be back on this thread for a while - for reasons I’ve explained in several comments, I myself find this discussion quite emotionally taxing.
I don’t have sugary middle class notions about childhood innocence. I have no sugary middle class background to give me such comfortable illusions. However I have no problems with public nudity. My 16 and 9 year old daughters,their father, brother and I regularly change on the beach. We have been known to swim naked together where council officers are not present to discourage us.I have taught all of my children that their bodies are beautiful gifts to be enjoyed and cared for. And that no one else has the right to do anything with or to their bodies which feels uncomfortable or wrong to THEM. And Jane was right. Many of his subjects look far from comfortable in their poses.
What makes it abuse? If he abused the kids to get the images, does that make the images porn? If not what makes it art?
I don’t have access to the lexis or the bibliography to argue on your terms. And you don’t want to hear from anyone who disagrees with you anyway.
You have in common with Henson this one quality - you are all intellectually dishonest. He represents his own sexual obsessions as if they were his subjects. And you only want people on your blog who agree with the premise that his work is art and therefore somehow immune to critique. “He has won awards and critical acclaim overseas.” you cry in horror. Well let them have him. I will stay down here with the plebs, believing it is wrong to exploit children, for art or any other purpose.
No, I am frustrated that you ignore attempts to answer your question! Such as mine at 17 and 18. Unlike you, I don’t like tossing around epithets like “intellectually dishonest”. But it is wrong to pose a question, ignore the answer, and repeat a point which has been answered, without taking any note of that answer. And your other question was answered by Peter and Pavlov’s Cat at 27 and 33, but you don’t like the answer, so you just ignore it and continue repeating the same point. That’s dishonest, frankly.
All this proves is that you are incapable of dealing with a perspective with which you disagree, or responding to arguments which complicate or question the basis for your assertions. You constantly make such assertions which are just that - like the claim that Henson’s photographs are motivated by “his own sexual obsessions”. There is no demonstrable basis that can support such a claim.
That’s as may be, but it’s a bit disingenuous as you’re clearly quite capable of a certain level of rhetorical practice which forces others to deal with you and not the issues, and discourages others from expressing their views.
I, like Brian at 31, am not enjoying your attitude, and you can take it somewhere else, as far as I’m concerned. I’ve drawn your attention to the comments policy several times. It is just not acceptable here to constantly impugn other commenters. You’ve run out of chances.
You did not answer my question. You raved on about artistic expression and process and craft. But no one told me why it is ok for an old man to get a young girl to fake a sex act, photograph her, get rich off the proceeds and not be subject to intense public scrutiny
Julie and su, if you think these questions are so trivial and stupid, and the true definition of art so clear-cut that it will always enable artists to avoid abusing children, perhaps you should share with us your definition of what is art? Not through empty claims like “Art is not child abuse”, but by telling us what you think art is for and about.
Further, if you don’t have “sugary notions about childhood innocence”, why do you object so strongly to the depiction of adolescence in anything except the most sugary way? Su, early on you seemed to claim that these Henson photos depict the type of naive childhood that many adolescents don’t get to have - why do you object to this idyll being depicted? (And by “object” I don’t mean “ban” - but you obviously find the pictures objectionable, or uncomfortable, or something).
Do you accept that all depiction of human suffering in art is exploitation? Surely there is nothing in these Henson photos to compare to the way Wilfred Owen profited from the misery of his dying subject in “Dulce et Decorum est?” Do you object to all depictions of human suffering, and art based on any area of human emotional excess where consent may be questionable?
And Julie, when you let your children out on the beach semi-naked, is it not the case that by your own argument, you are responsible if a nearby paedophile sees them, goes home and gets his jollies thinking about them? Shouldn’t you cover up your own children against the possibility that they might be abused in this way, just as these children in Henson’s photos should be protected from the misuse of their images? And surely children’s underwear ads need to be banned for the same reason? When I was a teenager I used to appreciate the underwear catalogues that came through the junk mail… surely there are paedophiles taking advantage of ads for children’s undies even now…?
I think you don’t object to these graven images when they are about function - about you swimming on the beach, or searching for new undies for your kids. You only object to these images when they have no function, when they are about self expression and art for its own sake. That seems very small-minded to me.
Even though I’m concerned that this will extend to the banning of anti-war pictures…& prove to be a slippery slope, upon deep sleep & awakening & reflection…I reckon a problem exists with the fact the parents have gone outside of the law by providing permission for their children to sit for the pics regardless of the potential consequences to 1) the youngsters reputation & safety 2) the potential for commercial/labour exploitation.
Furthermore, they seem to think themselves above the law. And where does artistic expression end & commercial venture begin?
If it turns out Henson has exploited these children in some way…then will the authorities ensure that copies of any work that involves young people in provocative pose be handed in?…and the owners & artists/filmmakers be interviewed if they are in Australia?…or hit these shores? This goes for films like Pretty Baby, The Blue Lagoon, Christiane F, Kids…the list goes on & on.
Personally, I would love to see the authorities work further w/ effective overseas entities and go after those involved in sex slavery, child prostitution & other rackets/exploiters & abusers…& not worry about treading on influential peoples toes…but providing fair hearings etc.
But I’m worried this is just a distraction. Still, I guess the courts & many lawyers & perhaps public opinion will determine if the law has been broken.
I just hope that this is not a sneaky way for the Corporate mongrels to get away w/ continuing to sexualise children to peddle/sell products.
It might open up interesting questions about the value of labour as well. Particularly as the shots are sold…money is made for the galleries. Have the youngsters been paid appropriately? How young is too young to work? And pay tax? And what about taxation without representation?
It’s a minefield…but if it uncovers wrongdoing…& leads to less exploitation…then perhaps the EVENT was worth it in the long run. Hard to say.
nasking, those are some important questions.
With respect to payment for the models in this case, I have read that the models for Henson tend to be recompensed with a gallery-quality image of themselves from the shooting session, which would be a fairly substantial asset that would accrue more and more value over time. The images that were examined by police in the gallery in Albury were exactly this: owned by the women who was the subject of the images, and she sold them as an adult to the gallery. (This also goes to some of the commentary imagining that he picks up street children somewhere to be his subjects etc - he chooses adolescents from families that know what owning such a work means, who will treasure it and take care of it on the child’s behalf and not just sell it the next week to buy drugs or whatever)
Pavlov’s Cat’s answer (#33) to questions posed above is excellent, but she was very polite in not directly calling out the question for the logical fallacy it contained: it was a classic example of begging the question, i.e. building in assumptions to the question as if they are an agreed premise instead of part of the matter under debate.
Those who are asking “why should Henson be allowed to sexualise children?” or “why should Henson be given a pass for shooting child pornography?” are assuming that the sexualisation of children/child pornography has been established as a fact, when that is actually the heart of the matter being considered, examined, debated. Is nudity always pornography? Julie Leaver, as noted by Kim, showed a superior level of skill with rhetorical framing, so it’s hard to credit that she didn’t realise that she was begging the question as she structured it.
If it is decided, in a court of law (rather than one of public opinion) that Henson’s work is indeed child pornography? Then he will be prosecuted, and by the standards of our society under the rule of law, so he should be. Of course, our current laws regarding child pornography and indecency may well actually be poorly drafted, and this particular case may well show us that certain bright lines have been drawn too sharply, with not enough consideration given to quite natural exceptions to the criminal interpretation of certain acts. Eratosthenes (#35) claimed:
I made the opposite point with regard to laws against murder in another thread yesterday: we actually examine not only the consequence (the death itself) but both motive and intent of an accused murderer, and the circumstances around an unlawful death, very deeply indeed. There are a host of extenuating circumstances that can lead a jury to come to a decision if not of innocence then at least of diminished culpability.
Motive is crucial to the examination of murder: self-defence, defence of others, manslaughter, negligent homicide, murder in the second degree (intent proven but not premeditation, per the US justice system) are all mitigations against the charge of murder predicated upon what can be determined about a killer’s state of mind, and the law is that in certain circumstances killing is not considered to be murder.
Tax evasion and exceeding the speed limit similarly do have some extenuating circumstances which can be used as a defence to mitigate the severity of fines/charges - ignorance of the law is not a justification, but certainly the Tax Office will treat you differently if it is established that there was no intent to defraud, and the magistrate will treat a speeder differently if there is a genuine emergency involved.
In short my argument is two-pronged:
(1) Nudity should not automatically be considered pornography (as I’ve discussed already at length) and
(2) If the law as currently constructed criminalises images of under-age nudity as automatically pornography, then that law is an ass and ought to be modified.
(2a) Any such modifications to the law need to be structured so that there are safeguards for child protect still built in, but the assumption that nudity in front of a camera lens is always pornography needs to be dropped.
If that is the case then stop inferring that people who are concerned about the images are inevitably arguing that childhood should be, to quote Peter ” pure sugary innocence”, or as you argued, an indefinite extension of childhood. That is polarizing the debate yet again so that anyone who expresses concern is a wowser.
What Julie said about consent is objectively true, if I understand Skepticlawyer’s explanation. Parents cannot consent in these cases. Artistic intent and context are a valid form of defence against accusations of indecency but people seem to be saying that the work should be immune from investigation in the first place. Julie wants to draw the line in a different place to other other people; that reflects the wider societal debate about what constitutes sexualisation of children. It isn’t as clear cut as Pavlov makes it seem. There is likely to be a spectrum of opinion as to where we draw the line.
Like it or not child protection is part of the discussion because the laws designed to encode that protection are the ones being applied to this exhibition. On the last thread someone suggested that we need to lower the age of consent. I could not imagine a worse outcome.
SG I think you should read the first Henson thread because you are constantly misrepresenting my position. I object to the way the debate has been framed which in my view, has been in such away as to discourage any exploration of the middle ground. In fact your confusion about what I have argued confirms that for me. If we are not in one corner pointing at moral panic, claiming that all those who disagree in the slightest or who will not furiously condemn Hetty Johnson want to enshrine some ridiculously naive vision of childhood then we are automatically assumed to be in the polar opposite camp, we are wowsers and moral guardians. I think Hetty Johnson got it wrong. I think she is unable to read images of naked young people as anything but exploitative. She has very good reasons for thinking this and as a society we need to discuss all of the issues surrounding the power differential between adults and those who are still underage, about how one can ethically negotiate that power differential and that will include listening and engaging with people who see no solution but to draw hard lines about what constitutes exploitation. It does no one any good to continue to stereotype variations of viewpoint - that just leads to a two tribes mentality. Andrew Bartlett seems to get this. He seems to understand that the debate is essential. I am not seeing the same recognition here.
Julie, many people who read this blog don’t have sugary middle-class backgrounds either. Don’t ever presume about such things.
Why are people being intellectually dishonest??? Hmmm, I am a good ol’ working class girl (a pleb even) and I find his work, mostly, intriguing, haunting, beautiful etc Some of it is not, but that’s art. I mean, look at that picture above. I am sure, given that we were all teens once, that we can all relate to the emotions Henson’s subjects display. Like you, “I don’t have access to the lexis or the bibliography to argue on (other contributors’) terms,” but so what. Some people are better educated than others. So what? Yikes, I was trying to avoid commenting on blogs and here I am responding to someone being aggressive.
Anyway, while these discussions are going on some poor kid will be getting his block knocked off by someone who’s supposed to be protecting him or her. And we won’t hear anything about it until the perpetrator goes too far. Then we will have the requisite picture of a sad kid on the front page of the paper and lots of accusations pointed at the child welfare folks.
Thnx for the info tigtog. That info should be added to the Wikipedia entry: Bill Henson. The reference to his use of chiaroscuro is interesting.
If you think the exploitation of children debate is getting complex here, check this article from Canada out:
MPs sign up to view controversial sex comedy
BRUCE CHEADLE
The Canadian Press
May 26, 2008
OTTAWA — Parliamentarians on the front lines of Canada’s culture wars are girding themselves to watch Young People … Fuddle-duddling.
A special screening of the provocatively titled movie, Young People Fucking, is set for Thursday night in downtown Ottawa and more than 40 MPs, Senators and their staff and guests have signed up for a viewing.
Among an early list of RSVPs obtained by The Canadian Press are four Conservative MPs. The list included three Liberal MPs and two New Democrat MPs, including Bill Blaikie, an ordained minister. Several Liberal Senators are on the list as are staff from every party on Parliament Hill.
The sexual comedy-relationship movie has become a lightning rod in the debate over proposed Conservative legislation that would give the federal government the power to deny tax credits to Canadian movie and TV productions it deems “contrary to public policy.”
———
and this is an interesting link:
http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=146&a=1637
(Sarkozy: People are born pedophiles: Wayne Madsen, Tue, 10 Apr 2007)
The authorities across the globe are going after some of the bad dudes…but are they being distracted from going after the high level types? One wonders.
I take articles like the linked one w/ a pinch of salt…but perhaps these kinds of accusations need to be investigated alongside these “Art or pornography” debates?
Taking two other angles on this:
1. If one looks at the entire image of the adolescent girl in the photos, one sees a very healthy and fit 13 year old female body which shows no sign either of obesity or overweight, or of anorexia or the skeletally waif-thin frame of too many teenage models. This suggests that, at least as far as the girl’s physical wellbeing, diet, exercise, fitness, etc., is concerned, her parents have done an unusually good job of parenting in the face of all manner of pressures and temptations in other directions which our culture presents.
2. Other commenters have noted that contemporary culture is rife with exploitative practices and discourses (sexual and otherwise) towards children and adolescents, many of which are far worse than anything which Henson could reasonably be criticised for. This is true, but it also needs to be remembered that this culture of exploitation exists in parallel with a culture of what I would term morbid protectiveness towards children and youth which can be as abusive in some ways as more obviously exploitative practices.
At the individual/family level this is manifested in parental behaviours such as bubble-wrapping, helicopter parenting, and the growing market for “early intervention” whenever parents notice the slightest hint of less than optimum development in their offspring - all of which is ultimately bad for kids. I suspect that at least part of the driving force behind the censurious, and censorious, response to Hanson’s photographs is a combination of the culture of morbid protectiveness manifesting itself at a societal level, combined with a collective expression of guilty conscience at the extent to which we have allowed unequivocally exploitative practices to flourish. [NB: I’m not imputing these kinds of motivations to any contributors to the discussion here.]
We should not be surprised that a culture of exploitation and a culture of morbid protectiveness coexist. Each draws strength from, and justifies itself in terms of, the existence of the other.
The laws around child pornography do take things quite a bit further though. Society has decided that child protection is of such importance that even possession of child pornography is illegal even if the person had no connection with the production of it. Its akin to it being illegal to posses photographs taken of a murder scene.
Incidentally some countries are now introducing laws where the artificial production or possession of what normally would be considered child pornography is illegal but doesn’t actually involved children - eg computer generated/enhanced.
I also dispute that a work is either artistic or pornographic, I believe it can be both and I don’t believe artistic intent should always be a sufficient reason for the act being legal.
I have a vision of an all girl group named The Miranda Devines.
13 year olds of course, either dressed hot as in the hot edgy style of the latest incarnation of the Sun Herald or nude, all moody and edgy of course. Perhaps singing some bawdy acapella.
An art project for some enterprising gals out there.
I have a feeling I agree with the first part of this comment. I studied Latin at university and formed the view that quite a bit of Roman art (both literary and otherwise) was pornographic. It was also awesome. Difficult one…
Apologies for weird blockquotes there. The first bit is Chris’, the next bit mine.
[Fixed, SL ~tigtog]
To talk about PC’s quwation art and the exploitation of misery and in particular when it concerns children.
I was at Borders yesterday, browsing in a few spare minutes I had. Up the front of the shp was a section tagged ‘real life, real people’. It was fully stocked with personal memoirs of childhood abuse. What really struck me was how similar they were given that they had different publishers.
The covers were all off-white. There was a drawing of a distressed child and the titles were all in similar fonts. The titles were as follows: “Betrayed”, “Ugly”, “Scarred”, “Abandoned”, “Hidden”, “Worthless”, “Broken”. Such a litany of misery!
It made me realise that this was a ‘brand’ all of its own, just like chick-lit, true crime etc. And a brand which is selling well given the fact that they were at the front of the shop.
I’m not saying this is a bad thing and I have no opinion on the content of the books. But it made me think that child abuse is simultaneously hidden and under-reported, whilst culturally its representation is flourishing. I think somehow feeds into my thoughts about Henson, but I’m not sure how yet.
It’s been stated here that parents cannot give permission for their children to be photographed by Henson or anyone else for that matter. Presumably this carries a meaning of “shouldn’t be able to give permission”. Under all Aust. jurisdictions, parents have EXACTLY that legal right. While we have evolved somewhat from earlier legal definitions of children as possessions, children do not have the same legal rights as adults. We seek to define their protection while denying their right to engage in the defining of that. And that I would argue is one of the meanings that Henson’s work can carry.
His unsettling drawing together of the visceral immediacy of the individual and the objectifying role of the photographic palette leave us in a disquieting role as viewer, looking at people who are legally and often socially disenfranchised by their age. So we respond to their perceived vulnerability, much of which is made by our societal insistence on their legal status as demanding of adult control.
Why then vilify Henson for asking us to look at our societal norms??
I would like to explore another angle here - one which may change others’ preparedness (as it has mine) to defend Bill Henson as an artist.
I have it on very good authority that it is none other than Mr Henson himself who is responsible for the noise complaints regarding music at the Wesley Anne in Northcote, which backs onto his studio. As a result, the venue now features a noise-meter that cuts power to the stage and PA system whenever sound in the venue exceeds 85dB. [for those not in the know, this is quiter than a string quartet playing moderately loud, unamplified]. This has ruined numerous gigs, not least the final farewell show of my old band, such that many acts and punters don’t go there any more.
If Mr. Henson withdraws his complaints and allows the Wesley Anne to resume making a contribution to the vibrant arts community of Northcote, I will consider resuming my support for his artistic freedom.
Until then, he is a MUSIC HATING PROMOTER OF PAEDOPHILIA.
quiterquieter.Or is that “more quiet”?
I should add that the power cuts have also claimed at least one guitar amp output valve to my knowledge.
“It’s been stated here that parents cannot give permission for their children to be photographed by Henson or anyone else for that matter. Presumably this carries a meaning of “shouldn’t be able to give permission”. Under all Aust. jurisdictions, parents have EXACTLY that legal right.”
Yes that’s right Bernice. Adults can’t give consent for minors to take part in illegal activity. If Henson’s photos aren’t breaking the law, then the parents aren’t beaking the law either.
FDB, that’s very funny. Maybe someone should have a word to Henson’s solicitors. And there’s a possibility, too, that members of the NSW Police may be among your fans
I don’t think I have been inferring or arguing that, su. If we’re trying to avoid polarising the debate, and I also think we should, we should also take care not to assume that everyone on one “side” has the same position/opinion.
FDB, he should be hung, drawn and quartered if that’s his attitude.
The girl who posed for the image at the centre of all this (who may be a woman now, we don’t know) has refused to speak to police:
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23775911-5001021,00.html
This assumes that they coevolved but they didn’t. Child