Controversial Australian photographer Bill Henson’s art opening in Sydney, Australia was shut down by police last Thursday after complaints about photos featuring nude preteens and teenagers. 20 photos were seized and the police plan to interview the children and their parents. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has called the photos “absolutely revolting.”
The dark subject matter of Henson’s photographs often include half-nude children in disturbing, sometimes suggestive poses in low light and amid sweeping landscapes. Some call his work pretentious while others find it compelling and meaningful. He’s had photographs in galleries around the world for at least 15 years featuring the same subject matter. It’s only recently that anyone has begun to draw attention to his work and accuse him of being exploitive of children.
Cate Blanchett and 42 other prominent Australians have signed a letter questioning the police raid of the gallery and wondering what implications this may have for the future of artists in the country:
Henson, 52, a renowned artist whose work is displayed in galleries around the world, has not spoken publicly since the controversy erupted.
But his supporters have rallied around him. Prominent members of the arts community, including actress Cate Blanchett, and politicians have decried the police actions as censorship.
“The potential prosecution of one of our most respected artists is no way to build a creative Australia and does untold damage to our cultural reputation,” Blanchett and 42 others said in an open letter to the prime minister released Tuesday. Other signatories included writer Peter Goldsworthy, playwright Michael Gow and filmmaker Ana Kokkinos.
“The intention of the art is not to titillate or to gratify perverse sexual desires, but rather to make the viewer consider the fragility, beauty, mystery and inviolability of the human body,” the letter said.
Henson’s work, known for its use of light and dark shading, encompasses a wide range of subjects _ landscapes, cloudscapes, suburban and rural life, young people and old people.
“They’re all vehicles for a whole set of feelings to do with what it means to be in transition,” Judy Annear, senior curator for photography at the Art Gallery of New South Wales, told the AP. “That’s why he has often photographed young people, because they are the most obvious to be in transition.”
In 2004-05, her gallery held a major retrospective of the last 30 years of Henson’s work. More than 65,000 people viewed the exhibit _ and not a single person complained.
“A debate is good but it needs to be rational,” Annear said. “There’s a lot of emotional heat in this one.”
She has seen the latest exhibit and calls it “the most still, the most classical, the most formal” of Henson’s work.
[AP report as found on The Huffington Post]
You can see the photo of the 13 year-old girl topless (NSFW and you may feel guilty about looking at it, it’s up to your perspective) on the site for Australian newspaper The Age.
The photo captures a kind of vulnerability in the subject, and when I look at it I feel guilty and protective of the girl, which is exactly what Blanchett is saying. Other photos I’ve found (NSFW – scroll to the bottom right) do seem exploitive and I feel uncomfortable looking at them, but again that’s probably the point. I wish I took an art history or appreciation class in college so I could discuss this with more background. As it is I don’t know how I feel about it. Not all of Hensen’s photographs even include children and it is only the most controversial which have sparked debate.
An Australian politician, Malcolm Turnball, is quoted at the end of the AP article as saying “I think we have a culture of great artistic freedom in this country and I don’t believe the vice squad’s role is to go into art galleries.”
Cate Blanchett is shown at a photocall for Indiana Jones 4 in Cannes on 5/18/08, thanks to WENN.
If an image is designed solely for titillation, then yes, it comes under the porn umbrella. When it’s not, and I don’t think any of Henson’s images are (and I’ve looked, and not just at the links above), it’s not.
The human body has been the subject of great art, in all its forms, for thousands of years but now, because of fear of paedophilia, everything is suspect.
I know people will disagree with me but I think Cate is right to defend him. To try to control how art is viewed or what emotions it will arouse in the viewer is irrational and insulting to both the viewer and the artist.
Art is supposed to make people stop and think. I’m a great believer in artistic freedom, because it is intimately connected to political freedom.
I agree with geronimo.
The problem is that art is of course subjective and people are too sheltered from (among many things) the amazing form of the human body versus human sexuality; two very completely different things.
But at the same time, strong images create strong feelings, and art is about communicating on a different level, and in ways that challenge us as human beings. Images captured or created, that make us see and therefore think about the world through different eyes and a new perspective. Also these images may provoke questions or thoughts for ourselves, like CB feeling protective of the girl– for an artist to know that their work made you question anything, or have a new experience, is what their life’s work is all about.
In my opinion, of course…
I’m sorry, call me a prude, but I draw the line at nude children. There’s just no excuse for it.
@jody – really good point about art making us question ourselves as well as the artist.
I can only back up the previous comments.
Henson’s work is art and, more specifically, emotionally appealing art.
His photographies have been widely known for many years now and I’ve seen his work being exposed several times before. I wouldn’t miss any other chance to see his pictures as they create an atmosphere (even a cocoon) of innocence and fragility. When confronted to them, you feel connected to the model whom you once were (we’ve all been through that difficult yet – often – delightful child-to-adult transition period which can least so many years and go through so many different phases) as well as protective of them.
Henson’s work definitely arouses many feelings and instincts (the need to give/get a shelter for example) but it is not pornographic.
I can’t imagine what the world would be without artistic freedom… And I certainly do not want to.
yes his work is art, but, IMO, i think it’s inappropriate to use children, yes most people will look at some of his images and consider it art, but some will look at it and consider it child pornography…the child, IMO, doesn’t have to be doing anything suggestive in the photo for some perv to get off on it. Images like the one of the “vulnerable girl” unfortunately stimulate more than just the mind with some people.
Maybe I watch too much Law & Order: SVU, but isn’t this a slippery-slope raid? If the Aussie authorities allow this photog’s work to be shown publicly w/o punishment, then true child pornographers could just call their photos “art” and get away it.
sorry guys 13yr old girl standing there nude isn’t a form of artistic expression it’s just a pic of a 13yr old topless girl. It’s not appropriate. why couldn’t he have used an 18yr old there would have been no difference. Her bottom half is in shadows, why no her top part? I think this is an artist hiding behind their art while secretly being a pedophile.
I have to agree with kaiser, what’s to stop any other pedophile from taking inappropriate photos of nude children and calling it art? There are so many ways to convey vulnerability without resorting to the exploitation of children to convey it. I may be in the minority here, and I’m ok with that.
I do enjoy a lot of his work, he has an amazing eye for finding the perfect balance of dark and light, shadow and contrast. I just wish he didn’t feel the need to use underage children who under the law CAN’T agree to pose nude or sign a contract.
I also have to bring the parents of these children into question. Was there even a moment of thought before they decided to let someone, even an artist such as himself to take nude, and even sexually suggestive photos of their very young children? In most countries it’s illegal to exploit children like he is.
Why is there this perception that art has to illicit these extreme emotions (usually revulsion) in order to be thought provoking?
Like someone else said, these aren’t art, they’re just pictures of exploited children.
Your right to anything only extends so far as it doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s rights. While the artist has a right to free expression, those children have a right to be protected from potential sexual exploitation. As it should be, the kid’s rights have to be considered paramount.
How can a 13 year old consent to having these kind of photo’s taken? You generally have to be 18 to do porn, and the difference between these pics and soft core porn is just semantics.
The nude human form is beautiful, and a great medium for artistic expression – when it’s an adult. A child simply doesn’t have the faculties to make this kind of decision, thus the whole not being able to sign contracts thing.
Art doesn’t have to constantly challenge our preconceptions of society to remain relevant. That’s why the Mona Lisa, or Michelangelo’s David will both be remembered long after this guy’s ‘art’ has fallen off the face of the Earth.
I’m always amused as to how often art can be easily boiled down to ‘naked chicks’.
I’m sure any image can be exploited but you can’t really make art in a vacuum even of you want to – and a consideration of the implications wouldn’t hurt. I mean, I hardly see racist images held up publicly as art. Why? Because a lot of people would find it offensive, if this falls into the same category then some of his work might end up censored despite it being just one in a series of less controversial images.
Nice. So how many of his photographs feature prepubescent males, full frontals, in all their “vulnerability”–or would this have been labelled pornography? And if there isn’t an equal showing of male “models”, then why not?? If there isn’t a fair portion of equal male images, then I really have to wonder at the motives of photographing young girls in the light of a burgeoning sex trade (slavery) in underage girls and the facination men seem to have with underage girls or “just barely legal” teens.
I’m pretty open minded and clicked on these links to see what all the hoopla was about. Now I’m just plain horrified. Yes, those photo’s would be considered child pornography here in the good ol’ U.S. I’m the mother of two teenage girls and while I realize that nudity is viewed differently in different cultures, where you reside, how one was raised, etc… These photos just make me sick to my stomach. I agree with whomever said that adult nudity is much better served in this forum. Botticelli was heralded for showing “normal” women in his paintings.. this is not Botticelli
1. The lighting is exquisite.
2. If it was a 100 year old painting, no one would bat an eye.
3.Eye of the beholder I say…just like Miley’s cover.
Like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:John_William_Waterhouse_-_Hylas_and_the_Nymphs_%281896%29.jpg
I honestly don’t think this kind of thing can be defended on the basis of art. If these pictures were found on some random guy’s computer in most countries, he would be arrested – what gives this one man an exemption because he deems himself an ‘artist’?
What if my artistic expression is making the world’s largest oasis in the middle of the Arizona desert – but I’m going to replace the sand with cocaine. It’s a post-modern statement about American drug and counter-culture. I suppose that whole thing about cocaine being illegal should just be waived in the name of my art?
1. If I smacked cats up against a brick wall and photographed the blood – would it matter how good the lighting was? It’s the subject matter that’s the issue, not the artist’s ability.
2. If it was a 100 year old painting, it would be different. 100 years ago, we didn’t have the kind of laws we do now to protect children from this kind of exploitation. Different laws, different standards.
3. Obscenity might be in the eye of the beholder, but this isn’t a violation of obscenity laws (if indeed Australia even has any comparable to the US) – it’s a violation of those children’s rights.
A 13 year old girl cannot *consent* to nude photos any more than she can consent to sex. She is not considered an adult, legally, and sex with her would be considered statch.
She will very likely regret those photos later when she is an adult. Bummer for her, since there were no adults around at the time looking out for her best interests.
(Heh I just noticed Scott said practically the same thing above.) 🙂
Um yes, Australia has a few laws, like not killin’ folk and not stealin’ cows, and not being indecently unclothed in public like Britney frequently is. 😉
While it is not my cup of artistic tea, I do respect the artist for finding a subject matter that causes people to stop, think and voice strong opinion on one side or the other. That is the true heart of Art .. to start discussion. I just am not sure he would like what I had to say about what I think his art says about him.. or is that more my problem than his?? And so the discussion goes …..
He is in touch with the human physical form, the lights and shadows. I’d have to see more of his work from a neutral source to render an adequate opinion.
If you had pictures of a 13 year old nude then you would be in trouble and you would deserve it just as he deserved what he got. What the hell is artistic freedom, the right to take kiddie porn pics? Why would he want to do that anyways? he would probably say its because of some esoteric psycho-babble bullshit that only him and someone high Acid would understand. Picasso and Rembrandt were art african masks are art, dance is art, creative costumes are art pictures of topless 13 years olds is kiddie porn, and is his case kiddie porn for the rich.
I got three questions here:
1. What if the artist had used an 18+ year-old model to represent a 13 year old girl in this picture? The picture looked exactly the same.
If an exactly same picture had been created 100 years ago when there had been no laws whatsoever, a model the same age, same lighting, same shadows….
2. would that still make modern viewers sick to stomach?
3. should this picture be banned today?
One more question:
What about the picture of Kim Phuc, the Vietnamese girl? She was, strictly speaking, a model the photographer used to convey something the world was unaware of. Is anyone aware of what Bill Henson is trying to convey in this picture? What if it IS something comparable to the war, maybe more profound?
I am neutral. The questions are for discussion ONLY!
Sorry, but I have another question:
What if the artist had used the same model, but managed to make people believe she’s 18? So, you thought you were looking at a 18 year old girl, but you were actually looking at a 13-year-old. Would that still make us sick? What is it?
@Triple H.
Interesting Qs. And I identify with the angle you’re coming at it from – ie. one that doesn’t equate child nudity with suggestiveness. My response, for what it’s worth:
Re Kim Phuc. In this instance, the nudity has no relevance at all, it’s just a fact, but what it does do is give the image extra poignancy and brilliantly captures the vulnerability and fragility of human life alongside the grim, harsh, metallic reality of war. Absolutely iconic. No matter how many times I see this pic, it still stops me in my tracks.
Re your other Qs, you might find this article interesting, particularly the last section ‘Photographic Content’ as it deals with a lot of what’s being discussed here.
http://www.sssswr.org/prog99/steinberg.htm
“Nudity” does not automatically equal “porn,” as some of you so obviously believe. If the the photos are not pornographic in content, the mere fact of the age of the subject does not magically render them as such. I’m all for protecting children (I have a 16 y/o daughter — and no, I would not consent to her being photographed in this way), but these things need to be looked at in context and with a minimum of hysteria.
Art is Michaelangelo, Van Gogh, Ansel Adams, Rodin. Nude children, are nude children.
Devilgirl: you do realize that Michelangelo painted many nude children, right? The Sistine ceiling has dozens of them — and not just chubby little cherubs, but adolescent male figures in full, uh… display. By your subtle and nuanced analysis ZOMG CHILD PORN!!!
to cate and the 42 other people…do you think that “artistic” types are exempt from being pedophiles??? very naive….
Yes, FIREDMYASS, I am well aware of the Sistine chapel and what is on the ceiling, given the fact that I have a degree in Art History, specializing in the Renaissance. No where in my post did I mention child porn, I believe what I said is that nude children are nude children. I find no art in the photos of Mr.Henson. MY OPINION. I don’t get where you took my comments as saying it was child pornography? I mentioned artists who I THOUGHT were artists. I made them examples of what I thought was art, just because I don’t find Henson’s photos great works of art, doesn’t mean I thought that they in turn were pornographic. Re-read my post and maybe you will get my meaning the second time around.
Queenie asked if any of his work involved naked pre-pubescent and teen males. The answer is yes. The cancelled exhibition involved photographs of a young girl AND a young boy. There is a huge double-standard in the media that all the focus is on the girl and no-one cares about a naked teen male.
Some of the photographs in question can be found here:
http://www.news.com.au/gallery/0,22056,5031912-5010140,00.html
While I agree that there are naked children in art extending back hundreds of years I think that these photos push the boundaries of what is acceptable now. People did not speak of paedophilia before the 1950s. Now we are much more aware of the need to protect the rights of children. I do think this needs to be factored into what is acceptable and what is not.
That said, this has now descended into a witch-hunt with galleries and public buildings taking down other Henson photos which do not involve teens or nudes.
I think this is a debate on children’s rights, art and pornography that needed to be had. Unfortunately it has polarised the press and the Australian public so that those protecting artistic freedom are seen as being naive and apologists for child porn, and those who are against these photographs are seen as overly censorial and anti-art. Sadly it’s such an emotive topic that calm and rational discussion seems impossible.
I tell you what art is, art is the fabulous velvet paintings one finds on their way to Tijuana.
Bonjour Guru, ce que vous inciter à mettre un article. Cet article a été extrêmement intéressant, surtout depuis que je cherchais des idées sur ce sujet jeudi dernier.