Bill Henson image from the Robert Miller Gallery.
Writing in the Australian Review of Public Affairs, Kylie Valentine proves that it is possible to say something new about the Bill Henson controversy. It struck me that one huge absence in all the debate that swirled around Henson’s images of adolescents was any contribution from the subjects themselves. Lots of adults jumped into the breach to fill this void, speculating about how the models would feel about being the subjects of this sort of art, or how they might feel at a later date. It was an entirely defensible position, of course, for the photographer’s subjects to maintain silence on grounds of privacy, and it’s worth noting that a number of Henson’s former models did speak out, though their voices seemed to be almost entirely ignored in the “debate” that took place.
Valentine picks up on this theme, and argues:
Increased participation by children in public debates about the representation of adolescents such as Henson’s would produce new knowledge. Such participation would also be likely to add to the complexity of these questions. A straightforward response to this complexity, apparently advocated by those who have spoken out so far to defend children’s welfare, is a blanket prohibition on representations that could be perceived or used as sexualised. In contrast, the participation of children would add new voices to the debate. It would also produce more and different representations of children in response to the adult-produced images of Henson and others, just as feminism has produced an extraordinary range of representations of women. One response advocates, in the name of protection, banishing children from the arena of public visibility. The other, which is far messier and unknown, would make children publicly visible and active in new ways. It would take, it seems to me, an extraordinarily cynical view of participation to argue that the former has greater emancipatory potential.
Her article is well worth a read. She quite correctly argues that the Henson controversy raises much broader - and arguably more challenging - issues about childhood and adolescence than the ones which seemed to dominate the public discussion around Henson’s photos.
Finally, we get to the whole point of the Bill Henson saga. It’s about the children. I was surprised that no-one made the connection between the Henson saga and the recent debates about under-age models on catwalks and in magazines. We (as a community) were able to debate that and come to a fairly quick decision about what is acceptable and what is not. New rules and standards have come into play there.
Why is it so different for art? Yes, I know that art and fashion are not the same thing. But the children are.
During the Henson debate quite a few people I know asked their teenagers what they thought of the photos and I heard that all the teenagers thought they were pervy. Random sample, but that was it.
Yes I’m sure they did. So what?
Attaboy, you tell those uppity teenagers to go to their rooms.
Did you actually read the post, or is this just some kind of aggro boy blogger attack on Suz about what constitutes an ‘argument’?
I did read the post PC. I also read the article it quotes. In fact I believe I linked to it weeks ago. I’m sick to death of this special pleading:
We are the great unwashed ignorant fuckheads that constitute the majority of the human race and therefore we have the right to tell people who’ve got a brain and cultivate taste what they’re entitled to think, what is right, what constitutes art.
.
So some people asked some teenagers who said it was ‘purvey’. First class insight there. If I had ten cents for every time I’d heard some ignoramus airing her/his toilet-clogged mind I’d buy Jamaica. As I said: so what.
.
That’s elitist I hear people say. Damn straight!
.
Incidentally my gender is immaterial and criticizing teenagers doesn’t make one a hater of youth. There’s no argument being made because it ain’t worth making it. This whole ‘affair’ boils down to some jerks with fucked up ideas about sex attempting to railroad our lives with their neurotic misery. I’m sick to death of it. Don’t like it? Don’t look. Go over to Bolt’s place and he’ll show you some naff tulip pastels. But if there’s no evidence or even a whisper of children being exploited then that’s probably because they’re not being exploited. Ergo it’s not your business - go away.
.
To which they’ll always reply but I asked a bunch of boneheads and they said it was ‘pervy’ and there’s more boneheads then you weird people who use your brains for something besides changing channels so we’re right and you’re wrong.
Adrien, I was under the impression that the post says this is an as-yet-mostly-unexplored area of discussion about turning objects into subjects and giving a voice to the demographic being represented and used in Henson’s work. Suz was addressing this. It’s a completely separate question from your preoccupations above, which ignore the appropriation and power-imbalance issues and simply continue the argument that’s being going on for weeks.
Alrighty PC I’ll attempt to give a more pertinent and nuanced view on the subject.
.
Ms Valentine’s discourse is a consideration of ‘rights packages’ and conceptions of rights as exemplified in the Henson affair. Essentially there are two notions of ‘rights’ which come in to conflict. On the one hand you have to advocacy that ‘children’ are more capable of agency then given credit for. On the other hand as minors they are legally incapable of consent. The latter over-rides the former (which is actually not a right at all) and it is on this basis that the anti-Henson howlers have gone to war. To wit:
At least one. In fact there were a whole battalion of puritans who howled for blood on the basis that it had to be pornography. They used the ‘won’t somebody please think of the children’ hysteria to do so. It’s a peerless road to the moral high ground. You stake a claim to be the defender of defenceless innocents and on that basis you can accuse an artist, an audience, a gallery and various state instutions of being producers/consumers of child pornography.
.
To be so is quite rightly a serious offense. Yet the only thing these people had in evidence was: it makes me feel icky, it’s pervy, of course it’s pornography! Hang ‘im high!
.
Contrary to Valentine’s assertion thus:
I’m afraid I have to say that she is being unfairly balanced. On the arts side there was a great deal of considered and reasoned debate and I’m sorry on the Paul of Tarsus side there was hysterical claptrap that threw banket accusations of nefarious criminal activity on the basis of their own discomfort re the subject matter.
.
And what was their back-up? Lots of people are like me (ie they’re equally fucked up).
.
Sorry but it seems to me that reason doesn’t work. I say claim our own moral high ground and shoot these people down as what they are. Hysterical puritans who hate the body, can’t hack their own sexualities and want everyone in the world to be as miserable as they are. And they are willing to send people to jail to do it!
.
Some teenagers think it’s icky? Oh says I: so what? Some kids think it’s a good idea to sexually assault a mentally handicapped girl, film it and sell DVDs. Some kids think that makes good viewing Saturday night. Some parents don’t see the problem. I’d like to see these wowsers take that problem on. That is a real problem. Until then, or until such time as they can construct a reasoned argument - they can go fuck themselves.
up until this thread adrian, i thought you added some interesting perspective to the Henson debate here on LP.
Now you’re sliding into silkworm territory
I think it is a shame that the side of the children in this debate was hijacked somewhat Hetty Johnson et al. but I think labelling all those who stick up for the children as hysterical puritans is just as silly as labelling those who support Hanson as perverts.
It is possible to engage this debate without the hysterics that has passed for discussion on both sides. There are precedents for this debate:
Zippora Seven and those topless photos;
Monika Jagaciak and Australian Fashion Week;
Maddison Gabriel and Gold Coast Fashion Week.
I don’t have to believe that Hanson or his supporters are perverts to want the interests of the children protected. I don’t have to be a puritan to suggest that the standards being made to apply to the fashion industry may also be appropriate for the art industry as well.
For what it’s worth, my take on Hason’s statements in interviews recorded before the controversy seem to indicate that he knew he was pushing the boundaries here. That doesn’t make him a pervert, and some of the reaction was definitely OTT, but it seems community standards are shifting somewhat and there needs to be some accounting.
Well I got myself into a something of a brawl re Henson at a conference “Sexual Abuse in Religious Contexts” (RANZCP organised) on the weekend. The point was made frequently by child protection advocates that Henson is exploitative, breeching child labour laws, child protection laws, and parental guidelines for safeguarding children. Again and again, I was told that no child could make a reasonable decision as to the consequences of posing for Henson.
But what was really interesting was the response to the suggestion that attacking Henson is symbolic at its worst, and our failure to enpower children at the very least by following the NZ example and removing the parental right to assault a child by virtue of it being called parental discipline, something that would be a much more significant gain both societally and for children was met with scorn. Because, apparently, children can’t make decisions, reasoned ones, about themselves.
There was no interest in giving kids the skills to be better able to make those decisions (assuming as they were that they can’t), but a rather odd insistence that it could only have meaning if moderated by an adult. There was, according to the argument, no point in asking the kids what they thought about Henson, because they were undoubtedly think the wrong thing anyway. Which was then followed up by statements that Henson was sleezy because some kids had said he was.
It was all rather strange. Especially in light of the FACT that children are more likely to be sexually abused if they have poor skills as to self-determination and self-identity.
Thanks for that Bernice. I think Valentine raises some very important issues about the balance between “protection” and “rights” and I’m also concerned that some of those who campaign for the former seem to have little or no understanding of the latter.
Seems to me like the whole BH debate/debacle has constantly been reflexively framed in terms of positive and negative freedoms - freedom to, and freedom from, as people say. And everyone, myself included, gets set up in their comfy freedom from/to possie and takes potshots at the other side. Actually really hard to construct sophisticated arguments that cross the threshold…or if it’s not, a lot of people ain’t trying very hard.
If you look at the work of some child protection researchers, the debate about empowering children is very much alive. They are the ones pointing to the way in which both Docs regulations and the rebuttable presumption of shared custody put parents’ rights above the wishes and wellbeing of the children, the way that childrens’ testimony is deemed very unreliable and how these things combined lead to children being put back into dangerous situations on a daily basis. Professor Freda Briggs is one of the signatories to the letter on the consent issues of the Henson case, she is also at the forefront of a campaign to outlaw corporal discipline. If you do some googling of Chris Goddard and Prof Briggs especially, you will see that they are by no means advocating adult protection of passive children and are very much concerned with acknowledging their agency and empowering children as a one of the most important ways of preventing abuse. Prof Briggs has written papers on just that issue.
It is simply not true to say that people working and researching from a child protection perspective are not engaging with the question of children’s own agency as it is acknowledged as an essential part of abuse prevention.
Su, you’re not reading what I said very carefully, and projecting onto what I wrote something that is not contained in it. I said, and I was deliberately precise - “some of those who campaign for the former” - I’m not talking about researchers but the likes of Hetty Johnson. I hope that’s clear now.
I was not responding to you but to the idea that there is a lack of interest in giving children skills to make decisions for themselves. That is not the case as anyone who has any knowledge of child protection, rather than a passing and completely abstract notion of what it entails, would know.
Briggs & Goddard do bring that into their work, and their arguments re Henson are inclusive of that but the people I was arguing with weren’t Briggs & Goddard. Much lower in the food chain. People who are likely to have children as clients.
su, are you saying that Bernice’s account of that conference is wrong? Your last paragraph says “It’s simply not true that…” and then at 15 you suggest that a claim in line with that made by Bernice is not compatible with someone having “any knowledge of child protection.” It doesn’t seem to give much credence to Bernice’s tale, nor does it constitute a direct rebuttal.
Fwiw, I think that this “kids can’t consent” thing is being stretched by Henson’s attackers. This kind of blanket strong position really is just a shorthand. Kids can give consent, but they can easily be manipulated into giving it by better informed and socially capable adults. For the issue of having sex and medical procedures, the law likes to err on the side of the absolute for safety’s sake, but clearly in reality children can give consent. The notion that there is no 14 year old on the planet who ever gave proper consent to have sex or a medical procedure is just ridiculous. The notion that legally such “proper” consent can’t be confirmed easily is so obvious as to require the blanket consideration used in child protection. Extending this strict rule beyond sex and medicine seems to me to be a very dangerous precedent, since consent is very hard to pin down, and what is required for informed consent in, say, nude photography hasn’t exactly been clarified in the present debate, has it?
Also I have noticed that this case set a precedent. A week later some cops raided that other obscene art show to check the content, and no-one blinked an eyelid. That disturbs me a lot.
And rest easy Adrien, we know now that the police only received 3 complaints from the great unwashed masses about the Henson exhibition - I wonder who made them? I don’t think the hoi polloi who thought the pictures were pervy really thought they were bad.
No I am not saying Bernice’s account is wrong. I am reassuring people that contrary to implication, children’s agency is considered in child protection work. I am offering an alternative account, not a rebuttal.
The whole idea of aspects of Life Education (in this state) and other forms of early education about body and sexuality is to empower children to recognize what is healthy sexuality and to foster an ability to say no to people who press them to behave in ways that may harm them. These early forms of education are an essential part of abuse prevention and are all about enhancing children’s agency. It is worrisome that child protection workers would dismiss the issue of corporal punishment as it is a key one and widely recognized as an essential tool, not only in abuse prevention but in changing attitudes to children and childhood generally.
I think that the consent issue arises because of a need for broad guidelines. Even if one believes (as I do) that it is possible for someone like Henson to work in a fashion that acknowledges and mitigates against the power imbalance and is not exploitative, society needs broad guidelines about which kinds of adult-minor interactions represent areas of potential harm. Children and adolescents can and do consent to activities because they have very poor self-protective behaviours which is why the issue of consent in a circumstance that bears a superficial resemblance to situations of harm is so fraught.
Henson has been vindicated. There is no reason at all to believe that he has done anything wrong. The debate is now about how do we set guidelines for when parents and children can consent, given a) the fact that children will consent to things that cause them harm and b) the difference between a harmless and a harmful circumstance can be subtle and reside entirely in the subjectivities of adult and minor?
I have to clarify this - I was arguing with individuals in a group setting - they were NOT speakers at the conference. Their opinions do not reflect the conference organisers, the speakers, nor I’m sure RANZCP. But it does puzzle me that people working in child services seemed to dismiss the NZ legislation.
It interests me that a discussion about ‘consent’ always seems to be about sexual consent. There are numerous other ways in which the issue of consent is pertinent, to both adults and children. Here, I’m talking about sleazy tabloid shows which really exploit and humiliate their televisual fodder. And there’s not that much they can do about it. No-one has the pockets to go up against the owners of television stations.
I see su. But I would think the only people who came out of this incident in clear need of guidelines are the people doing the scaremongering, who (Hetty Johnson possibly as an exception) were using children’s images to proselytize their anti-pc ideas, probably against the interests of the (completely voiceless) children involved. It’s noteworthy that they ignored the children who did try to speak up about their experiences, they didn’t do anything to hide the identity of their alleged “victims”, and they hyper-sexualised the girls and ignored the boys.
I think it’s Miranda and her mates who need guidelines, not the rest of us. Henson seems to have been working just fine. Though I suppose fine arts courses could cover this sort of thing - I wonder if your average fine arts degree includes any kind of discussion of these issues? (I assume it does, and I’m sure that Miranda Devine would whinge about how that’s wasting time with art criticism when they should be learning to draw fruit or something).
If ever there was an argument for oppression of the free press, Miranda Devine makes it every time she takes a breath.
rt s trdd cmmdt, nd sngl jsdctn cnt dcd wht cn b nvrsll trdd, strd, r cmmrclzd. Th ncssr lw, s n lss bndng pn ntns thn pn ndvdls. Th trd n rt s sbjct t dcsns r npts frm th NCRC, CHR, nd ls nn-gvrnmntl gncs sch s NCF. Whn, thrfr, ppl nt n cvl sct s Stt th m mk grmnts wth thrs f th sm Stt, bt thr dts twrds th rst f th hmn rc rmn nchngd, bng th ccptd prncpl. t hs bn rslvd, b th th N, tht rt gllrs wld nt stblsh trd n chld prngrph
Moderator note: disemvoweled as continual morphing of one’s posting ID in an attempt to sockpuppet/evade bans is explicitly against the LP comments policy.
I was surprised that no-one made the connection between the Henson saga and the recent debates about under-age models on catwalks and in magazines.
That is completely untrue.
Re: 22 - and writing unintelligibly is not against your comments policy?
Aside from being from a problem poster, I have absolutely no idea what s/he has said. Although I’ve noticed in the past that others have responded to this person. Is it only garbled on my screen???
On the topic, yet more interesting layers of complexity. The whole question of adolescent consent, subjectivity and skills in self-awareness is, it seems, far too complex for a black and white legal system, let alone our mass media.
Also Bernice, why were people talking about Henson at a conference on “sexual abuse in religious contexts”? Shouldn’t they have been focussed on the log in their own eye?
Re 22…my best guess (you can tell I’m procrastinating!)
[text deleted by moderator]
[Moderator note: please don’t re-emvowel text that moderators have disemvoweled ~tigtog]
Consent, in my opinion, is a complete non-issue in the Bill Henson case, or at best, it’s an issue for examining much later, when we have agreed on what the models in the pictures are doing. We still have not done this. I do not believe the pictures are pornographic and I’ve carefully explained why not.
To jump straight to calling it an issue of consent is to jump straight, as others have said, to equating posing for a photograph without your clothes on, with something like having sex or having cosmetic surgery.
It helps nobody, least of all actual victims of sexual abuse, to elide the large and knobbly distinction between ‘consent’ in the legal sense, and having the foresight and self-possession - the agency - to be able to decide whether you will one day regret your present day decision to do a particular act.
I will also point out again that since no model has come forward to say otherwise it is extremely unlikely that modelling for Bill Henson has caused any person to feel even this mild sort of regret over his or her decision.
CRUSADER: Well, it’s all about the welfare of the children.
CHILDREN: But we’re fine.
CRUSADER: No you’re not. And you’re far too young to be able to have an opinion on the matter anyway.
Not really as consent is also involved in the protection of privacy. You have to give consent for personal information to be shared between various disability service agencies for example.
Another example of a thing that modelling for a picture is not like.
Because a photograph is not information which can be used to identify a person in real life? It is not information that could potentially jeopardize their right to privacy? And as others have pointed out, there are well known examples of adults attempting to prevent publication of naked images taken when they were minors. That did not sound like ‘mild’ regret to me.
You can allow that 13 year olds can make informed decisions while still having some precautionary measures to ensure that they do not suffer long term consequences for decisions made at a time of limited experience.
Not sure about these assertions.
1. It isn’t possible to ensure immunity from all consequences of any actions, whether long term or not. Every action, no matter how apparently trivial, carries the risk of unforeseen consequences.
2. “Some precautionary measures” begs closer attention. Are there any specific precautionary measures that may guard against some foreseeable unwelcome consequences arising from a 13 y-o girl consenting to be photographed in poses and in settings that excite adverse comment and/or prurience? One “precautionary measure” may be to ban all photography of 13 y-os. But presumably all would agree that this amounts to an overreaction.
But the question is, what measures may be deemed to be proportionate?
And more to the point, can the law ever adequately define “proportionate measures”?
su everything you said would apply to my feelings about the yr 9 class photo. Except for the naked part. All the same, I’d like to see all existing prints burned.
It has just struck me that there is a paradox in the thorny issue of consent. Like the age of consent, some things are legal (or at least less problematic)for teenagers to do to each other but become very problematic when done to them by adults. Besides sex stuff, for example, Henson’s photos versus the type of photos and videos teens take of each other at parties. It seems to me that some behaviours aren’t considered to be a problem when teens participate amongst themselves, but become extremely contentious when adults are involved.
I was thinking about the revocable consent idea, Katz. It could be applied just to reproductions of the image for eg and so not affect gallery shows.
I guess it depends whether you see nudity as a special case or not, Laura.
My own poll so far is one “kids should be kids” and two “are you kidding, you should see what they post on myspace”.
Sorry! Just enjoying the mental stimulation. Ah well…
No worries, Nick. I didn’t originally make it clear that the disemvowelment was by a moderator. I’m sure that if I had that then you probably wouldn’t have posted any reemvoweling.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/04/2382151.htm
Just thought I’d add this link cause its in the news again.
Curiously from a distance, Henson could be mistaken for Shakespear in this shot.
The first paragraph in that story is a corker!
OK, as someone who defended Henson on the basis of principle regarding the earlier controversy, and wasn’t particularly concerned about photos recently auctioned either, I have to say that this story (if confirmed) is a real worry: I find this alleged behaviour indefensible.
It’s one thing to take photos of the children of family friends who have grown up around artworks and who appreciate and like the concepts etc of Henson’s photography - to go talent-spotting amongst kids without that acquaintanceship-background and groom them as photographic subjects would very much cross the line of Something That I Do Not Like.
Yep, I agree it’s inappropriate and troubling. It does reinforce the need for appropriate protocols to be developed on working with models and subjects under 18.
Kim and TicTog -
.
How the bloody hell else do you get subjects? You’re now making the same errors the religious right make all the time confusing sexual activity with artistic activity. The same ettiquette, the same reflection applies whether Henson asks friends or gives a card to someone he sees on the street.
.
Kate Moss was spotted at the age of 14 at an airport. Perhaps you should ring the authoroties obviously she’s a victim of abuse…
.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
.
Oh that someone would abuse me in like fashion.
.
In public policy we do not write laws on the basis of ’something I don’t like’. We write them on the basis of the public interest. After the Henson brouhaha, the authorities and the various dirty minds who besmirched this artist as a pornographer not one single person could be found to tell tales of depravity. Indeed they all defended him.
.
Oscar Wilde said it best (of course):
Adrien, I don’t think wandering round playgrounds is how you get subjects! It’s just not what a school is for, among other things.
And I don’t think there have to be any implications of depravity or whatever from this. Quite the contrary. But it’s just dumb.
Adrian, does the phrase in loco parentis mean anything to you?
Suppose my kids were being babysat, and the babysitter decided to invite Kyle Sandilands over to my house to check out my kids prodigious singing ability without my knowledge or permission.
I reckon i’d be highly pissed off.
Providing a talent pool for a nude photographic artist is in no way the business of any school, and if the principal actively encouraged this to occur, without parental knowledge, i’d think they had legal ground to sue the board or education dept for breach of duty.
Kim it’s not dumb. It’s one of the ways that casting agents find child actors for film and tv. Most child actors with agents are very white, Anglo and conventionally good-looking (strange about that). If someone wants to work with someone outside of that, looking around schools, playgrounds, malls, etc is one of the ways it’s done. And it works, luckily for those kids who aren’t conventionally beautiful and might want to be films.
According to the ABC news Henson got permission from the school principal to look for subjects. You could argue that he/she shouldn’t have given that permission without consulting all the parents. But apart from that, where’s the problem?
“Providing a talent pool for a nude photographic artist is in no way the business of any school,”
So, if it wasn’t a ‘nude photographic business’. I assume you’d have no problem?
I’m still waiting for the ex-models to start appearing in the media and sying they’ve been damaged by Henson.
I’m with Fine. The fundamental problem here is the behaviour of the school principal, not Henson.
While one might hope that Henson would be more circumspect, surely in this instance the onus of care and responsibility lies with the principal.
Don’t be absurd Fine.
I have a problem with Mars Confectionary hawking their products to schools as so called Fundraisers. Ha!
In the schools defense, at least they raise the issue in advance at the monthly P&C, and let the parents know these wretched things are being sent home in advance.
Fine have you wandered around any school playgrounds lately?
Even i as a parent have to present at the front desk, sign in and obtain a visitors badge, just to help paint the musical backdrop or assist with reading.
While I agree with TFA that it’s more the fault of the principal rather than Henson, Fine, I don’t think the casting analogy works. I’m aware of that, and the fact that some have sought to justify this as part of an “industrial process” (!) by which I imagine “industry practice” is actually meant. Though it’s an interesting slip. I don’t think schools are or ought to be the appropriate site for the recruitment of children for commercial activity of any sort. They just shouldn’t. The fact that people might have to look elsewhere for children is just bad luck.
I’m not - note, not - going with all this stuff assimilating Henson’s activities to pedophiles prowling or whatevs. But, really, using schools to seek to source subjects for images like his is just dumb. He should have seen this sort of reaction coming a mile off.
I see this is purely a commercial issue, primary schools are not a suitable place for commercialisation of children, applies equally to Maccas as it does to Henson.
Fresh thread Kim?
If he really is this naive, and is not able to distinguish or maintain appropriate boundaries around sourcing models, why are we prepared so gushingly prepared to accept that he is suddenly so exemplary and professional in the process of creating the work?
I think Rudd’s role in this debate warrants closer scrutiny too: no sign of the former diplomat to be found.
The entire principle of politicians not commenting on the behaviour of private individuals - especially when there’s a possibility of legal proceedings - seems to have gone right out the window.
Another thread some time, perhaps.
Kim, why don’t you think the casting analogy works? Because that’s basically what he’s doing. And Kim, I do release you’re criticising hin without relating his work to paedaphilia.
sublime cowgirl you used the word ‘nude’. I responded to that. I wondered why you thought that was important. You could have written ‘his photographic business’.
I understand how you’d have a problem with Mars Confectionary, but how does that show that Henson has poor judgment. He got permission from the principal, what else should he do?
And guess what, I’ve even made corporates for Mars Confectionary at a school, using schoolkids as extras. And of course, their parents had to sign a release form. There’s work I’m prouder of, but we all have to make a living.
And so yes, I have wandered around schoolyards in the interest of using them as a location, with the principal’s permission.
Sorry, sublime cowgirl, I forgot to answer your question. I really can’t remember whether I had to sign in or not. Do we know if Henson had to sign in? If he didn’t, isn’t that a fault of school governance rather than henson’s? I really have no idea how he showed poor judgement. Was he supposed to insist that he sign himself in?
Of course, there’s an argument that schools shouldn’t be used for any sort of commercial arrangement. But that’s a completely different issue than whether Henson was wrong to source subjects from schoolyards. Why conflate them?
Phil, if you’d like a fresh thread, do feel free to write the post. I’m still suffering from a blog version of post-traumatic stress disorder when it comes to these issues!
Fine, I suspect there’s not too much difference between us on this except that I think that Hanson should have anticipated how this might look given all the hysteria about schools and sexual predation that erupts at a drop of a hat, and I really don’t think schools should be a space for any sort of commercial activity and/or recruitment. I realise the horse has long ago bolted on that, and maybe that should be taken into account wrt Henson.
SC, I don’t resile from what I said before about my confidence in Henson’s integrity with regard to his practice when working with his subjects. I don’t think naivete and unprofessionalism are to be equated.
Anyway, I really don’t want to comment further on this if it ends up circling back to the same old same old it was framed in last time around.
That’s fair enough, Kim. It just irks me when people use this as a stick to beat Henson.
“I see this is purely a commercial issue, primary schools are not a suitable place for commercialisation of children.”
No buying chips from the tuck shop, then.
As Fine says, the commercial question is a separate issue. Let’s say, hypothetically, that Henson was a struggling artist with no commercial success, and that he was doing what he wanted to do purely for the sake of his artistic drive. You’d have no problem then — Kim, Phil, sublimest cowgirl?
If it would be OK — and in fact I agree with Adrien and Fine that it is OK — then exactly what difference does it make that Henson is commercially successful (in addition to being a brilliant and unique artist)?
Like I said, Paulus, I have no desire to discuss this further, so I’ll leave others to answer your question.
Before I run away, this article should be read. David Marr seeks to correct misapprehensions about what Henson was doing at the school:
http://news.theage.com.au/national/henson-scouted-school-for-child-models-20081004-4tnh.html
Fine of course its important information.
I think the school admin and parent body could be expected to a have a reasonable understanding of the implication and intent of Mars Confectionary interests in their school, and the populations of children contained within.
Therefore the principal could probably weight up the risk / cost / benefit equation to the school community without the likelyhood of any informed or serious objection on the part of the parent body.
In the same way, the full oeuvre of the artist would need to have been known by the school principal in order for an informed decision to be made on the school communities behalf. If it were withheld by Henson its naive or manipulative. If it was known by the Principal it was poor judgement on his behalf and quite inappropriate on Hensons behalf to presume that this was prudent or acceptabe professional practice given the controversy he admits his work attracts.
Poor form all round.
I have to say your answer leaves none the wiser sc. I’m completely bemused. When I made my corporate about Mars Confectionary, I had no idea who the principal talked to before he gave permission. He gave it the day I visited him, so I suspect the weighing up of costs/benefits was fairly rudimentary. Not my problem in any case.
Are you actually saying that Henson should have insisted that the principal consult widely before he said yes? FFS, why? If he’s given permission by the principal, it’s not his problem.
Why are you implying that Henson would have been dishonest about his work? Is there any evidence of this? Or are you just having a dig?
Really, you are clutching at straws. It’s such a fuss about nothing.
What is ‘making a corporate’?
Sorry, Helen. It’s a form of commercial film for a company to promote their product to audiences. Like a long form ad. So, this was a film made to convince schools to use Mars Confectionary as a fund-raising tool. Of course, Mars would make a decent whack of money out of schools doing so.
If this Henson is walking around school playgrounds at lunch hour, looking for nude models, then he HAS got a problem, and it is all his.
The principal of the school would also have a problem.
If it was my school where it was done, and the parents found out, Henson would have the opportunity to go on to become a famous wheelchair bound artist.
The principal would likewise be taking food through a straw for a long time.
Primary schools are NOT a smorgasbord for procurers of nude models, and it is not within the authority of the school principal to make it so.
Any parents who perpetrated such brutality would/should afterwards be put away for a long time for assault and battery occasioning grievous bodily harm. Macho posturing about committing violence is not only immoral but also stupid.
I think your imagination is running away with you, SATP. These are your words, and only yours, out of your very own head. Hmm.
Didn’t you read the link Kim posted at #57, which described in detail exactly what it was that Henson was doing? Or don’t you care whether your information is actually accurate or not?
As for your threats of violence, perhaps you should be a bit careful about what you say in a public forum.
The problem is PC that SATP has given a succinct but precise account of what Henson was doing, according to Marr’s account.
According to Marr Henson, with the permission of the school principal, and accompanied by the principal, did walk around on school grounds. His purpose was to look at children so as to identify potential subjects for his photographic studies. He would then, according to Marr, approach their parents for permission to photograph them for his artistic purposes.
A part of his photographic repetoire is studies of nude or semi-nude prepubescent or pubescent children.
So “walking around school playgrounds at lunch hour, looking for nude models” is a fair characterisation.
A GRAND UNIFYING THEORY OF POST-MODERN LIBERALISM
I am splitting my sides laughing at the Ironies of post-modern History. Especially when it makes fools of elites, whether financial or cultural. THe Henson case is unusually comic as it is an entirely self-inflicted wound. But it serves as an example of how out of touch our elites are from ordinary human values.
Post-modern liberals, whether of the New Right- or or New Left- variety, seem to think that society is their play thing which they can freely shape independent of underlying realities. Ideology cannot trump ontology. Especially when large personal and professional values are at stake.
I’m thinking about trophy children and helicopter parents who dont want their kids to be perved at by wankers. Also self-funded retirees and first home buyers who dont want their life prospects fouled by money-changers.
Ideologists on the po-mo liberal New Right insist the Class War is over. Financial innovators laissez-faire attutudes towards sound credit practice threaten peoples pensions and houses. The Masters of the Universe shoot themselves in the foot with their “irrational exuberance”.
Now the govt. has to clean up the mess. Jesus had the right idea. Take the whip to these people and run ‘em out of the Big End of Town.
Ideologists on the po-mo liberal New Left insist the Culture War is over. Cultural innovators laìssez-faire attiude towards family values threaten peoples neighbourhoods and schools. And yet here we have the Style Councilors shooting themselves in the foot bragging about their “boundary transgressions”.
Parents are unimpressed. I can see another raft of child protection regulation in the offing, rather cramping the style of artists trawling school zones for a bit of kiddie trade. Serves him right!
In both cases the po-mo liberals forget, ingnore, or deride the fact that underlying real social values are threatened by their reckless social experimentation.
The liberation narrative of the past generation has gradually turned into a farce, as its several political forms have become caricatures of freedom. One by one their liberal charade is exposed as a sham.
A return to proper prudential practice is indicated. Respect for traditional, rather than fashionable, values. Observance of conservatism, rather than constructivism, in form. A more corporal, as opposed to liberal, mode of association.
Revenge of the geezers as Warren Buffet might say.
I believe SATP has no sproglets yet, fortunately, it appears, for the school system. Violence by entitled parents against teachers is already a problem and we’ve just seen the mentality in action.
SHORTER STROCCHI:
Why there still is a Culture War (and Class War) is because middle class parents (”working families”) have heavily invested their valuable eggs in only a few baskets. They have, or aspire, to houses in leafy suburbs, trophy children in private schools, savings in super funds etc.
They do not want po-mo liberationists, whether cultural or financial, running amok with their life plans. Too much sub-cultural perversity and multi-cultural diversity dissipates residential and intellectual capital.
Therefore we have totally boring, conservative men thrown up as major (and minor - Bob Brown fer crissake!) party leaders. You can bet your bottom dollar that if Turnbull wants to become PM he will, like Hawke, take a pledge of abstinence to his favoured perversions and diversions.
The material fact in this beat-up is that nowhere in these stories is there any indication about when Henson’s survey of kiddie talent occurred.
Henson’s playground excursion may well have taken place 20 years ago.
So when Senator Bill Heffernan, in the midst of yet another orgasm of self-righteousness, shrieks for a sacking, he may in fact be demanding that some ex-chalkie dotard be hoiked out of a care facility for the terminally bewildered and reinstated to the service for a day in order that he/she may be well and properly dismissed from the the teaching profession.
Between the lure of cheap populism and knowing all the material facts, of course, there is no contest for media tarts like Heffernan.
On the other hand, David Marr could be subjected to extraordinary rendition to some fetid Third World dungeon until he fesses up that the events of which he wrote took place — gasp — as recently as fifteen years ago!
Tigtog, As difficult as it may be for you to grasp, what I posted is exactly what would happen to anyone who trawled the schoolyard to procure nude models.
Some parents have a very black & white attitude toward that sort of thing, and have a very medieval approach to dealing with it.
Deal with it.
Pavlov’s Cat, for your clarification, I will clarify my position on this “public” forum:
I would happily thump the hell out of any person who trawled for nude models in a schoolyard my kids were in, and likewise for the principal who allowed/encouraged it. I’ll say it again, I would belt them up. That is, incapacitate them with physical violence.
Come and get me.
“The material fact in this beat-up is that nowhere in these stories is there any indication about when Henson’s survey of kiddie talent occurred.”
It was last year at St Kilda Primary apparently.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/brumby-to-probe-hensons-school-visit-20081004-4txt.html
Very sensible attitide, SATP. So tough and scary. Shows the mentality of the anti-Henson brigade.
I fail to see how Henson did anything wrong. He went on a casting call with the permission of the principal and then contacted the parents involved to get permission.
Katz, I think it was fairly recently. The Age reported today that the schoo was St. Kilda Park Primary and the principal is now at a different school. But that had nothing to do with the Henson stuff.
Im still waiting to hear any models, or parents thereof, come forward and complain. Strange, how there’s a silence. Could it be because no-one involved is actually upset?
Geoff, St. Kilda Park Primary, is a differnt school to St. Kilda Primary.
SHORTER, SHORTER STROCCHI:
The saga of post-modern liberalism.
For the neo-elites, in their salad days at college, the tacit philosophy was “believing is seeing”. “Anything goes” so long as conventional wisdom is debunked and polite society is outraged.
Until one day the neo-elites find themselves with the whip in their hand and no old fogies better left to upstage. That left the way open for them to turn on the populace with their McMansioned abodes, TAFEd minds and shock-jocked souls.
Greater fools and ignorant red-necks they! But only for a while. When deviancy is the norm, then the norm gets nasty. The populace now and again rouses itself from its nostalgic slumbers and launches a counter-revolution.
On that day Main Street knocks back Wall Street in Congress and Hansons stamp out Hensons in the school yard.
One day one hopes that a pervert like Koons, who embodies post-modernism in all its forms, will suffer a ritual Bonfire of Vanities, Insanities and Iniquities.
Fine, are you suggesting there is something wrong with a mentality of belting up active nonces?
One guaranteed outcome: A rather effective deterrence message sent to others, and a fairly slim chance the actual offenders will repeat.
Message to the pro-Henson:Not eveybody is a pants-wetting sook, quite a few parents have a very cro-magnon attitude toward people who mentally undress their kids.
“Fine, are you suggesting there is something wrong with a mentality of belting up active nonces?”
Gosh, I don’t know steve at a the pub. Beating up people, not bothering with mere legalities or weird concepts of justice, presumption of innocence? Nah, don’t just beat em up - be a real man -hang em high!
Just noting that Jack Strocchi’s comments where he inserts this into his favoured grand narrative have belatedly appeared at 66, 68 and 74.