World renowned photographic artist, Bill Henson, is once again embroiled in controversy. Australian artist, Bill Henson, has had his share of controversy over the years. His propensity for photographing young people in varying poses has been both enlightening and sometimes disconcerting. His latest exhibition is proving to be the most controversial in his career.
The police have stated they intend laying charges. Due to open on Thursday, 22 nd May, Henson's latest exhibition never got off the ground. Before the doors even opened, police arrived, viewed the exhibits and closed the doors. Art lovers turned up only to be disappointed.
The problem? Naked photos of children, and in particular a series of a girl who was 12 at the time, and is now 13.
The police took a number of exhibits away and stated they would be interviewing Henson, the Gallery owner, the girl and her parents. The controversy has been swift and divided. Many have sided with the artist, but there have been more and louder voices against the artist.
Where does legitimate art end and exploitation begin?
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with nudity. It is the natural state of the body. Children, especially, are beautiful when naked; there is beauty in all bodies, including the elderly. And, the question must be asked, If the children in the photographs were ten years younger, would there be any controversy?'
Probably not. I won't say definitely not, but on the whole, we accept photographs of naked little children, although they rarely show any genitalia. I don't believe any of these photographs show genitalia, but they do show the budding breasts of the girl.
In all fairness to the artist, Henson probably only sees artistic purity in his photographs. He sought and obtained permission from the young models and their parents. Children and adolescents are a primary artistic interest of his work and he has had exhibitions acclaimed worldwide. He has defended his work as seeking to explore "something which is absolutely inviolate and unknowable." He has told The Australian (a national newspaper): "You can't control the way individuals respond to the work."
However, he must have known there might be obstacles ahead. Perhaps, though, not as large as they are currently looming.
So, is the police action prudish, reactionary, Victorian, narrow-minded and uninformed? Many would say so. Does it reflect society's expectations and values? Definitely, in part at least. The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, said it was "revolting." He added, "Kids deserve to have the innocence of their childhood protected. Whatever the artistic view of the merits of that sort of stuff - frankly I don't think there are any - just allow kids to be kids."
There is no simple black and white answer. The question is complex and makes us look at our values as a society. Even if we have an immediate reaction to the idea of naked children, especially prepubescent girls, should we avoid a knee-jerk reaction? And would the same reaction be as intense if the main series was of a 12 year old boy? There are photographs of a boy of similar age, but the focus (no pun intended) has been aimed at the series of the girl.
Children are precious. They must be protected. It is our responsibility as parents, adults, society and government to ensure no-one harms them. Sometimes, parents are not the best people to protect children, even well-meaning ones. In this day and age of 'fame' and 'notoriety' it is easy to see that some loving but naive parents might not make the best or most sound choices. It has been clearly stated that the girl in this series gave her permission. Can a 12 year old girl really be informed enough to make such a decision? The answer to that question is clear. No. Does that make it any the less true art? Again, no. Does it matter? Therein, lies the problem.
I am totally against censorship in art. I deplore 'book burning' and silencing of any artistic endeavor just because it is controversial or difficult. There are some things, however, that make me question that belief. This is one of them. Would reactions be the same if they were paintings or sketches rather than photographs? No, I don't think so provided they were not suggestive or pornographic. I would see nothing wrong with it. The quality of the paintings, and the artistic merit would be the only interest.
The reason for this controversy, of course, is that this exhibition is a photographic one, and the children are, therefore, very real. This adds a degree of explicitness. Several of the photographs have been shown in the media, with black bands providing privacy. They are dark photographs, sombre in tone, and the girl is posed. She is prepubescent, on the verge of developing her womanly body. There is a legitimacy to exploring this stage of life. Other photographs depict boys of a similar age, and both sexes at younger ages, but none of these photographs have been used in the media and I do not know what they depict.
Henson says he was portraying innocence and vulnerability. He has achieved it. I have not seen the photographs themselves, only the published copies, and would like the opportunity to view the art personally before deciding exactly what I think he has achieved or if they are exploitative. Of course, that in itself could be exploitative.
There are many shades of light and dark attached to this sensitive age of burgeoning physical maturity. We've all gone through it, and we can all relate to it. In this sense, Henson has truly achieved art through the primary truth of universality.
It is not possible to see how the girl is feeling or reacting, because the copies in the media have obscured her face to protect her privacy, which is part of the law here where a minor is involved in any legal or potential legal case; and is also the proper choice from a moral standpoint at this time.
There is also the fact that the viewers of this exhibition would, largely, be true art lovers and appreciate the work as it was intended. It is also a fact that there would be some who attend for the voyeuristic opportunity. If these works go back on display, unfortunately, that number will rise, because of the publicity and controversy. The same might happen in future exhibitions of Henson's work now that it is known more widely that his artistic interests tend, not only but mostly, towards children.
As I said before, I don't believe in censorship of art, but I do have deep concerns about this, or similar exhibitions no matter who the artist, how successful, or how widely acclaimed. My reasons? Several.
First, from the point of view of art: the mood of the photographs, the darkness of both content and lighting, concern me. While it reflects stages of development, it seems to carry something heavier about it. Let me just reiterate, I have only seen copies of the work. That something heavier seems to imply a level of sinister; and the poses, although not inherently pornographic, have an air of pain about them. The art lover in me appreciates this deeply. Yet, it also concerns me because it also appears to have an air of inevitability about it; to say that all children are vulnerable and, therefore, are victims. It is probable that some people would view the photographs, or more accurately the children in them, as provocative in terms of this inevitability.
Perhaps that is too much to take away without seeing the actual photographs, I don't know, but there seems to be a 'truth' that I don't believe we can afford to see as a 'truth.' To do so, would be to forsake our children.
Past works, and some of these current works, have an element of the erotic about them. I would not suggest they are pornographic - at least not without seeing the actual photographs. There is the beginnings of sexuality at this age. Ignoring, denying or pretending otherwise makes no sense, is reactionary and heavily overlaid with adult angst. Such things are legitimate subjects for art. However, there must be a sensitive attitude brought by the artist who models real children, in this way in order to depict this subject, especially in photographs.
There are other concerns, though. Although the girl and her parents gave consent, can we rely on the parents' choice? Possibly, but not automatically. As for the girl, a 12 year old cannot fully understand all the possible ramifications that life might bring her way. In the immediate future, there is that time of adolescence when our bodies become excruciatingly embarrassing, and that's fully clothed. Add to that the possibility, even the probability, that her school mates will learn of the photographs, and the amount of teasing could be unbearable, especially if there are boys among her classmates.
Even if she goes to an all-girls school, there will be boys in her future on some level.
As an adult, it is possible that her participation in the series will surface at a time when she needs to be taken most seriously, perhaps in her career, but also in her personal life. Let's say she is about to be promoted to a highly responsible position in the corporate world; while she has done nothing wrong, the series could prove to be a stumbling block. Or, if she is the principal of a school, it might be hard to be taken seriously by either the students or some of the parents.
None of these things should matter, obviously, but we all know they sometimes do. I would hope that the parents are wise and capable of giving their daughter all the inner strengths and confidence she needs to tackle all the obstacles life has in store for her, including this current controversy. And that the other parents are likewise capable. But, who can know or decide? We all know the term stage mothers' and having a child pose for a world famous artist is a feather in the hat of that type of parent. In such a case, a child is not only being exploited, but might only agree because she/he wants to please their parent/s.
The question can also be asked, since Henson has done similar work and had it exhibited in the past, without controversy, in fact with acknowledgment, why all the furore now? Well, I would suggest it is because we have a different awareness now and child abuse is more visible and discussed. There are instances of young models, some as young as 14, being taken out of fashion shows which are aimed at women; instances of photographic models being used in magazines and made up to look older causing an uproar. Although a different category altogether, these experiences and discussions have raised consciousness in the general public. It is healthy that there is a debate going on.
As for the defenders, and there are many, and some very high-powered in the art world, much of their argument revolves around the fact that Bill Henson is an established artist, with exhibitions held in some of the largest forums around the world and has been acclaimed at high level. This is true. No-one denies that. Is it enough of a credential to allow him, or any artist, carte blanche, especially with children? Surely, no matter who the artist, every work or project must be measured on its own merits.
For me, the ideal would be to keep the photographs on ice until all the children have grown up, and if they still agree, then open an exhibition. It is the only way to ensure the children are not being exploited, whilst not bowing to the pressure of censorship. Henson might see this as a long and frustrating time to wait, but art can always wait, not the execution, but the display. It seems to be an ideal resolution. If charges are laid, however, the legal debate will be a very interesting one, indeed.
tweet this!
