Bill Henson image sourced from Cool Hunting.
It may well be time for another thread on the Bill Henson controversy – once again the last continuation of the general thread is getting a bit long. So here we go – this thread is for general discussion of any aspects of the whole thing, while specific posts and discussions of the political and other aspects of the debate over Bill Henson’s photographs can be accessed via the archive category here.
A bit of an update on commentary on and developments in the affair is timely. At the Sydney Morning Herald, David Marr and Josephine Tovey look at how the “debate” originated, and then spiralled out of control, leading to outcomes which “satisfy no one”. In Crikey, Alex Mitchell also examines the motivations of key players in fueling the media fires, and provides something of a time line. Some interesting comments from the director of the Ballarat Fine Art Gallery, Gordon Morrison, which go to the specificity of the reaction to Henson’s photographic images as compared to the nude in painting are reported here. For John McDonald, the brouhaha is the “triumph of the Philistines” – though the article’s better than the sub-editor’s led us to believe.
Some indication of how the nuances in all of this are not captured in media reports might come from the way the imbroglio has been reported in the UK – Cate Blanchett in child pr0n row. For anyone who missed it, the mother of the model who posed for the image at the centre of the controversy has defended Bill Henson. It’s being reported that police have prepared a brief of evidence for the New South Wales DPP, who will now consider what charges (if any) are to be laid. One of Henson’s images has just been bought at auction by Matt Henry, who made the purchase as an act of solidarity with Henson.
Note: Comments on this post are now closed, and can be continued here.
Replies top Tictog and Sublime Cowgirl from last thread.
>
Tigtog – I didn’t mean to make that inference about your comment. I apologize if there was one it was unintentional. I meant to agree with you and add something only.
>
Henson does get raunchier with adults. But that’s as it should be. I find his portrayal of adolescence to be an excellent expression of the intense ambivalence that colours the experience of that time of life.
>
Sublime Cowgirl – It doesn’t surprise me. It’s just the sort of thing I’d expect from a sublime cowgirl; you Godless heathen you.
>
I’ve done stuff that is pornographic and blaspehmous. But then I’m Catholic. We cannae help it.
BTW – Kim. My compliments to your selection of the dude’s work. Excellent taste.
OK, Lets make this clear!… as it stands this guy should not be charged with dick…
but these pic’s should not be OK…
for obvious reasons
I come home and find my flat is empty(finished a late shift, my second job) I decide to go on the internet… my lover has left the laptop on without logging off(unusual)… he always logs off…
Check my 13yr daughter, she’s asleep. too beautiful to wake, it’s late
Get a drink, change clothes and light a ciggie, grab laptop but before I change logins on the lap I notice a folder called (13yr old naked.art) photo’s on his desktop. young girls @ 13 in the nude, dark lighting but always naked… this is fine I think…cos it’s not my daughter
and it’s art
So what about those 13 year olds and their parents who don’t have a problem? Should your discomfit be theirs or ours?
But Classified, your hypothetical lover could just as easily have on his hard drive a folder of pictures from teen kids’ clothing catalogues (I’m not going to go looking for them), or clippings of little girls with makeup from magazine ads.
And of course you would be concerned, to say the least. That’s not necessarily a reflection of the material but of the person’s use of it.
As you will have seen if you’ve read the other threads, by no means is “Hey it’s art!” the only defence of the Henson works, although it’s part of it. But
“perverted people might get their rocks off from viewing these images” isn’t enough to condemn the images either, because considerably more innocuous images could be used by those same perverted people. Given that the nude model in a Henson work, the clothed model in a teen fashion shoot and the schoolkid at the park being observed from behind the bushes (let’s say) are all potential targets of a paedophile’s pleasures, how do we define the ethics of displaying/making available those images/situations? The person in the most danger in these scenarios is clearly the kid at the park; the girl in the photos seems to have a supportive family who have made sure she remains anonymous, so she’s not in any physical danger.
Which is why some of feel this comes down to a disturbing prudishness about nudity (not even sex!) and an unrealistic insistence on “innocence” in childhood (and even more unrealistically extending well past childhood into adolescence).
So I contend that it’s not as simple as your story suggests.
I heard Louise Adler answer the ubiquitous “would you let your child do it” the other night by saying she would leave it up to her daughter.
My answer would be that I would never pose the question to them in the first place. I would never put a minor in the position of having to say no to such a highly charged situation, potentially disappointing their parents and the artist. That is highly unfair in my opinion as it is often hard to disappoint those you love and it can be hard to say no to people in authority. And posing nude is a highly charged situation, even if the nature of that charge is not sexual.
If my 13 year old child came of their own accord and asked to pose nude and if I was comfortable with how that would be achieved and with their ability to handle the situation, including being able to say no at anytime then I would do as Tigtog suggested and make sure that ultimate control over that image rested with my child upon reaching majority.
,
Their wrong
Mine, them and all of us
Adrien… it’s called reality, obvious-nous… the big DUH!
As to the irony… perhaps you missed it,It’s what your mum meant when she called you her “clever little guy”
“Their wrong”
I know you are but what am I?
First of all – lets try and take the ego out of the discussion; things can then be like they are, like blue sky and green grass. The ‘obviousness’ in it all. We don’t need to look at this issue through any other than a clear lens: neither political, religious, moral, artistic or sexual. Contemplate human consciousness without these added-on complexities, and dare to look at things anew!
Within each human being there is beauty, and it is the beautiful in us that appreciates the beauty without. You don’t need to be told. It is kindness within you that recognises kindness without; you don’t need to be instructed. And it is that deepest feeling of peace, real joy, real contentment within you, that recognises harmony, knowledge and serenity without. These are old friends – it’s not rocket science! It is anger or jealousy in you that catches you up in the heat of the moment. It is hatred that breeds hatred. It is confusion that breeds confusion. These things are known. It is your sexuality that recognises sexuality in the physical world around you and it is your love of the creative energy within, the power of good or evil that it can do, that allows you to recognise and appreciate creativity without. You cannot tear any of these things out of your being – we are human. You can only decide on who’s company you like to keep! Nobody need judge these things for you. It is not necessary. Why hand over what is your province to somebody else?
Perhaps it is a debate for people who don’t fully recognise themselves? Each sees what they may and reacts accordingly.
For those who would tip the scale towards the darker side of human nature the remedy is also clear. When a dark room is lit then everything in the room can be seen for what it is. ALL THAT IS REQUIRED IS JUST A LITTLE BIT OF LIGHT!
Look at the Henson’s paintings and you will see both creativity and sexuality (et al) according to your own nature. What the artist has placed on canvas is merely a reflection of his own nature. Everything around us is a mirror of ourselves. Even the people we meet! We create and re-create ourselves in our own image, yet within us is a fragment of that which has never been created. Without it, we could not create! Maybe the artist is trying to understand something and doesn’t even know what it is? Far deeper is the soul within any human being than the so called mystery of the sexuality of the animal body. Within the former you will find the energies of light and love, clarity and vision, the aspiration of the Spirit; within the cells of the latter mere heat. Perhaps the mind may find it a mystery; the heart knows where it needs to be. It is simple when we allow ourselves to be so.
Human beings naturally draw a line between these two energies for this very reason: the one spirals down into matter and the other aspires to true love. We do not need to judge anything, but simply recognise that both exist. Where we draw the line is an individual’s choice; and once again there is no logical need to judge. Like everything else in nature the line is appropriated by those who like to interfere with just about everything, and used in their own play. If somebody is doing harm to others it too becomes obvious.
To the artist I would say look around: there are plenty of people, children and adults alike, in who’s portrait you will find qualities that rise far above the heat, to spread a gentler warmth, and cooler light. Maybe that may take you closer to what you seek – I do no know! Also, I liked your painting – need I say anything else?
It’s worth pointing out that it is quite possible that an adolescent with a keen interest in art who had known Henson for 10 years and was familiar with his work might very well have volunteered rather than merely consented to a request.
That’s from Laura on the now closed thread.
For those who came in late, Adrien posted a comment on tigtog’s thread whereupon I asked him two comments later whether Henson’s work was actually portraiture. It seemed to me that Henson was exploring certain themes about the human condition in relation to the change from childhood to adolescence rather than engaging in portraiture as such.
My impression was that while he treats his subjects/models with truth, reverence and authenticity his interest is not so much in portraying their essence but in using images of them to explore his theme.
What ensued, in the main, was a discussion between John Tracey and me, although Adrien has now replied also.
At this point I want to make it clear that Adrien’s initial comment was about the particular image at the centre of the controversy and I was talking about the part of his work that is devoted to similar themes, which he has said was a continuing interest of his.
So to answer your question, I have never seen one of Henson’s original pictures. I’m sorry I didn’t answer your question. I missed it.
My opinion’s are not as firm as they may seem; it’s probably an impression created by my writing style. I’m seeking to achieve clarity. It doesn’t always come.
As to what I’m basing my opinions on, it’s number of things. I’ve listened to what Henson’s said about his purposes and methods. I’ve listened to what others have said who are well qualified, who know him, his methods and his pictures. I’ve seen a number of images now on the internet.
John and I both said we weren’t trying to win an argument. I shifted the discussion to the main thread because I thought I’d said more than enough and was thinking others might want to contribute who weren’t following tigtog’s thread.
Is it the case that anyone who has only seen works in reproduction should have nothing to say at all?
All my opinion’s are always interim, some more so than others.
I have no real problem with what Adrien said in his answer. Where we came in on this was Steve Munn’s suggestion that Henson could easily have digitally altered the features on the pic of the model to render it unrecognisable, so that her privacy would be preserved. Personally I thought that suggestion outrageous. I think others did too. Adrien suggested that Henson was working within the genre of portraiture, so altering the image in that way would be verboten.
I thought that Henson was making a work of art to explore certain themes about human development and that if he wanted to alter the picture digitally he would. But he wouldn’t do it to obscure an identity. Rather he’d do it if he felt it necessary to achieve his ends.
After the discussion, I’d hold to that. I’m inclined to think that Henson would not alter the image significantly digitally. Not because of the rules of portraiture, but because it would interrupt the integrity of his artistic process in pursuing his themes.
Whether you still call what he does portraiture is a secondary matter IMO.
If someone who has had the benefit and the blessing of seeing his originals, or not, can provide some argument to change my opinion I’m more than happy to do so. Meanwhile I just want to bugger off for a bit. I’m trying to teach myself some basic Photoshop so I can alter some pictures to prepare a post I’d really like to write.
Sorry to be so long-winded. Brevity is not my forté.
As an afterthought, I think I am trying to respond to what I can find out about the artist’s purposes, his methods and his art insofar as I can know it rather than come to his work with a preformed concept of genre.
Brian, you seem like you’re really interested in this subject – I’m going to make a suggestion of the kind I rarely indulge in because it’s often taken as rude. There is an essay in a recent London Review of Books by Terry Eagleton which in the early bits (before he eventually gets onto the book he’s reviewing) is a fine, clear, pithy introduction to the issue of artistic intention and its relationship to the works they produce. (It’s about literature but what he says applies equally to pictorial art)
Eagleton says, for instance:
What artists say they’re doing, or what they privately plan to do, or believe they’ve done, really doesn’t have a lot of purchase when it comes to understanding the things they make. For that, we’re better off going straight to the work and reporting on what’s built into it. That’s why I asked about whether you’ve seen any Hensons. Of course you can have an opinion on what he does, and so forth, but to be quite frank, a little crappy 72dpi reproduction on a screen, or a blurry newsprint photo, doesn’t convey hardly anything of the actual impact of any actual artwork, so perhaps whatever opinion you work around to holding should take this into account.
It’s a comparable situation to if a person wrote an essay about a book that they’d not read themselves, but they’d seen a faithful film version of it and read about it in various publications. Some topics they would not be at any disadvantage in discussing, but on others their comments could only be highly speculative, at best.
second paragraph should have blockquotes around the quotation from Professor Eagleton, and I did forget to link the essay which was the reason for the comment, d’oh http://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n10/eagl01_.html
[I've fixed the block quote thing - Brian]
I noticed in the David Marr/Josephine Tovey article that Hetty Johnson did not make the report to police after all, instead it was Scipione’s media advisor.
Colleen Egan in the Sunday Times in Perth on Henson.
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,23788696-5005374,00.html
[I noticed in the David Marr/Josephine Tovey article that Hetty Johnson did not make the report to police after all, instead it was Scipione’s media advisor.]
But she did advise Scipione, so in a way she was the catalyst of the report.
Su, Johnson contacted Scipione’s office by fax – that’s clearer in Alex Mitchell’s article in Crikey linked in the post, where she claims to have made the complaint to NSW police in the first instance, a claim she’s made many times in the last week, including by way of letter to the editor in The Australian.
That Colleen Egan is a card. Her Voltaire quote is a notorious howler http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall
Oh that’s interesting. The two conflict. No mention of Tony Ritchie at all in the Mitchell piece.
It would certainly be interesting if Johnson is claiming to have made the initial complaint to police, and that’s not true.
Well since they were all sending emails and faxes at about the same time it could be just like the blogosphere- comments crossed, and really why should she know of prior complaints. No mention of Sylvester either.
How long can this thing go on, without a charge or a public forgetting?
su, yes that’s quite possible.
Not germane perhaps, but I’m over this.
That’s my normal position, Laura. I think though that it varies from artist to artist and work to work. But I’d accept that after any contextual and other external information we need to come back to the work.
But Henson’s intentions did have some relevance to whether he was trying to create art or porn, I thought. Also we are given to believe that he is not your normal photographer. Indeed the guy from the Art Gallery of NSW stressed that he was an artist who used photography to make art rather than a photographer.
Listening to Henson talk about his work, I thought he was very articulate and self aware.
All that being said, I agree that artists are quite often mistaken and misleading or whatever about their work, and we ultimately have to respond to the work itself. That’s where I’m at a disadvantage. Knowing squat about photography doesn’t help.
As to whether I should take my relative ignorance into account, I do, so my degree of confidence in my opinions is not high. I’m sorry that that doesn’t come through.
Nevertheless John T didn’t bring forth arguments that entirely convinced me and I don’t know how well he knows Henson’s work.
Adrien’s bottom line is that he would pass an opinion on a work by work basis. That’s fair enough, but I’m still wondering whether my generalisation is way off the mark or has some relevance.
Thanks for the link which I read and pondered. It’s not totally unfamiliar territory. Eagleton certainly writes with great facility. There were one or two places where his enthusiasm ran ahead of strict grounded logic, as in the personification of the literary work, but his meaning is clear.
As a review, here are a few gratuitous comments. He began with an eight paragraph introduction, which was fascinating and demonstrated how clever he was. Then there were four paragraphs about the book followed by a final hurried para of evaluation. At the end I didn’t know whether I wanted to buy the book and it wasn’t placed in the context of like works, if any.
So was it a good review? Dunno until I read the book.
Concerning your last paragraph, I have a story. Once a long time ago I was writing an essay about a German Novelle in the Public Library. One of the other students told me she hadn’t had time to read the work so she asked me the story. I gave her a summary. Then she asked me what approach I was taking. I obliged. With that knowledge she wrote the assignment and got a significantly better mark than I did. The lecturer was a guest lecturer and didn’t know that I was usually near the top of the class and she near the middle.
Nevertheless I suspected that her essay was in fact better than mine as I got a bit lost in the detail. (I don’t accept that the lecturer’s mark was the absolute measure of worth, BTW.)
But I accept your point.
Worth a thousand words…
Link to interesting video about Bill Henson’s photographic work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaEi9ESRB8o
(all quotes from Q&A)
I support Henson in this, but romanticizing art as some kind of sacred sphere of communication where laws and ethics don’t apply isn’t helping the discussion. Neither is accusing people of “moral panic” or denying that this work is pretty edgy stuff. It’s sad that some in the artysphere have been so schmaltzy about the whole affair.
Here is another interesting video about Henson. He seems pretty conservative: nothing about smashing social norms or even being “challenging” — just “profound”.
Well said Leon. To some [not necessarily myself, although I will admit that I remain in two minds about it], the ‘offensiveness’ is not the images per se, but the notion that an older man has taken nude, ‘eroticised’ photographs of pubescent girls. That jars with many people’s notion of ‘protecting children’, and this was my reading of the PM’s statement.
On a related point, I agree with you Sue with your bemusment in the notion that ‘artists have been doing this for years with underage models’ is a defence against the charge. At the same time, (for example) Lewis Carroll was taking his now infamous snaps, kids were still working down mines, forced into prostitution, and the backbone of the most hellish factory conditions imaginable, all well within the context of the law of the time. That is no longer the case. The notion of ‘rights of the child’ has radically changed, and the Henson models may well be viewed in a similar context.
Again, this is may well be a point worth debating, but like the knee jerk of Bolt, Devine et. al., I don’t think the simplistic incredulity or resentment that some have shown in brushing off other’s (legitimate) ethical and legal concerns in the name of ‘art’ is helping either.
From the Aus:
This may have been covered, but would anyone versed in the discourse of child abuse care to substantiate this claim? I’m not looking for statistics, but a knowledge of the history of the production of the statistics.
Classifed -
I am rendered speechless by your eloquent discourse, your steely logic and the unassailllable battallion of facts in support of your argument. Wow! You are a goddam genius.
>
What exactly is this reality of which you speak? You allude to a hyphothetical allegedly pornographic consumption of pictures that you describe as generically similar to Henson’s. Yet the description goes no further. There is a difference between a nude and a pornographic depiction of nudity. And yes I imagine that a pedophile (or more exactly an ephebophile) may use art as they would pornography. I’ve heard many a gay man wax tedious viz the Michelangelo David’s backside. However artists cannot be held responsible for the irresponsibility of persons viz their use of the art. Or perhaps you would like to prosecute the Beatles for the murder of Sharon Tate?
My mother has the wit to avoid such cutesy kitsch in her speech. Y’see she prefers literary classics to Andrew Bolt’s drivel. I assume your ‘it’s okay ’cause it’s art’ is the cadidate for irony. If it isn’t then the rest of comment is somehow ironic. I can only say that I did miss it and that that is entirely your fault. Please see my first para above for a style guide to irony, that’s how it’s done. Learn to write.
True. The commentary of his models is the best insight. If he was making pornography he’d be asking them to do something sexual. Pornography’s not just about nudity but about sexual poses and erotic expressions. These are absent in his photgraphs of minors and the models themselves have said that they felt comfortable and safe with him.
Also true. But we cannot hold the artist responsible for anti-social behaviour ascribed to a work’s inspiration. It is however undoubtedly admirable for artists to think about the possibilities that their work might inspire bad behaviour.
>
Stanley Kurbick’s interviews about the time A Clockwork Orange was released show clearly that did not expect any copycat behaviour. He was stunned when it happened in England. It’s a commendation of both his power and his ethics that he pulled the film from release there. However given the way the film works I find it surprising that he didn’t see it coming.
dk.au: his may have been covered, but would anyone versed in the discourse of child abuse care to substantiate this claim? I’m not looking for statistics, but a knowledge of the history of the production of the statistics.
The Australian Institute of Family Studies is a useful stating point.
http://www.aifs.gov.au/Visit this page and you'll find an entire subsection on Child Sexual assault papers, stats, etc
And the The National Child Protection Clearinghouse accessible from the same link –
http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/jade, Leon, there were links to both of those about a week ago, but it’s good to see them again.
dk:au provided a part transcript of the one Leon links to.
There was also there another interesting video clip from art market analyst Michael Reid.
But beware, artists don’t necessarily understand what they are doing.
There was some interesting commentary on Radio National this morning, including by the president of the Law Society of New South Wales Hugh Macken, who
Later tonight at 7pm there will be a repeat of the TV program shown last week on ABC 2.
Guy Rundle make some interesting points in the Age : (no direct link cause the spaminator hates me)
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/time-the-best-got-brighter-in-defence-of-henson-20080531-2k7z.html
Did Hugh Macken say anything about images hosted on overseas servers? Presumably those sites (like the Roslyn Oxley9 gallery website, which is up again, by the way) can’t be prosecuted in Australia.
Off topic somewhat: Brian said about the Terry Eagleton review I linked to “As a review, here are a few gratuitous comments. He began with an eight paragraph introduction, which was fascinating and demonstrated how clever he was. Then there were four paragraphs about the book followed by a final hurried para of evaluation. At the end I didn’t know whether I wanted to buy the book and it wasn’t placed in the context of like works, if any.”
And that’s a pretty accurate description of the London Review of Books house style. It generally makes the reviews good to read on their own merits even if there’s little previous likelihood that the topic of the book under review would be of interest.
Back on topic: Kris @ 28 said: “the ‘offensiveness’ is not the images per se, but the notion that an older man has taken nude, ‘eroticised’ photographs of pubescent girls.”
Kris – is it Henson’s age or his gender (or both) that you think counts against him? Would it be ok if a 19 year old woman had taken the pictures?
still more in spaminator?
Laura, from memory, no. He mainly went through the local law which would be needed to ping Henson and didn’t see him as having much of a problem. The law he was quoting was pretty specific to the creation of artistic works. But he did say what I quoted him as saying in a brief statement.
Of topic, I’m not a regular reader of LRB, used to read the TLS in a former life, but sometimes google LRB specifically for a review on something I’m interested in. I’ve read one of Eagleton’s before.
So my impression was that it aligned with the house style, but I couldn’t resist taking aim.
sc, it’s having a rather overactive Sunday.
Was watching the ABC today & saw a piece on the multi-media collaboration Luminous
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/sundayarts/txt/s2259550.htm
I thought it amazing…blending of thought provoking imagery, sound-scapes & lighting. Certainly demonstrated that Henson’s work has multiple meanings & is a highly effective mood enhancer…carefully inserted in that setting/performance Henson’s art work certainly did not come across as pornographic.
The images captured effectively the loss of innocence, the need for warmth of peers in a harsh world…the mythical battle between light & dark in the world of the adult…the feeling that the wisdom of the Elders is lacking, the initiation tough, rough, causing damage in the pursuit of profit & the duality of persona in the time of prosperity & neglect…the elusive search for truth & meaning…the irony that beauty can emerge from the crass…a sense of the neglect of govts/communities (homelessness, drifters, abandonment) and so on….the concept of THE FALL.
I can’t imagine the Luminous project now without those evocative, truly amazing images.
Interestingly, some of the pictures accompanied by the oft melancholic, ominous, ethereal music reminded me of the young girl in Alien 2…damaged, abandoned, another disposable victim of The Corporation….searching for love, security, warmth…but lacking TRUST in a hostile world…where naked survivalism rules the day.
Bit of the David Lynch in there too…Blue Velvet & such?
I saw Henson’s retrospective at the NSW gallery in 2005. With my contracting employer and fiance. I remember feeling distinctly uncomfortable with the game he was playing with emotions.
It was certainly artistic – the dichotomy b/w art and pornography is an obvious howler. Lots of classic art was border-line pornographic, for “connisseurs” as they used to say. And some porno is obviously artistic – victorian erotic prints to take an obvious example.
Henson’s art was also proto-pornographic in its deliberate tinkering with taboo subjects. He portrayed beautiful, mostly naked, adolescents on the brink of sexual maturity. But they appeared used and abused.
We were invited to regard the children as both subjects of spiritual innocence and objects of sexual experience. I prefer artists to maintain the Hallmark myth of happy childhood.
My company reported the same uncomfortable, slightly creeped out reaction. As if we were visiting a high class peep show. I guess thats a pretty good description of most post-modern art.
Little wonder that the authoritarian general populace diverges sharply from liberal cultural elites. Looking after children in the temptation-rich post-modern environment means putting off-limits signs all over the placce.
sc is right. What Guy Rundle says is interesting. More than that he seems to be saying that the defenders of Henson are seeking to defend the indefensible.
He says if Henson’s defenders argue artistic privilege against child protection laws they are going to lose and lose badly. His positive advice is:
And then:
Emphasis added in both cases.
So I’m wondering whether I’m reading Rundle correctly. Is he saying that Henson’s art is decadent (he says “the pale, naked emaciated figures” evoke “concentration camp photos”), that you simply can’t photograph nude under-aged models at least in making “unmistakably sexualised shots” as Henson does, and that the only way forward involves recognising that there are grounds for rethinking the rules?
If the rules allow what took place the rules have to change.
Henson may be able to decamp to Europe or somewhere, but our laws must reflect social norms.
Rundle’s view seems to be based on this reading of the images:
Those who have seen the images, is that how they look to you?
Actually I think this reading is a bit of a cover for Rundle. He’s really saying that you can’t take pictures of naked girls if people generally don’t like you doing it.
Laura, I listened again the the Radio National piece. If you are audio streaming it’s at the beginning.
I was wanting to check on something Henson said in the interview. He said that his images were not about capturing the decisive moment but about a sense of continuity and transition. He said that he mostly works with models over a period of years so he sees them change.
I watched the TV program tonight, where you continually saw models moving slowly as he pointed the camera at them. Of course it was a setup for the doco and I never once saw him click the camera, but it was obviously meant to portray his methodology.
On your question as to whether Hugh Macken said anything about images hosted on overseas servers, yes he did. I must have been distracted the first time.
He said there was no problem for Henson, but with the internet other parts of Commonwealth legislation come into play relating to dealing in pornography. He did seem to say that putting it up knowing that it could be copied all around the world and used for purposes other than artistic ones could be a problem.
Everyone. In the end of the interview on consent Macken said that nudity itself was no bar to a parent giving consent. But if we reached the stage where nudity as such was taken as a sexual context, then it would be, but he hoped we hadn’t reached that point.
So I’d understand from this that in the end, as the law is written, it hinges on social norms. To me that allows the majority to oppress the minority. I don’t like it.
Jack at 42, I’d say you like your art not to be art.
45 Brian Jun 1st, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Nope, I like my art not to be proto-kiddieporn. I do like portrayals of naked children to be of the Hallmark variety ie propaganda for a mythological idyll. Call me old-fashioned but I want to maintain the illusion of childhood innocence.
Its quite possible for art to be pornographic. A risk that seems to be increasing over time as post-modern liberalism continues its apparently bottomless plunge into the morally degenerate abyss.
I like my art to by edgy and dark (sometimes) and i think Henson’s work is hauntingly beautiful. My right to view his images, though, shouldn’t trump a child’s right to be safe from harm which is why i don’t think its wrong for the state to check this out.
sc I’m happy for the state to check it out if there is reasonable, non-trivial cause for concern (their call, not mine) but by social workers in the first instance and I would hope ones that have some sympathy for the arts and artistic processes.
The focus should be child models, not nude child models per se and not the pictures.
I have just seen a new article on the Sydney Morning Herald website entitled “Board Clears Henson Images”, written by David Marr (Link)
If I have read this article correctly it seems to say that the images that have been cleared by the Classification Board so far are the ‘censored’ versions of the photograph from the Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery invitation, and of a few other photographs of the same model from the current exhibition. So they are not Bill Henson’s actual original images because they have been crudely ‘censored’ – i.e the model’s chest area blocked out with a black bar, and sometimes her face has been pixellated (and of course these crude additions have made the photographs look completely ’smutty’ and not like the original, undoctored photographs.)
Here is a section from the article –
At the end of the article Marr says -
So I am wondering if the uncensored images will be given the same classification as the censored ones… I am fascinated to see, in fact I can’t wait to see.
Hey Jack, yer all high & mighty about these pics… but I betya don’t mind buying goods made by kids for piss all pay eh? Seems to me we should be worryin’ more about parents who shove their toddlers into ads to keep their own pockets lined…& govts. who use bombs to exact pain on real & constructed enemies and in the process leave kids burnt, ripped apart, heads torn into, limbs shattered, traumatised for life…& freaks who beat & terrorise younguns to ensure they mine gleaming diamonds for our glittering population in the imaginary “prosperity” world…and authority figures who permit sex slaves & young serfs to be traded under the cover of God & Country…& the drug pushers who work for the elite & the privileged who create young addicts to perform sick acts for their MASTERS.
This is all a load of BS. The police shouldn’t be used for BS…they should be motivated to uncover the REAL CRIMES. Not be used to DISTRACT. or be DISTRACTED.
Alison Croggon, the author of the letter to the Prime Minister regarding the Bill Henson controversy, has now posted the document online for anyone to sign. It’s here.
There’s also a “wash up” and links post at her blog which is well worth a look.
And there’s another good post at Sarsaparilla:
http://sarsaparillablog.net/?p=675
I’m staggered that you’re all staggered that people are staggered at Henson’s work. Wasn’t that his point – to push the boundaries of what is acceptable? When an artist pushes boundaries, the boundaries (as defined by prevailing cultural norms) tend to push back.
Is it art? maybe – eye of beholder and all that. Is it porn? probably not – but again eye of beholder and all that.
One thing I don’t buy is the view that Henson’s work is fine, it’s the modern sexualising of children (e.g. in clothing catalogues) that’s to blame. It’s a far cry from dressing kids up in tarty clothing to having them pose nude.
Artists push boundaries. If they push too far they cause a stir (e.g. Mohammed cartoons). Society has a right to push back if it thinks the boundary has been pushed too far. You’re own individual views are almost irrelevant – societal norms will decide what’s acceptable. In this case – the prevailing societal view seems to be that naked 13 yr olds are too far over the line. If you’re on the wrong side of the line with henson, bad luck, you’re probably just going to have to take a step back.
“Wasn’t that his point – to push the boundaries of what is acceptable?”
I don’t believe this is true at all: not all artists are operating in the transgressing taboos counter-cultural mode, or within the terms of a modernist or avant-gardist project of ‘pushing boundaries’. You would have to bring together some evidence to show that this is his intention, or that it is obvious within the works themselves, in order to make this claim. Working with potentially discomforting images is not the same thing at all.
I tend to see this as a new form of boundary-construction at the expense of the artist.
And besides he’s been making pictures of the same kinds of subjects for abotu thirty years.
Precisely Laura. It’s much easier to make the ‘intended to shock’ argument if you live in the eternal present of the mainstream media.
And, indeed, the culture warriors are endlessly and constantly shocked. That’s their stock in trade. The framing of all this in terms of their preferred terrain of “look! horrors!” and loud denunciation has profoundly marked the subsequent debate.
Mark – it’s not the ‘culture warriors’ (whoever they are) who are shocked. Indeed – Rudd himself seems to have hit the populist button on this one and thinks the line in ths sand has been crossed.
None of us know exactly how this is playing out in the public. There’s lots of big headlines, but very little analysis of popular attitudes.
As Emma pointed out above, five images taken from media websites have been assessed by the Classification Board and they were labelled “G” or “very mild”. However, what isn’t clear is whether those images were the ones with the black bars places across them.
Andrew, I think this discussion is becoming somewhat repetitive – given that it’s stretched over almost two weeks and a few very long threads. I’ve already said what I have to say about Rudd and I’m disinclined to repeat it. If you go back to the beginning, what is clear is that none of this would be in the public arena at all had Miranda Devine not kicked it off with her column in the SMH, which was then amplified by the tag team of Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt and the chorus of talkback. The police entered it because Hetty Johnson picked it up and ran with it – after reading Devine’s article. The pollies were largely reacting to the whole thing, not setting the terms of the discussion – those had already been set by Devine and her epigones. Go back to her original article and have a look at how she framed it, including the “pushing the limits” aspect.
You’ll forgive me if I don’t provide the links – they’re all accessible via the category archive cited in the post above. I’m in the middle of something else at the moment.
Fine, I suspect that there’s a variant on the insiders/outsiders dichotomy here that you usually get with the perceptions of the political punditariat and political class compared to the voters who are sourcing different types of media and paying attention differently and to different things. I think it probably seems to those of us who care about the issues to be a much bigger media event than it was (though it was big enough) and I think it’s currently on its last legs as a story – until and unless something else “happens”.
Concerning the images taken from media websites to be assessed by the Classification Board, Radio National’s PM tonight which I heard a few minutes ago had a story about their findings. I’ll put a link up when the transcript is posted.
I was concentrating on something else and my poor brain can’t keep two channels fully open at once. I believe though the web images were given the all clear and were found not to be in a sexualised context.
If anyone else was listening they may care to confirm or otherwise as the case may be.
Ah Jack.
>
Jack, Jack, Jack -
But the models were not used and abused. See the difference? I had a photographer friend who used another friend as a model. The picture depicted him as a corpse at a crime scene. But the photographer didn’t actually kill him. Get it?
Yes that’s fine. Mr Bolt prefers kitsch pix of tulips. That’s fine. Please however do not impose your Disneyland taste on the rest of us.
I love this assumption you continually make that the ‘general populace’ is on your side. I’ve been to many of Henson’s exhibits and they are always well attended. 10s of thousands of people. Don’t universalize your own experience.
Really how do you do that mmm? And given that the research shows that there is a correlation between sexual repressive societies and child abuse how do explain the veracity of this ‘off limits’ policy? Thus far Henson’s models have defended him. Those attacking him do so on the basis of their own discomfort – so what! – and their assumption of some kind of superior sexual morality which is based on being ashamed of the body, restricting sex to a dull, stale bed and the funding of wonderful institutions like religious boarding schools now famous for actual abuse.
>
Facts Jack. You are not using facts. Like Classified (the classified information presumably being her or his single digit IQ) there’s this presumption of moral superiority added to an I-feel-uncomfortable schtick which seems enough to you lot to lock a man in prison and brand him a sex criminal.
>
That is morally disgraceful. And something to really be ashamed of.
Civility, please, Adrien!
Yes, Mark, the conversation is getting very circular now. Eventually we’ll find out whether Henson is to be charged with anything or not. Then it can kick off again.
Yep. Can’t wait!
First time as tragedy, second as farce and all that!
Sorry, but goes ’round come around. I try very hard not to be rude to people unless they’re rude to me first.
>
Anyway Fine’s right. ‘Nuff said for now.
“And besides he’s been making pictures of the same kinds of subjects for abotu thirty years.”
No doubt there is a perfectly innocent explanation for why a bloke would want to take nude kiddy pics for 30 years.
Like many artists, he has several major motifs that he re-examines at intervals.
He has repeatedly returned to the theme of adolescent transition over thirty years. The models have not always been nude. He also repeatedly returns to themes of buildings in ruin and interior and exterior landscapes.
Steve when did you become a wowser?
Andrew, it’s usually the opposers of Henson’s work (eg. yourself) who use tired masculine expressions like ‘push boundaries’, ‘push the envelope’, for what they believe artists think their role in society is.
Why? Because they connote hymen busting.
“Push the envelope” was coined by Tom Wolfe in describing the efforts of test pilots/astronauts in the early Space Race days – The Right Stuff check it out. Masculine yes, but I never thought about hymens once when I was reading it.
>
I don’t think Henson pushes any boundaries. He’s a an expressionist-mannerist. It’s just for some reason someone woke up and decided to blame him for their own neurosis.
I’m not a wowser, Adrien. I don’t think Henson ought be prosecuted for these images but I can’t help but query his true motives. I also question whether we are putting Henson on a pedestal because he is an artist.
SL’s comments were very apt, I think:
“This lawyer still thinks he’s a bloody idiot for taking nudie pics of underage kids. Even though they’re nice nudie pics of underage kids. The fact that he’s taken a lot of his photographs in various Eastern European countries (notably Romania) where consent is, ahem, more easily facilitated suggests that he might be aware of the issues, too. Word: next time, Bill, find an 18 year old who looks 13, and this whole issue will go away.” http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2008/05/the-bill-henson-kiddy-porn-fiasco/
I would feel much happier if Mr Henson’s activities in countries like Romania were thoroughly investigated. If nothing untoward is discovered, his reputation will remain intact.
Given that nothin untoward’s been discovered in Australia viz his former models and yet he’s been convicted by the media as a sex monster I’m afraid I cast doubts on that assertion.
>
Again the assumption is: Nude=Porno. The whole thing reminds me of The Simpsons where there’s a campaign to ban Michelangelo’s David. Some people find the human body inherently obscene. Fine. Don’t look. Easy innit?
I’m waiting for some actual evidence about “his activities in countries like Romania”. What’s the source for this? Is there one? It sounds conveniently suspicious, but I can’t recall where and how this meme actually started up. I’m inclined to disbelieve it unless someone can provide some credible evidence.
“Some people find the human body inherently obscene. Fine. Don’t look. Easy innit?”
So you’d feel perfectly comfortable if Henson was cleared sans proper investigation and the trench-coat brigade took this as a licence to hop over to Vietnam and East Timor to take “artistic” nude kiddy pics in exchange for a few shekels?
Ok, tracked it down.
Pure hearsay.
Apparently? He believes? The context for this was the initial difficulty the police had in locating the subjects of the photos. They’ve now been found. In Victoria. There appears to be absolutely nothing to substantiate this claim about “Europe” let alone Romania or whatever beyond one “art critic” speculating – a claim that people like steve munn now take as a proved fact and build a whole scaffolding of insinuation on … nothing. If people want to believe what enables them to make all sorts of dark claims, I call that prejudicial thinking in the extreme, not an expression of some “moral” concern.
Here’s the link to the story – on May 26 – the last we’ve heard of any Eastern European connection except in steve munn and others’ febrile imaginings.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23757690-5006784,00.html
Skepticlawyer should also have been far more careful about describing this as a “fact”. It’s anything but.
http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2008/05/the-bill-henson-kiddy-porn-fiasco/
Very convenient for those who want to imagine all sorts of pedophilia links, of course. But wholly unsubstantiated, and almost certainly untrue. This sort of evidence would be thrown out in a millisecond in a court of law.
It’s a simply syllogism innit? Romania is a bad place where they treat kids like shit, Henson went there, therefore he’s a bad man and treats kids like shit. He was there because of that bad man Nicolae Ceauşescu who was one of those left-liberal types and preached all that right to abortion and free sex stuff the luvvies are always on about.
>
Whaddyamean that ain’t true? It’s true goddammitt! ‘Cause I says so. You must be one of them. Com’nist chil’ molester.
>
You people don’t know logic and have no respect for the classic thinkers like Socrates. I respect Soctrates and now using his methods I will prove that Kevin Rudd is a terrorist:
>
Kevvie has legs, terrorists have legs etc etc.
>
I love the Corps
Yeah, that’s about as good as it gets from those sniffing out unwholesome Romanian connections, Adrien.
“European connection except in steve munn and others’ febrile imaginings.”
Settle, petal.
I took SL’s word for it without checking her link. I also said these things ought be investigated rather than prejudged or ignored.
Really steve? Read to me like you’d already jumped to all sorts of conclusions.
Nope. I have reasonable doubts but have concluded nothing.
Well, it’s unreasonable to even accept this speculation about “Eastern Europe” on the basis of the hearsay belief of one person who offers no evidence, and doesn’t have any obvious authority to speak to it. That’s my point. In the absence of that, it would be prudent to drop that line of “reasonable doubt” entirely because such speculation is actually unreasonable.
Adrien, maybe you will now.
C’mon, these are old metaphors. Even bothering to deconstruct them is a complete cliche. No difference whether you’re referring to art/culture/manning rockets into space. They imply a race to be the first. Smashing barriers ‘for the sake of it’ as much anything else, with little regard for consequence.
The Right Stuff is a personal fave – an exploration/celebration of what Wolfe identified as a defining aspect of US culture. The expression he coined is in reference to that culture, not just the space pilots produced by it, and who represent it in the novel.
I agree Henson doesn’t ‘push boundaries’ and isn’t trying to. My point is to be dubious about annyone who would suggest it, because their goal of course is to bluntly or subtly negatively reposition his ‘artistic intent’ (man, I’m sick of those two words).
You twinkle toe’d com’nist! Drop on yer face an’ gimme twenty. And you best sound off that you love the virgin Mary or I’m gonna stomp your guts out! Goddamn com’nist heathen.
>
I love the Corp.
>
God has a hard-on for marines because we kill everything we see!
Probably.
.
Yeah – ‘pushing the envelope’ has been used so often by various talking heads that it’s second only to the incorrect use of the word ‘irony’ as TV’s principle sin against the language.
Well, as long as the media get their share of the dosh, the same goes for the lawyers…& the pollies get to run around giving each other wedgies…who gives a sh*t about the kids in the artwork being pulled to pieces in a tug of war…RIGHT?
MERCUTIO:
I am hurt.
A plague o’ both your houses! I am sped.
Is he gone, and hath nothing?
If Juliet falls in the midst & din of the battle, will anyone hear her scream? Or really care?
SHOW ME THE MONEY
Is this the right thread?
The trascript of the PM piece is up now.
Thanks Brian for putting that link in your post, to the transcript of the PM piece. I was really interested to read some more information about the classification of the censored images that have been seen in the media. And the transcript confirms that only the censored versions of Henson’s photographs have been seen by the Classification Board, and that the undoctored photographs have not been submitted to the Board – not the online undoctored versions or the actual physical, large original framed photographic prints from the planned exhibition. That is made clear in this excerpt from the transcript:
I wonder if part of the whole investigation into this matter will include the submitting of Henson’s original images to the Classification Board. If they were submitted I am thinking they could receive a different classification – the censored images seen on various news websites were given a ‘G’ or ‘very mild’ classification due to the fact that:
I have just noticed upon reading that again how bizarre it is to say that “…any nudity in the photos has been obscured.” Isn’t the whole subject nude, not just her blocked out small breasts? I wonder if the girl in the photographs had been wearing a plain bikini, what level of outcry may have occurred. I have found so many layers and aspects to ponder about in this whole situation. I have been finding it incredibly fascinating, and also sad, and I personally feel sorry for Bill Henson. The various relevant threads on this blog have helped me so much in thinking about it all, my thanks and compliments to the people who produce this blog.
Emma, Claire answered “There were black bars obscuring the breast and genital areas of the models in the photograph” a few questions earlier.
She was repeating herself, and it’s just one of those things. People paraphrase their own comments when they have to repeat them. A bit loose, because it might be singled out to be quoted
but not worth thinking about too much.
But you’re right…if she’d been wearing a bikini, there wouldn’t have been an outcry at all – ’sexy lingerie’ on the other hand?
Nick, sorry, I don’t think I was clear enough, I was thinking how my definition of ‘nudity’ is ‘without clothes’, but how the woman from the Classification Board is so focussed on just the breast and crotch area being the only possible areas of ‘nudity’.
It’s like she’s saying that they are the only parts of the body that it is possible to have nude. And yet you could have nude legs, a nude back, a nude stomach – any part of the body which is a part of the body where clothes could be worn, is technically nude if it is unclothed.
But the phrase ‘any nudity in the photos has been obscured’ makes it clear that this woman is implying only the sexual components of the body can comprimise nudity in her mind. Maybe it is just semantics, but it did catch my attention with interest.
But then I was just thinking, Claire Bowdler is from the Classification Board, so I guess a large part of her work would be focussed on deciding what level of classification an image of a naked body will be given. And so of course her focus on the concept of ‘nudity’ would perhaps always be on the sexual areas of the body, as I imagine that how visble the sexual areas of the body are would be the deciding factor as to whether an image of a naked body is ‘G’ or PG/M/MA15+/R18+/X18+.
I think I was reading too much into her idea of ‘nudity’, given her profession!
Photographic protest in Melbourne:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/nude-boy-photos-to-show-20080602-2kwj.html
kim – not sure if this artist is niave or simply , well um, niave.
“Larielle, who studied at Melbourne School of Art, took the photographs when her two subjects were 11. They are now 17, and have given permission, she says, for their images to be shown in public, although their parents do not wish them to be identified.”
Good thing there’s no media interest in this sort of thing then
Why do you think she’s naive, sc?
The parents don’t wish the kids to be identified. (?)
And they’re not being!
Did you catch Radio National Artworks on the weekend or this afternoon btw ?
THought it was quite balanced
We begin with an interview from 2003 when Bill Henson spoke to Julie Copeland about the relationship between people and place in his photographs – between his dark urban landscapes and the young figures he depicts in them.
The president of the Law Society of New South Wales Hugh Macken believes whilst it will be very difficult to prosecute the artist, people publishing and accessing the images electronically, could be in trouble.
Vivien Gaston is an art historian and critic and an honorary fellow at the University of Melbourne and has mixed feelings about the art of Bill Henson.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/artworks/stories/2008/2260481.htmOh, and on the porn thing, poor old Bill Henson shares his name with a porn star, which probably won't help the search engine hits.
Provided there are no unprincipled dobbers, that is.
Nope, no way they are going to be identified by promoting the show and showing their pics in the paper.
Seriously, (and this seems more like opportunistic promotion than protest), they are 17 now – essentially too old for interest by child protection depts, so i don’t think its problematic particularly.
oh and i’m in the spam can again.
Despammed. It’s there now at 99.
sc, concerning your 99, I did and commented at 44.
cool comment and thanks.
see what this has all led to….multiple orgasms in parliament
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/06/03/1212258746557.html
Naive or not here’s to her; raise your glass. High.
I don’t think Henson should be prosecuted. However if he can’t express his ideas about adolescence without taking pix of nude under-age girls, then too bad.
It’s not like we’re losing a Beethoven symphony.
Actually it is.
Dem and blost wot! We should dock that demmed chap his pay and at the club he’ll be eating his chop alone quite some time. Did he claim these ‘genetically modified orgasms’ on the public bill? Did he? Put his dem hide on half-pay and sack him from the regiment. And a Tory too. He should dem well know better. What do you mean he has no regiment?
>
Talk of lowering the tone wot. Society these days – a dem bunch of nobodies talking about nothing.
>
Anyway off to the Hunt. Gerald’s rounded up some of the cleaning staff at one of his buildings. Apparently these chaps can run quite fast. Should make for a spot of sport wot.
>
Tally ho’.
Simple, all children are impressionable!!
I have no problem with nude’s in general and am all for freedom of speech. However i do not think these pictures should be allowed to been shown. An adult may not realise they are abusing there position of authority or even aware of it but all adults have a position of authority over children, kids are impressionable.
Note: Comments on this post are now closed, and can be continued here.