<img src="http://larvatusprodeo.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/henson-cover.jpg" align=left Well, I shelled out $24.95 for David Marr’s book, The Henson Case. I’m still inclined to think that Marr is being a bit disingenuous in claiming that he’s horrified and surprised by the furore that’s arisen over the “scouting in schools” affair/beat up and I still think it raises some broader questions about the appropriateness of the use of schools for any commercial/culture industries purposes, but that horse has probably bolted now. I’m not sure everyone’s aware that this particular media storm didn’t arise via some journo or researcher for tv or radio pouring over the book and striking headline paydirt on p. 108. Marr was actually the first to highlight this aspect of the book, featuring it in an article he wrote for his own Sydney Morning Herald on Friday – tagged as an exclusive. The book wasn’t on sale on Monday, and advance copies would have been tightly controlled by his publisher prior to that – I can’t see Alan Jones or Andrew Bolt or whoever being on Text Inc’s reviewers list.
I really don’t think Marr is so naive as to believe that others in the media wouldn’t pick up on that one aspect and make it into a very predictable story – as a senior journalist, and a former host of Media Watch, and incidentally someone who traces minutely and with great acuity the process by which the Henson story blew up in the first place (and displays an intimate knowledge of pr strategies) in his book. While Pavlov’s Cat has a lot of things to say that I agree with in this excellent post, I would respectfully disagree with her argument that Marr, publisher Michael Heyward and Text Inc. wouldn’t be attentive to the need for publicity for the book. Sure, Marr’s a very well known writer and the case was big news. But attention spans are short, and surely the whole point of marketing in book publishing is to create a buzz about a book and generate free publicity. When I bought it on Monday in a Brisbane CBD bookshop, it had been walking out the door and I was lucky to grab the last copy.
Marr makes much of the trust that Henson placed in him. He’s much better placed than many authors to generate his own publicity, putting his other hat on as a journo and writing an “exclusive” – a scoop – for the SMH. If he wasn’t conscious of what aspects others in the media would have highlighted, he’s naive, and I can’t believe that. There’s much to agree with in Marr’s book (and I’ll come back and write a review of it later), but let’s not forget that he is himself part of the self same media as the baddies in The Henson Case are, and it would hardly be surprising if he was motivated by what motivates journos. He’s certainly not above criticism, even if you agree with a lot of what he’s saying. And I think he probably has betrayed Henson’s trust – either by design or by failing to foresee the consequences of writing that story. Incidentally, the strongest image you’re left with of Henson himself from reading the book is of someone who’s a bit like the subjects in his own images – strangely disconnected from an ominous and puzzling yet familiar landscape. Henson is portrayed as a very isolated man unable to see why controversy attaches itself to his work, and quite alone in a society he chooses not to engage very much. (I’m not sure that rings entirely true from other passages in the book, but it’s clearly the aspect of Henson’s personality Marr emphasises.)
Ps – Henson also takes a swipe at feminists in the book, but I doubt that’s going to generate too many “shock, horror!” stories.
Is there any indication of the process of consultation, if any, between Marr and Henson in the construction/editing of the book?
In other words, is Henson acknowledged as having any input into the shape and content of the book?
I think it was a Kaelesque “How can that be? No one I know thinks it’s a problem.” moment. He actually thought it would be supportive to Henson. Or as Scott Adams once put it:
3. I AM THE WORLD
Example: I don’t listen to country music. Therefore, country music is not popular.
That’s from the acknowledgements, Katz.
Pity they had to use the girl for the cover ( reminds me of an old David Bowie cover.)
Precious!
Oh God, I’d never argue that, and if that’s what it looks like I said then I have expressed it very badly. For a start, as I think I suggested in the post, any writer or publisher who avoids publicising a book has obviously got something a bit wrong with them. I quoted the Heyward grab verbatim because it was out there and it was from the publishing horse’s mouth. But in both his case and Marr’s, one can be aware of the effect something might have without that being one’s main reason for doing it.
I think I was mainly reacting to what seemed to me a very simplistic and knee-jerk piling-on, around the traps bloggy and otherwise, to David Marr, and a lot of automatic shining of the worst possible (and again very simplistic) light on his motives and character. None of which is to say that he is above criticism; nobody is. But there’s a big gap between those two positions.
Regarding the article in the Friday SMH — it’s a very unusual situation in that Marr is both the author of the book and an SMH journo. The alternatives were to have someone else write the article, or not to run an article at all, neither of which would have made much sense.
As for the swipe at feminists, well, no surprises there, as you suggest. All hail the Hivemind, etc.
Presumably, Henson was Marr’s source for the St Kilda Park anecdote.
Given that this book was conceived and written after the Sydney furore, Henson is either oblivious to the scandal that such a story is likely to generate, or actively seeks to provoke it.
Henson’s permissive attitude to Marr’s use of his story and his reputation. My guess is the latter. Henson wishes to confront head-on the moral panic his work has produced, not with counter-polemic, but rather by showing by example the artistic merit (as he understands it) of his work.
Yes, it does put him in a very odd position, Dr Cat.
I guess what I was going on was your comment that Text Inc and Marr wouldn’t “actually need to tout for book sales, and wouldn’t even if he did”. It seems to me he is – he’s running around the shop giving talks and interviews and writing more articles (he was in Brisbane tonight) and it’s more than a usual promo tour and is being reported as news. I doubt he would have found it so easy to be interviewed on Lateline without the “news hook”, and then his reaction to the furore of course keeps the media cycle going for a few more days up until the actual publication date.
His motives could of course be otherwise, but it’s really clear in the book itself that he understands better than most (as you would expect, as I say) how all this works.
I really can’t see that he needed to include the bit about the schools in the article, and I also think that he hasn’t been acknowledging in interviews that he was the one who put it out there while loudly condemning Bill Leak, other journos, etc, for running with the story. Of course that condemn may be warranted, but I just don’t see how someone who has worked in the media for so long and understands it so well would be in the slightest bit surprised that the school story played out as it did.
That’s clear from the Friday article, Katz. There’s a direct quote from Henson talking about it.
I think that may be right. But one of the disappointing aspects of Marr’s book is that he doesn’t really defend the artistic merit – there’s lots of assertions from authority sorta thing – high profile New York gallery director prepared to testify at trial, Edmund Capon, awards, international rep, blah blah, but while Marr does refer to his own (ambivalent) feelings about the images, there isn’t really any defence of their merit and value in critical terms as such.
I’m not familiar enough with Marr’s other work to know if this would be off his turf. But if so, surely it would have been possible to quote others. Occasionally there are snippets but only within the narrative of how the press storm played out. It’s odd because it sort of reinforces one of the themes Marr deals with – the dissonance between the art world and people not attuned to it. I sort of also got the idea that he’s doing a bit of self positioning himself and holding back from an overt defence of Henson on artistic grounds. I think he thinks the civil liberties grounds are stronger.
Marr’s book sounds fairly meretricious.
Just to sharpen what I’m saying about the way Marr is talking about the reporting of the school stuff – from the Lateline transcript from Monday night:
I think this is pretty disingenuous. I think most people would have been left with the impression that the schools stuff was picked up by others and beaten up, but it’s only a minor part of the book etc etc and Marr couldn’t understand why it had been highlighted. But he wrote about it in the first newspaper article on all this.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2383376.htm
Yes, I thought that was probably it, and I did put it badly. I should have added ‘by stooping to the depths of deliberate sensationalist beat-up.’
The publicity round you describe would be par for the course with this kind of book, but I agree that because he’s an insider he would get more opportunities than most. And that’s further heightened by the fact that he is a terrific speaker and generally in demand for public appearances. Publishers and their publicists would regard him as a godsend — some writers are slobby, inarticulate, mumblers and/or drunks.
Yes, that sounds right to me.
I’m not sure he deliberately provoked the sensationalism, but I don’t believe that he was surprised by it. Or at least he shouldn’t be. And I do think that goes to his responsibility to Henson – not that authors have an absolute responsibility to subjects they write about, but it’s pretty clear that Henson felt that few people would represent him reasonably, and that Marr would, or at least that’s the impression we’re left with from Marr.
Oh FFS, could Kim or some other kind person put that first par of #10 in blockquotes properly so that the comment is comprehensible? Sorry.
Done!
But that Marr attempts to defend Henson on civil liberties grounds is itself a lazy cop-out.
The sleaziest pr0nographer is a sterner test of civil liberties arguments than Henson, who I am fairly confident would not lkie his work to be in the same category as pr0n.
Thanks Kim.
I might have guessed that that malignant growth Devine would have been somewhere at the bottom of it all.
Wasn’t Marr for Demidenko’s work before he was against it?
And nowhere in Heywoods work on Ern Malley does he mention the famous ‘cut-up’ collage and bricolage with found objects work of the surrealists.
My point is not to look for conspiracy where common blind spots will do.
None of us has access to perfect information, except maybe William of Occam.
The compromise I believe I saw floated here during the first Henson panic was that he, and artists like him, be allowed the same access rights to schools as politicians and other adults and they that be allowed to take their photos etc with the child and parents written permission.
And then when the model was of adult age ( 21) and affirmed the permission that any exhibitions or whatever take place.
This strikes me as sensible outcome that should be agreeable to all but the most heavily armored culture war crusaders on the one side and social libertarians on the other. The net does change everything and hopefully the net consensus will support this compromise solution. I don’t think any sensible person wants witch-hunts OR child Porners. Even if the best we can hope for in an imperfect world is to minimize, and not eliminate both these manifest evils.
The still eye at the centre of this hurricane in a coffee mug is that Bill has been at this for 30 years or so and not one single person featured in or directly touched by his work and operating methods has ever complained.
It’s just another one of these moral panics that substitutes for real news these days.
And what FDB said about Henson’s lack of support for inner city music venues – where many of his models could be found.
I agree that the picture (which is reprinted in full on one of the inside pages of David Marr’s book) probably does not fall within the legal definition of pornography. However, whether you call it art or porn, the fact remains that a photo which depicts a naked underage girl has been published for commercial gain. I personally do not think the picture is revolting, but I do not think it is particularly pretty either. While I am not disgusted by the image, I do believe it is inappropriate for an underage naked child to be subject to public scrutiny in this manner. If the author and/or publisher of David Marr’s book are adamant that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the photo, one wonders why they decide to use a “toned-down” version of the image (showing just the girl’s face and shoulders without her breasts) on the front cover of the book. The image as reproduced on the book cover, in my view, sufficiently captures the innocence of the young girl. Was it truly necessary for her breasts to be shown on the photo?
“one wonders why they decide to use a “toned-down” version of the image (showing just the girl’s face and shoulders without her breasts) on the front cover of the book. ”
Well duh. Australian law don’t allow you to view actual nipples displayed in print in display racks in venues open to the general public. Why do you think the editors and art directors of all those soft porn mags on sale in the 7-11s don’t go the full bap in the unwrapped rack versions?
On the other hand though, there’s been heaps of pre-nubile titty action on display at NGV for over a century.
The book has very good reproductions in it. So Text did well on that front. I think that’s a contribution; no bloody pixilating of faces or sensationalist black bars.
I too was a bit disappointed by the lack of discussion of the pictures as pictures – never mind defence of them – though I can imagine it would be difficult to weave that sort of writing into a book that is basically a chronology. Still, Marr is a literary biographer, and interspersing comment on artworks with narration of events surrounding them is pretty much what they do.
According to Marr, the picture of N has been cleared by the Classification Board as “G”, i.e., general release, and safe for children to view. As far as the Classification Board is concerned, the picture is simply not porn (soft or hard), and is to be distinguished from the soft porn mags you see at 7-11s. There seems no legal reason why the full picture could not have been used as the book cover.
On page 122 of Marr’s book, it is said that one of the factors the DPP took into account in determining whether the pictures would cause offence to a reasonable person was “the identity, status and reputation of the artist”. Does this mean that if the same picture had been taken by an unknown photographer (or a photography student), he or she might have been prosecuted? Sounds like what the law is protecting is not so much freedom of expression, but “rich and famous” artists who are already established in the art world.
Interesting point bdbd.
How on earth can legal authorities judge a representation not by its content but by the perceived status of the person sho constructed the representation?
It’s absurd. Prominent artist A can exhibit as legitimately her own a piece of work and then fess up that it was in fact created by pr0nographer B.
The same piece of work may be kosher under Condition A, but illegal under Condition B.
You seem to be arguing that reputation is either worthless or doesn’t exist at all. It’s not about being rich and famous, it’s about having a long track record for being a certain kind of artist.
Given the well-canvassed difficulties of the pr0n/erotica distinction and the degree to which the difference is in the eye of the unknowable beholder, when you’re trying to decide whether something is pr0n or not then surely the usual behaviour of the person who produced it should be part of the discussion?
But the law says that the relevant personage isn’t “the unknowable beholder”, but rather “the reasonable person”.
Does a “reasonable person” take the reputation of a maker of representations into account when she decides that something falls on one side or the other of the pr0n line?
Well, it’s a defence available under the NSW Crimes Act, Katz – artists have to demonstrate their intentions are “genuine” and conduct “reasonable”. But Marr reports that the DPP didn’t really have to consider this bit because the photographs weren’t of children “in a sexual context” or “engaged in a sexual activity”.
Yes. Here’s the relevant statute
For a person to be found guilty s/he would have to act “unreasonably” outside the bounds described above and that person would need to produce a representation that a reasonable person would consider to be obscene.
Art is deemed to be of identical public benefit purpose as science and medecine, etc.
But again, the criterion for “public benefit purpose” isn’t what the “unknowable mind” of the artist may conceive it to be, but rather what a reasonable person (not an artist) would consider to be an activity in pursuit of a “public benefit purpose”.
Two juries may or may not find it difficult to determine with a reasonable level of consistency what does, in fact, constitute a “public benefit purpose”.
It is clear, however, that the law does not expect to jury to take the artist’s word that her work was for a “public benefit purpose”.
“But that Marr attempts to defend Henson on civil liberties grounds is itself a lazy cop-out”
Er .. why? I would have thought that as a lawyer he is on firmer ground arguing from this position rather than trying to define what is art and the artistic merits of Henson’s practice. It is obvious to me that Marr wanted to bring on this controversy. In the end he has brought out the people most affected by the “scouting incident”, those who are actually involved with the school. And most of them look like they don’t have a problem with it. Which of course means that Devine has to draft them into the pervert pen. Only after a while she starts to look a bit of a fool, I mean she’s up against someone called Trevor Marmalade who appears to be an articulate and passionate supporter of the principal and her judgement. Marr is baiting Devine. And BTW where’s Hetty?
Is Marr a lawyer?
From Wikipedia
“David Marr (b. 1947 in Sydney) is an openly gay Australian journalist and author. He was educated at the Sydney Church of England Grammar School and the University of Sydney, where he graduated in Arts and Law.”
Thanks, Patrick – didn’t know that.
I think Marr is naive enough to not understand why trawling through schoolyards might be considered contentious. My issue is not with Henson however, but rather with the Principal. How did she know that Henson was not a perve? OK, he’s a well known artist, but consider the downside if her assessment of him was wrong.
She was clearly not cogniscent of her duty of care to her students. Actually, I think here behaviour was verging on reckless.
Had a discussion with a number of teachers on the issue. None of them could understand the principal’s actions and they are all fairly broad minded people.
But that to one side, what I was outraged at in the Henson article was not the nature of the images (I have concerns about them, and agree with the comments above about withholding images until the subject is of an age to provide reasonable consent) but Henson’s attitude to payment.
I can’t remember the exact quote, but it seems he approaches potential models with the ‘you can be paid if you want to be, or you can do it for free’ line.
To me, this is exploitation (and possibly illegal).
He is taking photos of these individuals with the clear purpose of making money from the sale of the photos. They should be paid. Full stop. They should especially be paid if they are vulnerable minors, who don’t understand their entitlements.
I don’t believe that Henson would be receptive if I approached him and offered to take a photo off his hands for free. Therefore he should not accept models posing for free. He should pay them. If they refuse payment, he should still write a cheque and give it to them. They don’t have to cash it.
One of his former models (according to Marr) said that he would love to have one of the photos Henson took (of his girlfriend, who has since died). He can’t afford one. There’s no suggestion that Henson is going to give him one.
To me, these factors cast more moral doubt on Henson than the photographs.
Plus ca change eh? I remember a similar storm about an image of a naked 12 yo on the cover of a Blind Faith record back in the late 60s. And so the culture wars drag on! Why was there no controversy when the huge Henson retrospective was on at the AGNSW and the NGV in 2005. The blurb from the AGNSW reads:
Who cares about all this fancy, arty stuff? say the culture warriors. We represent ordinary folks and in our eyes, he’s nothing more than a sinister pedophile. It may have been more understandable if all the moral panic had exploded only after the “primary school trawling” saga but it was the trailblazing Miranda’s article in the Snerald about a Henson exhibition in an inner-city art gallery that started everything. I wonder if Miranda wrote in such outraged terms about the 2005 retrospective (I’m not sure if she was writing for the Tele in those days) and if not, why not, because there were plenty of images in that exhibition that would have raised the ire of moral crusaders.
I have to say that Miranda’s latest article, in Thursday’s Snerald (“A Creepy Visit to the Playground” Oct 9) maybe betrays some of the weird undercurrents in issues such as this..
She uses terms such as “children’s ripening bodies”, “pubescents”, “budding breasts” – who’s the creepy one again?
This whole thing is new to me – I’m not arty. So I’m still very much at the stage of trying to form a position.
But I am concerned about public display of nude early teenagers, and the processes that lead to such photos being taken. I don’t believe that 13 year olds can give fully informed consent. How can they anticipate the kind of ragging they might get in the future? Or how they will feel about the photos in later years? Nor am I convinced that all parents can be trusted to always make decisions in the best long-term interests of their children. I’m uncomfortable with the idea of any visitor being allowed to wander round a school thinking about what students might look like with their clothes off, regardless of whether that interest is professional or sleezy. It also worries me that a legitimate artist could well be opening the door for people with dubious motives.
It annoys me that supporters of Henson are so keen to portray these concerns as accusations that Henson is a paedophile. I don’t yet have a fixed position yet on any of these matters but do believe that some Henson supporters are being too stridently dismissive of views other than their own. Presumably some of that attitude comes from personal annoyance that Henson is ‘under attack’. To which I’d say, that if you’re going to be in the business of publishing nude photographs of young teenagers, you’d better have a very thick skin.
Jenny, my advice would be to go and read the Dr ( of philosophy)) Lesley Cannold, article; 7/10 in the “Age” and see if it freshens up your outlook up a bit. Hysteria and priggishness have run rampant, and this article is the definitive bracer.
How greatful the Fearful will be to be back in Reality, free of their turgid, salacious phobias, after a quick read.
paul walter:
Thanks for that. I found the article interesting and persuasive of the value of such photographs, but didn’t really dispel my concerns. It did at least alter my cost benefit equation.
I don’t like the thought that Henson mentally undressed kids in the playground.
To me, this is exploitation
.
Nonsense. How is it exploitation? By what mechanism does Henson compel people to model for him? People often model for artists for nothing.
.
I don’t like the thought that Henson mentally undressed kids in the playground.
.
You lot just don;t get it do you? It’s Art. It’s about aesthetics – Beauty. It has nothing to do with pornography or salacious predation. In these days where the body is a commodified object artists who depict it as a thing of beauty are to be appluaded. But no. We all feel this anxiety in general about the commodification of sex and what do we do?
.
We go off our heads and start blasting in a direction that will do nothing of any use at all.
.
No-one involved has complained. You think it’s pornographic? Well you people should be heading over to the NGV. There’s a bust of a young lass by Houdon (that nefarious letch). She’s about 13. The bust depicts her from the chest up – unclothed – Horror!
.
It ain’t Henson. It’s you!
Marr is baiting Devine.
.
To a certain extent but I think it’s broader than all that. Marr is, as someone’s pointed out, gay. He grew up during a fairly repressed time in this country’s history. The Howard years saw a partial push back to this era. When Kevvie came out with his me-too song and dance it probably set Marr’s hackles rising.
.
This is a gauntlet. He wants a scrap. In my opinion it probably isn’t wise. It will be interesting however if this thing really blows up into legislative proportions and if Turnbull persists in defending the artist to see if the so-called luvvies switch back to the right.
.
Don;t laugh. It has happened. Consider the early 17th century. ‘Twas the Establishment that turned out the the perverted arts and the radicals who were the model of propriety.
And by Christ, Adrien, you don’t get someone more authoritarian, hung up and absolutely straight-jacketed by religious and ideological dogma, than Devine, do you?
Absolutely no self reflexive knowledge of herself, which I pity rather than despise in her -in a sense as much a victim and a captive as her victims.
How can you have consciousness when the nearest you have to an article of faith is bad faith; free floating malice and spite rationalised and valorised as virtue?
Yes well Houdon is one thing, however had Cellini come searching for models, a sixteenth century family would have been forgiven for setting the dogs on him. I’m not sure what all these references to darling cherubs in renaissance art and later really do for the argument as those were not times known for enlightened treatment of women and children.
I’m not sure what all these references to darling cherubs in renaissance art and later really do for the argument as those were not times known for enlightened treatment of women and children.
.
Yes indeed. It wasn’t the Church, the nobility, the crass mob or the mercenary bloodlusts – it was Caravaggio. My point is simply that the depiction of nudity of many ages is traditional. That’s all.
.
I’m in agreement that artistic exceptionalism ends where people’s right to not be exploited begins. But here’s the thing: there is no exploitation. None, I shall say it twice, none of those actually involved have said anything but positive things about their experiences with Henson – not one. Where’s the ill-treatment? Where is it? No-one who’s got kids at that school has anything but praise for its principal. Again where’s the abuse? Where’s the crime? Where is it?
.
It’s all do to with peoples’ discomfort and their assumption that the depiction of nudity is an inherent production of pornographic imagery. The thing is it’s a depiction of nudity that is not pornographic. It’s ethereal and for that reason should be celebrated. Kevvie’s wrong it ain’t revolting – it’s beautiful. That remark reminds me of Carrie’s mother. Not to mention those dirty-minded nasty shits who tried their level best to make me feel like a freak when I was a teenager.
.
My thesis: People are taking out a general anxiety about sexual mores in flux, increasing knowledge of paedophilia, the commodification of sexuality on an easy target. It’s scapegoating. It’s burning Jews on account of the Plague.
Paul – Absolutely no self reflexive knowledge of herself
.
.
Yes well she’s a professional.
.
How can you have consciousness when the nearest you have to an article of faith is bad faith; free floating malice and spite rationalised and valorised as virtue?
.
I believe that’s what passes for virtue amongst a certain section of the Righteous these days. Hang on. That’s what’s always defined virtue for that lot. Point finger, cry evil: proceed to commit acts of unimaginable savagery. It’s what the good people do.
Somewhere on this array of Henson posts a person calls herself Alice made a few comments. She’s done the same at Skepticlawyer.
.
She provided a link to this thoughtful but (IMHO) mistaken piece. Thought it worth a hoy.
Why that curious turn of phrase person who calls himself Adrien?
What do you suspect about her that leads you not to accept the bona-fides of her blog-name, which she can pretty much choose for herself?
Snap, Adrien. This rang bells with me too.
GregM, the person who calls ‘herself’ Alice’s round-the-bloggy-traps behaviour under various aliases is what has made a number of people suspicious.
Thanks PC. I don’t keep up with blogs enough to keep up with that. But where there are multiple assumed identities being used in order to mislead/deceive then I would want to see them exposed.
I would want, though, more than suspicions, which get us into all sorts of trouble as, in a recent example, Kevin Andrews found out.
Let’s wait to see what evidence Adrien has.
Very interesting link. I wonder if ‘herself’ will turn up here again.