The recent furore over the latest Bill Henson exhibition has, largely,
died down. To recap: Henson was due to open his latest photographic
exhibition at Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery in Sydney on 22nd May, 2008. A few
hours before the due opening, the police arrived, closed the doors and
confiscated 20 of the works. Art lovers arrived only to be turned away.
Why did this happen? The photographs are of young children and
pre-adolescent children, in particular a young girl who was 12 at the
time, and the children are
sans vêtements.
The reaction was immediate, on both sides, but the loudest was the anti
side. After a few days, the police said they would lay charges. They
prepared their case and it went to the DPP (Public Prosecutors) but, in
the end, they believed there was no case to proceed with.
The
photographs have since been returned to the gallery, although they are
not currently on display. They might go on display in the future.
Henson is free to choose.
Do I consider the works are art? Yes. I do.
Do I consider art should be censored? No, not in any form.
Do I think these photographs should go on display? No - not at this time.
It is never easy to resolve issues such as this one. I abhor censorship in art and literature.
Some
things which are called art, aren't - but they all go the way of the
dodo, so no censorship is required. Natural attrition will see their
demise even if there is an initial 'voyeuristic' or 'shock' quality to
them. I remember when there was a play on at a small, fringe theatre
here in Melbourne in the 1970s and the single character did the entire
piece naked on a toilet - which he actually used. The season was
relatively successful but, thankfully, short. I fail to see what
edification was inherent in the piece. It wasn't art, it was 'shock and
awe' and is now (hopefully) permanently
flushed.
When
it comes to censorship, some marvellous artefacts have been lost to
history, as evidenced by the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamyan by
the Taliban; or the destruction of murals and stained glass windows in
English churches during the Reformation; or the book burnings that
occurred in Nazi Germany under Hitler. History is replete with such
instances.
Far more serious, however, is the loss of free speech
which rigid censorship brings. That, to us in the free world, is
anathema: as it should be. The current sedition laws in the like
countries of Britain, the US and Australia are deplorable, and a far
greater risk to freedom than terrorists. But, that is slightly off the
point of this article.
The real issue I want to discuss here is the exhibition of children
au naturel in an era when children, especially girls, and especially prepubescent girls, are often and highly sexualised.
One
of the first concepts of true art is to reflect, discuss, expose,
explore, develop, interpret and/or portray the culture in which it
occurs. Of course, this is not meant to be done in a documentary way,
although it can be; and it is always an expression of the artist rather
than the people.
It cannot exist without influence, however.
And that influence is personal, intrapersonal, interpersonal and
cultural. Art does not happen in a vacuum and its intricacies, and its
vagaries, are always pertinent to the times in which it occurs.
That
sets some (loose) parameters for my views on Henson's latest works, and
his overall focus for his art. Let me also add that I don't believe
artists 'choose' their focus; I believe it 'chooses' them. Not, of
course, in some magical way, but it develops from all the above
parameters and the innate senses and individualism of the artist.
The
focus of Henson's work, not all by any means, but a substantial number
of his works, is on children, especially prepubescent and adolescent
children. Most of his works are dark - in both context and physicality.
There is a strong physicality in his works, and a profound mood. The
subject of his works are legitimate. They are
not
pornographic. Some have strong elements of eroticism about them. They
reflect an age of development we all go through; and they do so with
our vulnerability on full display.
My concern is not the art
itself, but the real life of the subjects. It's one thing to model for
art; I modelled for a sculpture class when I was 16 - only for a bust
(I wouldn't have done a naked modelling, but that is a personal choice
not an arbitrary one). It's flattering, it's fun, its fascinating, it's
hard work. None of the students went on to become well-known, but the
teacher, Phil Dunn, was an acclaimed sculptor and potter during his
lifetime. I enjoyed the experience and it was both funny and
embarrassing to see my 'head' on display in various places.
No
matter where we live, we all have a relative small circle of life and
most of what we do is known within this circle. This is our real life.
The main subject of this latest work by Henson is a teenage girl, now
13. Her family have known Henson for a long time so they are associated
with the art world. I think this does make a difference - but not
enough.
Let's return to the focus of Henson's works. He wants
to explore the vulnerability, the angst, the juxtaposition of child and
adult we experience at that age of transition - and he does it well.
Those who experienced darkness at this age - and we all experience some
- find it especially compelling. The eroticism of some of the photos is
intentional, also a legitimate exploration of art, and some of it is
natural to the age. None of this is reason to call the works anything
less than art or to ban their display.
All that said, my
concerns, and the widespread opposition and calls for Henson to be
charged are also a reflection of the age and culture we live in. As I
stated above, children in general and young girls in particular are
highly sexualised in this time. This is a concern for all areas of
life, art included. Another problem with these works is the intimacy of
photography, especially with such a proficient exponent as Henson. And,
obviously, the prime concern is whether children can give informed
consent. The parents all gave consent.
I can't see that any
but a few would say children of this age can give informed consent. Of
those who say they can, many are not saying so for the sake of art, or
the children. Even the parents, who might be well informed and well
meaning, cannot know what is in their child's future or how their child
will handle issues that arise in an adult world. We all know how
formative the teenage years are, and how different most children want
to be to their parents - even though they probably will become their
parents to some degree later on.
However, one of the prime
tenets of a free society is the freedom and the right to choose. And
the choices we make bring responsibility with them as well as freedom.
Within that responsibility is the acknowledgement of cause and effect,
in other words, of consequence. As adults, we know those consequences
can be intense, long lasting, profound. We accept that our choices can
affect, long term, our entire lives and might have unforeseeable
consequences. Children cannot know this. Their development in awareness
and understanding of cause and effect, consequence, is a slow and
ongoing one. Even as young adults, the long term consequences of some
choices are beyond us. As more is discovered about the brain, the more
we realise how long it takes to fully develop understanding of
consequences. The current literature poses that 25 is the 'mean' age
for full brain development - that's more than double the age of the
subject in the main series of work under discussion.
In other
words, the fact of our incomplete development means we cannot be
informed about longterm cause and effect or consequences. A child is
incapable of knowing or anticipating what might arise from a decision
made at the age of 12. They should not be put in the position of having
to make a decision which could affect their entire lives. To do so is
to force them into an adult position for which they are not ready.
Look
at the consequences of this exhibition. I'm sure even the adults
involved could not foresee what lay ahead. The children definitely
could not. The cause and effect of the circumstances that have arisen
from one person contacting the police after seeing the brochure for the
exhibition could have profound and long term consequences for these
children and their families.
An adult must accept these
consequences as part of the responsibility for freedom of choice.
Children are not able to, which is why adults, and the law, are charged
with their care.
In my original article on this subject, I
suggested the only way to marry the need for protection of children and
the need for free expression without censorship was to hold these works
behind closed doors until each subject is an adult and can choose for
themselves. Although other subjects, now adults, have come out and said
they have no regrets, the focus of concern and awareness of the
exploitation of children is far more intense now than it was 20 years
ago, as is the media on which it can be widely distributed and is
available to people with nefarious intent. Whilst it is reassuring that
these previous subjects are content, it should not, however, be used as
a justification or a licence to ignore the potential for harm to these
children as they continue to grow and develop into adulthood.
There
is no place for censorship in art and literature in a free world; but
there is also no place for failing to take great care when it comes to
the wellbeing of our children as they grow and develop. For their
sakes, and the sake of society at large, we should always err on the
side of caution when it comes to the lives and wellbeing of our
children.
Art can always wait; children, and their protection, however, cannot.
(Please note, all spellings are Australian and might appear incorrect to a US reader.)
