As no doubt everyone has noticed, there has been a vigorous discussion in comments about the latest Bill Henson brouhouha. I don’t want to comment explicitly on the issues raised by David Marr’s “revelation” that Henson had visited a primary school in St Kilda to scout for subjects for his photographs, because I honestly don’t think the debate’s much advanced over the last round, which was covered very extensively here at LP in a series of posts, and I haven’t shifted my own view. Except to note that I agree that David Marr is probably the person who should be brought to task for dealing unethically with Henson in his rush to find a salacious story to publicise his book, which was released today. I’m sure we’re quite sensitised now to the confection of “news” to help book sales after the unending Peter Costello sales job. As a professional journalist of long standing, Marr knows better than most how to manipulate a story, and perhaps it’s the ethics of his dealing with his subject that should also be questioned.
I did want to talk about one comment which really goes to the heart of the bigger issues around Henson’s art and his professional practice – and which when viewed from a long term perspective, I think explains more of what’s going on than the framing of the previous debate in terms of “freedom of speech”. Alison Croggon, who organised the petition to Kevin Rudd about Bill Henson’s images some time ago when they were seized by police from the Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery in Paddington, had this to say:
Alison Croggon, who organised an open letter supporting Henson from cultural delegates to the 2020 Summit, said the controversy also exposed distrust of the arts community.
“The thing that shocked me most of all about the debate was the perception that artists were above the law or were asking for special exemptions, but that was never the case,” she said. “There is a responsibility in the artistic community to address that.”
It has, of course, been addressed to some extent with the development of guidelines for artists working with minors by the Australia Council, after a request from Arts Minister Peter Garrett. But that, of course, is not as salacious a topic for the media than a beatup about putative pervs in schoolyards. Nevertheless, the disjunction between “the arts community” and publics who aren’t necessarily normally aware of its norms and practices is at the centre of all this. I didn’t know, for instance, that all manner of cultural and media industries folk seek permission regularly to utilise schools for casting, which has been the defence of Henson’s actions offered – see for example, this article in The Age by Peter Craven. A while back, my interest piqued by the whole Henson furore, I read American cultural historian Michael Kammen’s Visual Shock: A History of Art Controversies in American Culture.
Kammen was initially prompted to write by the fierce culture wars over art in the United States in the 1980s and the 1990s – revolving around artists such as Robert Mapplethorpe. But he ended up tracing disputes and controversies over all manner of public art – including memorials and edifices (his interest was also piqued by the argy bargy over Maya Lin’s design for the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington DC) – right to the beginnings of the Republic. The book is really a fascinating read, and I’d recommend it highly, but for our present purposes, what intrigued me was that he showed that the circles in which these disputes were conducted steadily widened over time – from within the “art world” or in regional or provincial newspapers to national disputes roping in politicians, all manner of media and cultural figures and discussed and disseminated widely over a national and sometimes international mediascape. He discusses this in terms of “democratisation” (and also refers to the lessons from public sculpture and mural commissions from as far back as the depression era). Put simply, at least potentially, the scope for public debate over art is much wider than when it was relatively confined to a much smaller circle of local worthies, patrons, and those within an art world or worlds.
Needless to say, that doesn’t imply that the quality of the discussion gets any better. But, then, if you go back to some of the nineteenth century controversies over, say, nudity in painting or expressionism, you don’t find a particularly learned and civil debate taking place either.
In his 1982 classic, Art Worlds, the distinguished sociologist Howard S. Becker mapped the reach and composition of the social networks which supported the creation of art. One of his insights, and I don’t know of any empirical mapping work done in Australia but I’m sure the results would be similar, was that the audience for many canonical or high cultural forms was composed to a very significant degree of those who’d been trained at some level in that form. Avant garde drama off Broadway, for instance, often played to audiences composed of as much as 40% of drama students and former drama students. Being close to the centre of these circles gave such aficionados something of a gatekeeper position, in a complementary way to the role of critics, gallery and museum directors, funding bodies, patrons and so on. If we stick with the image of concentric circles, as you get farther out towards the edge, the less the norms and codes particular to a form are known by those who might come into occasional contact with it.
Putting these two insights together seems to me to do something to back up Croggon’s comment and to explain why “the arts community” are often on the defensive in these culture wars – there’s a presumption made, which is just wrong, that others share their understanding of what constitutes normal or ethical practice, and perhaps also a presumption that others are equipped with the dispositions and learned capacities to appreciate particular forms of art (which I hasten to add, is an empirical observation and not a value judgement).
It seems to me that the democratisation of art wars is here to stay. Perhaps the challenge for the arts community lies in working towards the democratisation of art outside the sphere of occasional controversy. That’s easier said than done, of course.
Historically, in the West at least, since patronage of art ceased to be monopolised by the Church, one of the major ambitions of artists has been to transgress canons of taste and consensual notions of acceptability.
It is now impossible to conceive of western art as anything other than countercultural, whatever else it may also be.
The west is in a state of permanent culture war.
As Henson was trawling through a primary school looking for subjects to photograph, surely the principal should have sought parental approval as a matter of courtesy at least, before giving him a guided tour. After all, this wasn’t an invited guest addressing the students at assembly.
And as parental approval has to be given for children to participate in any number of activities, including class photos, IMO the principal was in error in not obtaining it.
jane, if you want to comment on that, please do so on the other thread. I’d like to keep this one for discussion of the issues I’ve actually raised. A vain hope perhaps as the thread develops, but still I’d appreciate it if you joined the discussion where it’s already ongoing:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/06/21/bill-henson-controversy-but-what-about-the-children/#comment-523465
But most art is highly democratic. Think of popular film, music, stage shows etc. Yes, there’s a smaller subset which is difficult and obscure. It’s like asking academics to tone sown their language so everyone can understand it. But the difficult work is necessary and often serves as research and development. How often have we seen art which is radical at one time, become mainstream at another? Impressionists, anyone?
I’m not sure that we’re using “democratic” in the same sense of the word, Fine!
Fair enough, Mark. how do you mean it?
I was thinking in terms of the converse of what’s occurring – an attempt to more widely disseminate knowledge of forms and practices – I guess, through education and communication strategies. Not saying that doesn’t occur now, but these episodes demonstrate the size of the challenge, I think.
Many, many years ago – 1989 to be precise – the New Left Party, during its formative stages, considered a draft arts policy formulated by its Brisbane group which argued that the party’s main focus for arts policy should be the democratisation of art both by greatly expanding support for actual and prospective artists to produce art, and (this was considered at least as important) greatly expanding the opportunities for ordinary people and local communities to come into contact with and “consume” art through various media.
The Brisbane NLP group’s proposal was defeated at the NLP Founding Conference in 1989 by those who, from a somewhat unreconstructed Marxist perspective, argued that “all art is political” and that therefore the democratisation of art should entail artists submitting their work for political invigilation and approval by committees of workers and citizens. One suspects that it is the latter conception of “democratisation” of art that Bill Henson’s critics would favour.
As a matter of historical interest the NLP folded in 1993.
I agree with that Mark. I think one of thngs that’s stopping it is that so much of the arts budget gets tied up in building edifices. Barry Kosky makes the strong point hat government is happy to build beautiful theatre and concert halls, but not happy to pay artists to properly develop work to fill these buildings.
It also reminds me of a recent episode of ‘The Hollowmen’ in which the PM wants a big arts building built for his legacy. The nerdy bureaucrats (who I love) come up with the idea of huge artist in the community program as the PM’s legacy. Deoesn’t go down too well of course. No red carpets to walk down.
But an extensive artist in the community and artist in schools program would be great. I know it already happens but it could much larger and better integrated.
Yep, that’s right, I think, Fine. Nothing Arts Ministers like better than plaques and opening nights and unveilings!
Had no idea it was Marr who had caused this most tabloid of beat ups. How egregious!
Too much of a headache to do the minutaea at the mo, just a couple of thoughts.
Don’t agree with Jane that we should deteriorate to the level of redneck dictatorship of the ignorant, complete with pit-bull thought-police.
Nonetheless, am surprised that Henson or his minions should be prowling the grounds of a primary school for subjects. Was all of this before the kerfuffle of a few months ago (eg, before Henson became “notorious”)?
What’s more with the remit of school head and parent groups (take note Jane!),according to a newspaper yesterday.
Finbally, yes, politicians love the oxygen of a photo opportunity. Both pros and cons will blossom forth like a dermal rash with this latest lot.
Maybe the perversion is in the eye of the beholder and the problem lies more with the lens used, in these cases usually tabloid media.
“Late in the afternoon I was advised by a friend, who was taking phone calls, to remove the images from “Photo of the Day” from my Web site: ‘The Sun’, Rupert Murdoch’s notorious daily tabloid was going after me and would have no qualms about taking images off the Web site. So I removed all the images from “Photo of the Day” from the Web, but left other work, which also featured my daughter. Someone from ‘The Sun’ took a picture from another body of work, cropped it from the sides, erased the background, manipulated the hair to look messy and placed black bars across her face and at the bottom of the image where the vulva would have been had the image been fully frontal (it was not). Next to my image they placed another image, one which they claimed to have taken from a “child porn site.” The images are similar in that both have white backgrounds, both contain young girls, both are cropped at the very top of the legs and both have black bars over the genital area and the eyes. The headline of this full-page spread read “One of the These Pictures Is From A Trendy London Gallery, the other is from a child porn site: Can You Tell The Difference?” For an entire week, ‘The Sun’, whose readership is in the millions, ran articles attacking me, called me a child pornographer, my work an “evil tide of filth,” and suggested that I be “dragged by the hair through the streets kicking and screaming.”
[Betsy Schneider in Chapter 21: "Not a Pretty Picture": Four photographers tell their personal stories about child "pornography" and censorship in 'Censoring Culture: Contemporary Threats to Free Expression' (2006), edited by Robert Atkins and Svetlana Mintcheva]
Films such as Baz Luhrmann’s Australia recruit child talent through schools. It’s hardly a disgusting practice. My Reflections on the Bill Henson witch-hunt has more detail.
Good point Kevin Rennie. And now the government is using the film to promote tourism. The hypocrisy is overwhelming.
Barry Kosky makes the strong point hat government is happy to build beautiful theatre and concert halls, but not happy to pay artists to properly develop work to fill these buildings.
.
That’s an Oz syndrome. It’s like the Melbourne museum. Great building, utter shite inside. Well not utter shite but uninspiring.
Paul – Many, many years ago – 1989 to be precise – the New Left Party, during its formative stages, considered a draft arts policy formulated by its Brisbane group which argued that…
.
Ah yes. The NLP, I once carried that card. Saying ‘formative’ like that implies that something formed.
.
… the party’s main focus for arts policy should be the democratisation of art both by greatly expanding support for actual and prospective artists to produce art, and (this was considered at least as important) greatly expanding the opportunities for ordinary people and local communities to come into contact with and “consume” art through various media.
.
Here I think of three texts,an artist and two critics.
.
Huysman’s The Damned is, in part, a late 19th century salvo fired at the Naturalists with whom classical bourgeois culture is associated. (The Picture of Dorian Grey is the English counterpart). The hero, in diatribe against the decline of aesthetic values associated with what we might call Economic Rationalism, declares that what’s really wrong with these people is that think Art is democratic. The point isn’t, as seems, an argument by an ultra-reactionary idealist of the ancien regime. It’s rather despair at the ugliness of modern technocratic designs and market-based evaluations of art.
.
The second is Robert Hughes’ The Culture of Complaint in which he cites the Dutch example as a clear case of public arts funding gone wrong. The Dutch government introduced a scheme whereby they were obliged to purchase any artwork by a Dutch citizen. And maintain it. This resulted in huge gluts of crap that apparently adorn mental hospitals and the like these days. Hughes says it’s politically correct but unfortunately not biodegradable.
.
My point here is that talk of the democratization of art has certain pitfalls based of the fact that most of us can’t cut it creatively. At least not to the extent that other people would pay attention. And subsidizing art without any serious observance of this fact carries with it the danger that the Culture Industries will fill to the brim with schlock and subsidize people who’s schema is to exploit this for reasons other than fulfilling a creative vocation. People will object but I’ve seen it happen, I continue to. And it makes me angry because there are many worthier artists who’re marginalized by these masters of self-promotion.
.
The third is Herbert Read’s views on the subject. His advocacy of ‘public patronage’ takes into account both the aristocratic nature of artistic excellence, its conflict with market forces, restrictions ot entry via the privileges and monopoly onculture of certain classes and the need for freedom of expression.
.
One of those British radicals who were also anti-Communist. And a knight of the realm?! A very British thing to beknight an anarchist. And a very British anarchist that accepts a knighthood.
It it not worrying to anyone that the art censorship/freedom of speech issue seems to have been co-opted to deflect focus from the art-market grooming and sexual exploitation of this young girl?
For a high profile journalist and card-carrying civil-libertarian to be at the vanguard of the anti-censorship sidelining of the child protection issue while at the same time in negotiations with his publisher, Michael Heyward, a friend of Henson , to write ‘The Henson Case’, is a little concerning (http://article.wn.com/view/2008/10/09/With_friends_like_Marr_Henson_not_short_of_enemies/).
Also of concern is the inclusion in ‘The Henson Case’ of a never previously published full-frontal nude (this time) photograph of the girl(except for the restored exhibition and the gallery website in May/June) in the colour plate section.
If consent was provided by the girl/girl’s parents, etc, what kind of persuasive argument was presented to her? What was the publishing rationale behind it? Whose freedoms are being fully expressed here? Was it just a cynical exercise to sell more copies, like any cheap tabloid? Is this just a two-fingered salute to the philistines and wowsers? A provocation to the Police? Or just one of those glorious moments of triumph by the powerful over the weak?
Are there no boundaries left to violate? Is there no end to civil-libertarian hypocrisy?
For Marr to assume that the cosy relationships between the Oxleys, Sue Cato (Henson’s one-woman PR machine), Jen Minchin (Tolarno Galleries), and Alison Croggon (Theatre Notes) are beyond question or reproach seems oddly naive for a lawyer and journalist of his standing.
Does he see nothing ‘irregular’ in the close ties between the artist, the gallerists, and his own publisher that could place his integrity as an impartial journalist in question?
Does he see nothing incestuous about the close consultations between all of the above during Croggin’s repeated drafting of the 2020 Open Letter, when the final draft was given the nod by Henson?
Was the community made aware of Henson’s involvement in the 2020 Open Letter?
So much from freedom of speech and any notion of Marr as an independent journalist!
Perhaps with respect to a less serious issue a little hypocritical lapse might be forgiven.
But so many boundaries violations have been ‘normalised’ by Marr’s selective reorganization of the facts that I am beginning to wonder whether the prosecution failed and the debate died of natural causes, given his unflagging revisionism.
‘Alice’, you posted much the same pile of crap at Crazybrave a few days ago, under the nom ‘mugsey’.
Hint: some of us read more than one blog, even though you clearly don’t.
Laura
Did you leave the same “response” over there as well? Blogs are about discussions, not snitches claiming “Gotcha” nom-de-blog. Swicthing and baiting is surely tired and unhelpful?
Alice/Liza, if you’re going to argue your case, it might be helpful if you at least maintained consistency in one moniker on a single blog! It’s also a marker of actual discussion that you post something that responds to the particular post and the discussion that’s transpired, not some general stuff at multiple blogs. The comment you posted here is in no way responsive to the post, and I’ve specifically said I wanted debate to focus on the issues I raised, not ones that are extraneous to the post.
For the record: I have never met, in my life, David Marr or Sue Cato. I maybe said hello once to Jan Minchin, during the 2020 conference. I met Bill Henson in 1998, when I published some of his photographs in a small magazine called Masythead, and have never met nor spoken to him since.
I’m not at all sure how this constitutes a “cosy relationship”.
Nor did Henson have anything at all to do with the drafting of the letter. The final draft was in fact given “the nod” by me, after an exhaustive process of consultation with the signatories. I did not necessarilu incorporate all suggestions, although I listened to them. That’s why it’s my signature at the bottom.
It would be nice if people confined themselves to commenting on verifiable facts, instead of making up their own. But perhaps too much to hope for in this case.
‘Alice’ posted something near identical at Skepticlawyerdotcom. S/he’s obviously some crusading propagandist for Concerned Citizens Against Showering In the Nude, perhaps even the President of The Penis is Evil, the Clitoris is Satanic – Don’t Do It Or You’ll Smile and Forget To Go To Church.
.
In keeping with the honesty, humility, love and consideration for others that Our Lord Jesus Christ (may he have many comfortable cushions to soften the chafing as he turns over and over and over again in his grave) declared to be the Way, the Truth and the Light s/he’s decided to be an irrational and scolding liar.
Right wing nutbags have ruined Web Diary on this topic also
As I was previously unaware of the alternate thread, I posted here because I assumed my comment was relevant to the topic of the democratisation of art.
Creative opportunity and fulfilment is, I believe, premised upon the preservation of well-bounded and safe conditions for the healthy psychological development of children fundamental to their self-esteem, confidence, the blossoming of their creative potential, and sense of expressive freedom.
‘Freedom from’ is the psychological foundation of ‘freedom to’, something that has been overlooked by many participants in this debate. The collective unwisdom of the Creative Stream’s ‘Open Letter’, in its defense of Bill Henson as scapegoat and martyr to art censorship, will go down in history as one of the grand follies of the Henson debate.
With respect to Mark’s request, I post now only with respect to Allison Croggon’s comment (then no more on this thread).
['It would be nice if people confined themselves to commenting on verifiable facts, instead of making up their own. But perhaps too much to hope for in this case'.]
As I have taken these ‘facts’ from Marr’s book perhaps the verifiability issue rests with him.
All quotes below are from ‘The Henson Case’, Chapter 6, ‘2020′, pp 76-84.
It seems that while Henson was under investigation and lying doggo, Alison Croggin was busily dragooning support for the ‘2020 Open Letter in Support of Bill Henson’ (published 27/05/08).
According to Marr:
‘Next morning, Monday 26 May, encouraged by the response to her email, she alerted the list that she was now drafting the letter. Sue Cato heard what was afoot from Jan Minchin of Tolarno Galleries where Henson exhibits in Melbourne. Cato kept a close eye on the various drafts of the letter over the next couple of days. After consulting her, Minchin emailed Croggin at 9.50am:
“The 2020 stream have to remember that we all need a supportive government and vibrant sector. Any letters/ad etc. should be a request to reconsider, provide more information and show support for Henson and the gallery – simply attacking the government gets us nowhere. It is the police making the decision on charges – not the government”…’
Marr goes on:
‘Croggon’s first draft was swiftly condemned as too tough on the Prime Minister. Cato rang her and Croggon sent delegates notes of their conversation: “Henson is mostly concerned that further damage – especially to those families and young people – is as limited as possible…He would prefer that the controversy is not escalated. I think Henson’s feelings on this ought to be respected…Cato made the point…”‘, etc, etc.
Marr continues:
‘Blanchett persuaded Croggin to change tack: Instead of rebuking Rudd they should urge the NSW authorities not to prosecute…’. Finally, according to Marr, Croggin drafted the Open Letter in the wee hours of May 27th, which she emailed to her fellow delegates, concluding: ‘”I hope you all think it is a worthy document in defence of Henson’s work and ultimately our own”‘. Marr then writes: ‘Henson read the final draft. Melbourne University Press publisher Louise Adler tweaked the rhetoric of the opening lines’ (pp78 – 83).
If Marr has reported accurately on events, perhaps Alison Croggon is being disingenuous in denying her connections to various associates of Henson during the drafting of the ‘Open Letter’ which, far from being a reasoned argument against censorship, amounted to no less than a full-flight panegyric in defense of Bill Henson that was, no doubt unwittingly, a godsend to behind-the-scenes machinations to silence and obstruct debate.
I use “cosy” and “close” figuratively here to refer to associations typically formed to achieve certain mutual outcomes or mutual advantages. Organising anything depends upon co-operation and collaboration and doesn’t at all require intimate friendship or long-standing social connection, as any mother of a school-age child well knows. Direct contact between protagonists is not required as networking develops. All that’s required is a shared aim or outcome and the communication channels by which this may be collectively achieved (and extremely rapidly via the internet!). Pragmatic, casual political alliances are the paradigm case.
It goes without saying that alliances may be healthy or perverse, open or clandestine, conscious or unwitting, but it seems to me that – by drawing upon their privileged collective status and power networks to sway public opinion via an Open Letter in support of Bill Henson (that was simultaneously produced in distant collusion with Henson and his spin doctor), the members of the ‘2020′ Creative Stream reneged upon their overarching responsibilities to the community to behave with circumspection and integrity, and instead acted ‘ultra vires’ and without ethics.
Had Henson ultimately been vindicated (and these political interferences ensured that this would never happen!), could there still have been any justification for this network of influence-peddling under the auspices of the taxpayer-funded ‘2020 Summit’?
If a collective ‘2020′ statement was deemed essential to communicate widespread arts community concerns about art censorship, could this not have been more appropriately achieved by an independent statement from members of the Creative Stream to this effect?
Did the anti-censorship cause really require a detailed gesture of solidarity with, and the virtual taking of instructions from, the Machiavellian PR machine of a man under police investigation at the time?
It seems to me that, as with the ‘grooming’ of the family and the headmistress, the members of the Creative Stream were sitting ducks in their post-Howard art-censorship panic for recruitment into a cunning stratagem by bigger and cleverer forces to obstruct the police prosecution and to silence community debate. In doing so, they tarnished themselves both by deed and association.
Such is the broad scope and manipulative power of this corrupting dynamic that an art world has been hoodwinked, a family groomed, a child mesmerized, a headmistress duped, a coterie manipulated, and a journalist bedazzled. This is a familiar, sinister old story with a slippery new twist, now seemingly too entrenched to rectify.
What’s your real name, Alice?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Alice, I’ve never read a bigger load of bullshit in my life.
Bullshit only comes in very large doses!