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.
Hannah Quinn is an Australian author with a variety of national awards, produced plays and public readings to her credit. Novels and plays are her main focus when writing, but she also loves writing articles, short stories, ebooks, poetry and ballads. She is currently working on her fifth novel 'Olivia's Breath'.
Hannah co-owns Too-Write! an editing and professional writing service, specialising in resumes/cvs, including answering Selection Criteria, tertiary assignments and business writing. She moderates The Creative Corner too-write.com/creative and The Job Jungle jobs.too-write.com
» left by Creative Blogger(5,244) Creative Blogger (101 days 15 hours ago.)
My opinion is that if someone has a special interest in taking naked pics of children then they are most likely a paedophile and if not then naively or deliberately are guilty of supplying material to the paedophile community.
Just because someone has the label 'artist' or holds a permission deserving of respect, doesn't make them any less perverted.
This article has attracted a lot of search engine hits undoubtably from paedophiles looking for naked child pics. Says it all really doesn't it.
It certainly does not need to be encouraged and the police acted entirely properly. Respond to this comment
» left by Hannah Quinn(20,923) Hannah Quinn (101 days 10 hours ago.)
Creative Blogger, Thank you for taking the time to read and comment. It's a sad indictment of our society when children are sexualized whether in art or otherwise. The ideal would be if nudity of any age was just seen for what it is without any sexual context. You are right about the number of hits on this article. My search word cloud is being taken over by them. It's an eye opener to see just how blatant they are in their searches. My only satisfaction is their disappointment when they see only words! Cheers, Hannah Respond to this comment
» left by Anonymous (100 days 19 hours ago.)
In cases like this, the searchers IP addresses should be handed over to the appropriate authorities. The only way paedophiles are caught is by people like us reporting their activities when discovered. Respond to this comment
» left by Hannah Quinn from Australia (96 days 4 hours ago.)
Thanks for your comment, anonymous. If I knew the IP addresses and could tell the offenders from the legitimate readers, I'd turn them over to the authorities in a heartbeat. Cheers, Hannah Respond to this comment
» left by Jim Murdoch(86) Jim Murdoch (95 days 18 hours ago.)
This kind of reaction is a reflection of our fearful and judgmental society. There is nothing wrong with nudity except what people apply to it. I find it amusing that the one expressing a big issue with this topic chooses to remain anonymous. I have written before about the accusers being the ones with the problem. Our society suffers big time with this. Society implies evil in certain actions, like a little boy helping his sister go to the toilet, and society screams abuse. I say, take a look at the screamer if you want something to really get concerned about. Nice report, good work. Respond to this comment
» left by Hannah Quinn(20,923) Hannah Quinn (93 days 8 hours ago.)
Jim, Thank you for taking the time to read my article and comment. I agree there is nothing wrong with nudity except what people apply to it. Because so many apply the wrong attitude and behaviour to it, we must therefore always look out for our (society's) children. Cheers, Hannah Respond to this comment
» left by Jeff Brown(4,550) Jeff Brown (95 days 11 hours ago.)
There is no reason whatsoever to circulate nude pictures of children who are not, obviously, of the age of consent. And if anyone consents to the taking or viewing of photos of naked children are in breach of a sound moral and political mind. The police did the right thing. The most obvious reason for this is simply age. Or perhaps better stated, maturity. A four-year-old, or even a ten-year-old (obviously even many teenagers are often not of mind to make sound judgments), cannot make, nor be expected to make, the same sorts of decisions that an adult can make. Where an adult might be perfectly free to wander the streets at night, a child seen wandering the streets at night would be taken into some sort of protective custody, even if against his will. Even if an adult OK's the child's pictures being displayed, it is a breach of moral covenant whereby the child in later years, after being able to differentiate subjective or objective right from wrong, may see this as appalling. Who are we to usurp the rights of a child who will become an adult who may vehemently oppose the taking and displaying of pictures taken at a time when an innocence of mind did not allow for a proper, adult understanding. Shame on any who abuse children in such a way.
» left by Hannah Quinn(20,923) Hannah Quinn (93 days 8 hours ago.)
Jeff, Thank you for taking the time to read my article and leave a comment. There are many differences in what we see as all right for an adult and what is all right for a child. Any adult who claims otherwise is really abrogating their responsibility and letting the child swim, flounder or most likely drown in what at times can be a very dark sea. The waves of that sea are evidenced in my cloud tag. There is nothing there anymore except words like nude pics of children, naked little children etc. It is very disconcerting to say the least. My actual feelings about it are far stronger! Cheers, Hannah Respond to this comment
» left by Susan Thom(8,150) Susan Thom (84 days 17 hours ago.)
hi hannah, these nude pictures, if they are of children romping in a sprinkler on a hot day, obviously just having fun, and their PARENTS take a picture, is one thing, but to exploit their bodies by adults, while smiling seductively at the camera, then the theory of "naked bodies are beautiful" flies out the window. there is a reason the age of consent is 18, and i think it is a wise one. i took many naked pictures of my children as they were babies, simply because they WERE beautiful, but they were for my own happiness, never to be shown to others. look at these young girls now, and their photos, and videos. they are pushed into adult sexual poses and activities way before their time. thanks for sharing this aricle,
best regards,
sue thom
» left by Hannah Quinn(20,923) Hannah Quinn (84 days 8 hours ago.)
Sue, Thank you for taking the time to read and comment on my article. Since I wrote it, the DPP decided there was no case to answer and the photographs have been returned to the gallery. It's true they aren't pornographic, but some are full frontal. I don't doubt they are art, either, but I don't believe that should give carte blanche where children are involved. There is no easy way around some issues, because censorship of either art or literature is anathema to a free society and has an extremely unhealthy side to it, such as the book burnings under Hitler, the destruction of the Buddhas under the Taliban. However, when children are involved - and as you say, there is a difference between children being children to where they are posed. I have thought about it a great deal and I always end up in the same place - keep the works on ice until the children are adults and can give informed consent or decide to not allow public display. Thanks again for commenting, Cheers, Hannah Respond to this comment
» left by M.d Tabish Faraz(52) M.d Tabish Faraz (83 days 5 hours ago.)
The police did the right thing. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind about that.
» left by Hannah Quinn from Australia (81 days 9 hours ago.)
M.d - Thank you for taking the time to read and comment on my article. It's a difficult situation, isn't it? But, in all things, children and their safety must come first. Cheers, Hannah Respond to this comment
» left by Anonymous (72 days 14 hours ago.)
humm, it depends on how explicit the pictures ware..
if they are in a non sexual pose then i thnik its ok, but if it is ment to be Porn, or to be seen as a sexual object/Picture, then its WRONG. Respond to this comment
» left by Hannah Quinn from Australia (67 days 23 hours ago.)
What if there is an element of eroticism to them? Not pornography - that isn't there, but there is definitely an element of eroticism to some, especially of the 12 year old girl. It's not an easy yes or no scenario. The protection of children is paramount and one of the things we must protect them against is the sexualisation and the objectification that happens in western society generally and in some seedy areas in particular. What should be and what is can be a world apart. More and more, I've come to believe that the photographs should be held, unviewed, until the subjects are adults and can say yea or nay. Thanks for reading and leaving a comment. Cheers, Hannah Respond to this comment
» left by Avis Ward(8,576) Avis Ward (57 days 13 hours ago.)
Hannah, excellent writing. I agree with the police's actions. I also agree there is nothing wrong with nudity. That's how we come into the world and that's how Adam and Eve were originally, in the Garden of Eden. (My faith is as much apart of me as the blood circulating in my veins so it's inevitable I look to the Holy Bible as my manuscript for life/beliefs.) The problem occurs when what is meant for good is perverted. Unfortunately, nudity isn't preceived as art or natural state of undress because it was tainted. There are too many in our world who are tainted and perverted. Because of this, we have to protect those who are incapable of protecting themselves. I thoroughly enjoy your writing. Take special care, Hannah!
Avis, Thank you very much for reading and taking the time to comment. I'm gratified that you enjoy my writing. There has been more controversy here over another photograph of a naked child used on the cover of an art magazine. The photographer, the mother, and the father, an art critic, thought the subject should remain in the forefront as a debate plus wanted to support Bill Henson. That alone is exploiting a child. I'll be writing another article on that soon. This entire debate, especially in the 'art community' seems to entirely miss the point, which is the child. Again, thanks for your comments. Cheers, Hannah
» left by Ernest from Cluj-Napoca (54 days 20 hours ago.)
I stumbled upon this article completely by accident while searching for web directories, but found it very interesting. While there is a moral debate upon weather these pictures should be published or not, I think what we should ask ourselves is wether we should allow these kind of pictures to be taken in the first place. I have seen the pictures in question and have not found them sexually provocative, but my fear is that this girl could have suffered psychological damage, not necessarily at a conscious level, that can reflect upon her life 10 or 20 years from now. We all know that the human psychic is most fragile at this age and I think that all children should be protected from potentially hazardous actions of any kind until proven otherwise. Respond to this comment
Ernest, Thank you for taking the time to read and respond, especially as you were surfing for something else entirely. It is, or should be, clear that taking such photographs in the first place is suspect. The long term consequences are never known for any of us and to literally expose a child to some of the worst consequences in society, is foolish at best, definitely exploitative, and dangerous at worst. The views of the art world must keep up with the times and in these times of instant visual communication media, every child's photo, nude or otherwise, is a not to be taken lightly. There are places now where even the parents can't take photos of children, such as daycare centres, etc. That's probably going too far, but preferable to err on the side of caution where our children are concerned, at least this early in the awareness of and growing knowledge about child predators. Cheers, Hannah
I prefer not to give any links to these photos as I don't agree with them being exhibited at this time - while the children are children. Most places that had them have removed them, and the few that weren't removed at the time I wrote this article, were blacked out. The only appropriate place to view them is in the future if and when the subjects decide, as adults, that they are okay with them being exhibited. Even then, I hope they are only displayed within a gallery and not on the net where any pervert can view them. I'm sure you'll understand. Cheers, Hannah
This is without a doubt a controversial subject. I think the first question to be posed should be this; 'What is Art'? Even nude photographs of adults might border the edge of porn. I argee with so many of your points, but I think sadly we live amongst several deviants that would try to pass off their own perverse collections as Art. Is freedom of Art portected by the Constitution?
I think many would consider it freedom of speach. As a father of two children, I'd have to say two things. Yes, many of these types of paintings or photos could be considered art, BUT out of respect to the innocence of minors of any age, we should perhaps avoid this area of Art, we have a duty to protect the children of our world. I think the preservation of the innocence of children is far more important than the displaying and marketing of such Art. Should it thus be illegal? No. The Freeedom should remain, the further we walk from freedom the closer we walk to enslavement and imprisonment. I do believe however there should be strict regulations in place when such art is publicly exhibited. I think the question also becomes...is it possible that these children, upon reaching a mature state of mind might regret having been photographed nude? They might realise that they were really too young to make such a decision, and if their parents made the decision for them, by parental consent, we might want to consider why any parent of sound mind might allow such pictures to be taken knowing the dangers of possible exploitation. What are their motivations in allowing such pictures to be taken in the name of Art. Money? I agree that there is nothing bad or wrong or evil in the natural beauty of nudity, but as a clothed society we might want to put our personal beliefs aside when it comes to exposing the sacred beuty of a childs innocence.
Thank you for taking the time to read and comment. I like your comment about us being a 'clothed society' and it is a good measure of what we ought to allow, especially for our children. Cheers, Hannah
Disclaimer: All information on this site is
provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice
provided to you by any health care or other professional or
organization.
