In defence of Bill Henson
Posted by paulMay 25
My patience is sorely tested with the current supposedly public stance of ‘stamping out child sexual exploitation’ with the recent art exhibition of an Australian photographer, artist Bill Henson.
The NSW police seized a number of photographs by Bill Henson from the Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery in Sydney, on the grounds of depicting minors in an ‘indecent sexual manner or context’. Since we are so focused on the term context, I think it is only just to describe the ‘full’ context under which this event takes place and the significance of it.
Bill Henson is a well known artist, who had his first exhibition at the age of 19, at the National Gallery of Victoria. Since then he has had many exhibitions of his work both nationally and internationally. In 1995, he represented Australia at the 46th Venice Biennale. The exhibition in question at the Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery contained a number of images depicting girls under the age of 16 in the nude.
It is important to point out that Bill Henson’s artistic interest on his teenage subjects. During an interview by Dominic Sidhu at EGO magzine, this very question was asked:
Your teenage subjects seem to exist outside of society in an almost hypnotic state.
The reason I like working with teenagers is because they represent a kind of breach between the dimensions that people cross through. The classical root of the word “adolescence” means to grow towards something. I am fascinated with that interval, that sort of highly ambiguous and uncertain period where you have an exponential growth of experience and knowledge, but also a kind of tenuous grasp on the certainties of adult life.
Great, so now we have the full context of which we can now see and examine Bill Henson’s work.
Now my own personal critique of this quagmire which Bill has himself now landed in. I am saddened by the fact that we now live in an age of political correctness so pervasive that every facet of a modern man/woman’s life now must pay homage to.
Our media would sensationalise when Madonna (a pop icon) kisses Britney Spears (uhmmm … another sorta icon?) full on the lips; glamourise the Royal families and run images of their babies full across our high-definition LCD screens; and have you and me fixated on the goings-on around us in 5 seconds sound bites that would have you submerged in this soup of headlines and trite stories that even a full F-18 sonic boom would not shake. phew… that felt good 
Our legal systems seem to be marching to the same tune, I wonder if great artists of the world would now be tossing and turning in their graves. What would Leonardo Da Vinci say about Bill Henson’s work? What if the famous Mona Lisa smile is from that of dare I say a 14 year old teenage girl? Considering the fact that some of his sculpture works all explored the nude human bodies, it is probably highly likely that he would had young models working for him at the time.
Naturally, I digress 
After all we are living in an age of ever insurmountable dangers, danger from terrorism, danger from global warming, danger from global recession, and last not least danger from dangerous elements in our society who sexually exploit children. Our legal systems and the incumbents of the government of the day must and shall uphold that very delicate veil of security in this age of dangers and uncertainty.
So it seems that our politicians and governments keep telling us, we need to be so vigilant that Bill Henson’s work can not and will not be shown in this society, without understanding the very context under which his works are shown.
Maybe one day, some of the seized works from the Roslyn Oxley9 would see the day of light in a public forum where we all get to vote if these works are indeed works of a sexual intent or otherwise.
~paul
8 comments
Pingback by hello.com.au » The blogosphere reacts to Bill Henson on May 25, 2008 at 3:40 pm
[...] There is a lot of discussion taking differing views so happy blog reading trying to get through it all…The Bill Henson controversy, Behind the News, Art or Exploitation?, OUTRAGE: Bill Henson’s Exhibition. Child porn?, Art and censorship – not a good mix, About bloody time, I can’t hardly believe it, Bill Henson exhibition under investigation, Bill Henson Shut Down, Art Or Pornography?, Bill Henson controversy, Bill Henson, Roslyn Oxley 9 Gallery: Bill Henson – Police close exhibition, Bill Henson, our local rag, In days of future past, Bill Henson show closed until further notice, More Art Censorship, Bill Henson photography exhibit – a tangent, P.S., When nudity equals sex and art equals pornography, In the name of Art, Another uproar in the art world, But is it art?, Censorship, My 2c on the Bill Henson drama, Art or Porn?, knee-jerk?, Art or crime?, Paedophilia or Art?, Not safe for work/home/life itself!, In defence of Bill Henson , The obscenity of adolescence, continued, the art world, Kevin Rudd as art critic, What’s Art? What’s Porn? What The F–k?, OUTRAGE: Bill Henson’s Exhibition. Child porn?, Hetty Johnson, serves up stormy tea, The Bill Henson Debacle, Budding Maidens and Art, Art? Pig’s bum it is!, Art is what you can get away with, Banished art, Is Keven Rudd a stupid jerk?, Censoring our disturbing feelings, Every Philistine critic gets to be an instant artist for a day!, Child abuse campaigners lose the plot, Art obscenity charges, Censorship in Australia, the row, an interesting week, Projection onto Adolescent Forms, But is it art? — 2, our man in berlin, bill henson is innocent, In defence of Bill Henson. [...]
Comment by Phyllis on May 27, 2008 at 2:32 pm
FOR ARTS SAKE © Phyllis Li
The recent hype surrounding photographer Bill Henson’s ‘controversial’ work of nude adolescents has motioned me to speak out and share my thoughts. For those of you who don’t know me well, I too am a photographer or pardon me, a claustrophobic ‘paedophile’ obsessed with photographing the human body. As well as having photographed and exhibited my younger female sibling to express my artistic intent, I have yearned to be one of Henson’s chosen models. Alas not all of us can be blessed with fine anatomy!
Hence, it is with great interest and amusement that I read the various comments made by Child protection groups and our very own Prime Minister who label Henson’s work as ‘revolting’ and ‘pornographic’. What a joke! This issue highlights how easy it is for a few people to get hot headed about something they know absolutely nothing about and then step aside to allow the media to slaughter the innocent. Have these imbeciles forgotten about the role of our mass media ie TV, print and the Internet which blazenly showcase shows such as ‘Big Brother’ and let’s not forget ‘Sons and Daughters’? as nightly entertainment. And let’s not forget about the glorious World Wide Web where porn sites and images, videos and text of just about anyone and anything are readily accessible. Do these mediums not “exhibit” and therefore incite voyeuristic or perhaps sexual arousal from their viewers? Perhaps the question should be, do they? and what right do we have to say that these are forbidden or wrong? That is, of course unless they are being used to incite people to act against the law.
Now, what about the role of those glossy women’s magazines such as Women’s Day, New Idea, Cosmopolitan and the like? These magazines show thin young models in barely there clothing and even have articles with instructions on how best to achieve orgasm in addition to photos and articles on penis or breast sizes. Answer me this. Are these images any different to that of the young female at the centre of Henson’s image furore? The answer is a resounding No!
Henson is regarded as one of Australia’s great photographers. His dark, brooding life-sized images featuring semi-clad or nude youth and adolescents is not new and has been admired by appreciative viewers for decades. In this instance, the criticism circles the tender age of the model and the issue of consent. Many argue that young persons are too immature to give consent or fully understand the impact and consequences of their decision. One retired judge is even quoted as saying that the model could sue Henson in the future for damages. What an absurdity! How stupid do these people and dare I say, parents think that young people are? Are they so naive, that they refuse to acknowledge that their little angels and cherubs could even think about sex or their sexuality from a young age?
‘Artists’ have explored the nude since the fruitful beginnings of Adam and Eve and galleries worldwide have chosen to acquire and exhibit them. Great art works by Da Vinci, and those from the Renaissance depict nude models, often several in the one painting, which are freely displayed to the public. Do these mega-sized paintings incite viewers to commit sexual crimes? Is there an age limit as to who can view these paintings?
What is it, about Photography as an art form that arouses such panic, accusation and ignorance in the public? Why is it, that critics are silent when it comes to nudist art?
Great photographers such as Imogen Cunningham, Sally Mann, Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Georgia O’Keefe etc were well known to photograph themselves, their lovers, and their children nude for the sake of their art. One can only imagine what they would say about all of this nonsense. Unfortunately, it does not take much these days for things to be taken out of context. For those of you who are easily offended by nudity please close your eyes and lips. Do not let your narrow-minded views stop artists from producing works that are central to their work and vision.
My argument is simple. We must understand that every individual is different and should consider this before jumping to any conclusions. One must understand that no two 13 year olds are alike, and more importantly; we must not stereotype age groups or individuals as being mature or immature. If the 13 year old in question did not give consent, then the police have a right to do their job and continue with an investigation. However, if the 13 year old girl gave consent, Henson’s images should be displayed immediately and an apology given.
Comment by Tom Johansson on May 30, 2008 at 1:01 am
My comment will be short and simple. There is nothing sexual or exploiting about the work of Bill Henson. This hipe just takes the focus from the real issues and the real crimes. By doing this, the real criminals are left in peace with their websites, and the public still get the impression that the police is doing their job, which they are not. Meanwhile, the real criminals run their websites openly on public servers and you can find both server and billing addresses to the owners of the websites with a simple Whois search. Still, all the police do is to put a block on the website which can easily be overun with a proxyserver. The owners of the websites are protected and the websites are active and up and running, still on the same public servers.
When asked why they don´t close the websites down, the police spokespersons reply “most servers are in russia so it´s very difficult” – bullshit. If police and governments could do some real work and not just use scapegoats for public showoff and opinion, then maybe they could start catching the real bad guys.
Comment by D. El De McClung on October 22, 2008 at 3:43 am
I am El De, The Artist. I make Art. I paint and make photographs of images of all kinds. Sometimes the image depicts no clear image at all. These I call DEsigns. As a man I am fond of the human form. As an Artist I am fond of making art that depicts the human form. As an American, that is a human being that lives in the land mass known as America, I enjoy the sovereign, inalienable Right of free expression. (There are, of course, forces at work to put an end to that freedom, but perhaps those evil forces will be defeated in due course.) There is no limit to my expression. I am limited only by my own artistic abilities, and the restrictions of my own imagination. I have few, if any, mental impairments. Hysteria seems to rule the day. I resist it, campaign against it. Ignorance and hysteria are rampant. I detest hysteria and ignorance. They are the enemy of sound thinking and freedom.
I am El De, The Artist, I make Art. Every thing is subject to my expression. There are no REAL reasons why it should not be so. Fabricated excuses for restricting my efforts to express myself, my ideas, my visions, are simply attempts by the ignorant, the hysterically minded, to control me. To limit my nature, to deny the true picture of things. I despise the tyrant, even the little tyrants that display their ignorance and subjugation to hysteria. Those who deny the obvious deserve no mercy, much less our sympathies.
The simple fact that we are ALL naked…under our clothes…no matter our Worldly deceptions…no matter our age, our gender, our humanity…seems to evade our conscious minds and allow us to live in the illusion that we are somehow not what we are. That by the enforcement of imaginary rules we can somehow change the facts. Change the very nature of our being. How utterly pathetic.
I am an Artist. I was born to be The Artist. It is my nature. And, thus, I make Art. What I do is both natural and imaginary. Both are as real as the wind and the Sun that lights the World we live in.
My spirit will not be shackled by ignorance and hysteria.
What is Art? It is me being me..and doing what I do…and every thing else…
Comment by Lokelani Dole on December 10, 2008 at 5:37 am
I grew up on an island where everyone was pretty much naked all the time. I was about 7 the first time I saw someone wearing clothes and thought it was strange. I was 12 when I put on a garment for the first time. I did not actually wear clothes much at all until I went off to art school. I studdied photography and have had many showings and published photographs and am now a professional photographer. Many of my photographs depict naked children. My first few thousand photographs were nothing but naked children. I was a naked child when I took them. All the children I knew growing up were naked virtually all the time. I was the unofficial village photographer. I took school pictures, wedding pictures and a lot of snapshots of friends and family. Since we are naked most of the time naturally the photos depict us naked.
All of this time I don’t remember once anyone ever abusing anyone else. The first time I witnessed someone having sex I was 15 and caught friends of mine doing it on the beach under a full moon. He was 19 and she was 18. I never heard of a pedophile until I got to art school. I didn’t know people were so uptight about nudity and especially nude children until I got to art school.
My point is that this is the context of my life’s work. Which includes photographs of nude children.
Using the test of “if a pedophile can be turned on by looking at it, it must therefore be child pornography” would define many things as child pornography. I am turned on my my husband’s smile. I can only imagine a pedophile could be turned on by a child’s smile. By such a possibility we must, under the above definition, prohibit all photographs of smiling children lest they entice a pedophile to go out and mollest a smiling child. I am turned on by holding my husband’s underwear in my hands. I can only imagine a pedophile being turned on by the walmart ad depicting children’s underwear for sale. By the above definition such an ad would constitute child pornography and should be banned. Do you see how ridiculous this can get?
Ok so argue that it only counts if a child is actually depicted. Well my 13 year old daughter has the hots for a certain pair of blond twins on a popular Disney Channel show. Should we ban that TV show just in case a pedophile might drool over it?
I get that we are trying to protect our children. We are trying to shelter them from any thought that someone somewhere might be looking at their picture in a less than altruistic manner. But at some point we are going to have to realize that we cannot protect them from every possible scenario that may ever happen. Overprotection breeds weekness and vulnerability.
Now having said all this I want to be perfectly clear, I do not condone child abuse in any way and I include child pornography in the definition of child abuse. But child pornography is not simply photographs of naked children. If it is then most of America and much of the world is guity of it. Clearly if a child is photographed in the act of having sex it is child pornography. Clearly if a child is photographed wearing a suit for his portrait it is not. Somewhere in between people from different backgrounds will define what is in between differently. There are some who will staunchly insist that any photograph of a naked child under any circumstance is child pornography beause such people define all depictions of nudity as pornography.
Such people would probably insist on imprisoning the entire population of my home island as it still has a clothing optional rule. I have met such people and am sickened by such extreme ideas. This very thing was sugested by one person I met when going to art school. At a gallery exhibition that I attended in my junior year there was a painting of a naked man on some rocks on a beach. I thought it was breathtakingly beautiful and reminded my of my late grandfather. It was not sexual in any way, it just expressed the beauty of elderly man contemplating his suroundings and you could just get so much out of the work on so many levels. An older couple standing a few people away described it as disgusting and said the gallery should be shut down and the artist should be arrested then they even said the model should be arrested for exhibitionism.
I realize that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I supose pornography is in the eye of the beholder. But should we censor a work simply because some people do not behold it as beautiful?
My final words on this is to let the children speak, mine. My eldest Daughter who is now 13 said recently: “Guys perv on me all the time, even old men, so what? It’s the price I must pay for being beautiful” She was saying this in a somewhat mocking and sarcastic manner but I think it proves a point well. My 10 year old son, who proudly keeps hung on the wall over his bed a photograph I took of him running naked on the beach which he has titled “Freedom” said just the other day: “Why should we be punished for what other people think?” This after I explained to him that he cannot post nude pics of himself on his webpage. That was a difficult one to explain since we are nudists and live where it is legal to walk around naked in public.
that is all I have to say.
Comment by jess on February 16, 2009 at 1:59 pm
i dont understand how people cant see the beauty behind it the child being stripped showing innocence and a youth’s carefree spirit. did anyone care when we as children ran around naked. NO! so wats the big deal he didnt take the photos without the consent of the children to be published so how can it be considered child porn?
Pingback by Conflicting Perspectives Related Texts on June 13, 2009 at 2:22 pm
[...] Conflicting Perspectives Related Texts i used the Bill Henson debate … In defence of Bill Henson — Terraform Artist for bill PM says Henson photos have no artistic merit | The Australian against [...]
Comment by Chrissie on October 28, 2009 at 7:23 am
I personally find it disturbing, it is not nesecarily the actual phtograph of the child, it is what some people will do with this photograph. There are sick people in our world, and subjecting children to this is wrong!