The Bill Henson Thing.
This is from this forum thread, as it's stolen a good chunk of my evening I thought I would put it up here also.
If more people were to have actually seen his work before the added subtext of all this hoo-hah, then I'd be really interested in the responses. This isn't cultural snobbery on my part - it's just the earnest wish that more people could see his photography and make own their own damn minds instead of participating in a larger debate where they know fuck all and nothing about the work they are commenting on.
Whacking Bill Henson with the cultural hang-ups and the creeping feeling of self loathing that we have because of the mainstream media's sexualisation of children is not only hypocritical it requires an unbelievable feat of logic.
Why... fancy that, here's the latest issue of Dolly Magazine. What's inside dear sub-teen and teen (and most definitely underage reader)?
THE GUY ISSUE This month's mag will tell you everything you need to know about the opposite sex. Tear open the sealed section to have hit bits explained, flip to our hot footy boy fever shoot to read about what guys think about girls and dating (and for a perve) and then read our story about the attitude he finds irresistible. Consider yourself well educated!HANGING OUT WITH THE JONAS BROTHERS
Wanna spend a day with the hottest brothers ever? Who doesn't! We follow the JB boys as they eat brekkie, hop on and off their tour plane and chill out backstage. Plus, Joe Jonas dishes about girls!HIGH SCHOOL SURGERY
Cosmetic surgery among teen girls is on an alarming rise and celebs are leading the charge. We ask the question, how young is too young to go under the knife?
Certainly there's some in depth explorations of what it is to be young, and deep meditations on our culture? And nothing anyone at all could find objectionable and unsuitable for the audience intended?
Do we need:
To stop young people being exposed to sexual images before they have the tools and cognitive faculties to deal with them? Yes.
To Start a dialogue about what messages we think are acceptable for young people to be exposed to? Yes.
To have a greater understanding what it is to be young and the challenges of growing up? Yes.
To take down the artwork of one of Australia's most prominent photographers dealing with the thorny idea that young people are reflections of the culture we project onto them? Do we need to ignore the uncomfortable idea of teenage angst & alienation? No. (For anyone who isn't familiar, the alienation of youth is a big a part of his work as the idea of transition from childhood to adulthood and the related issues - not just sex).
The level of exposure of commercial soft-porn is higher than it's ever been, but we somehow think that complaining about an artist who's intent is clearly so far removed from the day to day exploitations is an acceptable and logical way of dealing with the problem of children being over exposed to sexual messages? Or abused by a family member in the suburbs? It somehow deals with broken men who take out their sexual disorders on strangers and relatives?
I'd like to re-state what others have more eloquently put - the boogieman isn't Bill Henson and his work, it's our Media and the messages (that we as a culture, by and large, accept) out there. To object vociferously to Henson's work begs that you do the same about the absolute crap that's in our news-agencies and on our tv's & radios - and I'd suggest that they are a more urgent, deeper and more systematic root cause the kind of problems, abuses and societal ills we're talking about.
Comments
Hey Funnel,
An excellent point, and well made.
I think I feel compelled to add one thing to your conclusions:
Should artists be permitted to ask minors to strip for them to make an artistic point (albeit an important one)? No.
I think the whole discussion about how the public view the photo (porn/art/whatever) kinda misses something significant: that a posed nude photo of a child means that a child was asked to expose themselves. It seems to me that protecting the modesty and innocence of kids, and guarding against their exploitation, should move us to draw this kind of line in the sand for their sake.
Posted by: Bernie | May 27, 2008 8:28 PM
Well to address your question, if an artist approaches a child and asks them to pose nude, I would argue that the child has no ability to think about that question or ability to reply in a legal sense.
A parent who appreciates the art, understands the context of it, and understands the implications of having their child participate in a Bill Henson shoot, and also asks their child if they would like to be involved is the person who can make this decision.
Simply put - it's not pornographic, and it's not untoward - just because the young person isn't wearing any clothes doesn't mean it's porn or fodder for the wholesale attack on childhood sexuality. More importantly than the blanket label of "art" it's a commentary and discussion on an area of life (the metamorphosis between childhood and adulthood) that is little understood or discussed. It is a theme Henson has been exploring for years and an extremely important one.
To say there is a moral imperative to protect the innocence and modesty of chlidren is fine, but I contend that a.) Henson's work doesn't pose a threat to that modesty and celebrates a deeper understanding of what is to be young. Just because the young person is nude doesn't mean that there is some deeper pornographic objectification or darker intent here. b.) as I mentione above there are larger, far-reaching and attacks on childhood than the subject of debate.
Moreover, it's not black and white. It's uncomfortable territory to defend the right of the artist to photograph young boys and girls, because that defense is based solely on the context & merit of their work. Of course I am not advocating that it should be carte blanche with regards to photographing young people, and I'm not just saying it because Henson's recognised for this work and been doing it for a long time.
Artistic merit isn't just a vague concept or some sort of weasel word - you only have to actually look at his work to see his intent and see that his work not only has merit, but an important role to play in our larger social dialogue.
My defense is based around the core idea that Henson evokes a sense of what it was like to be that age, and it feels deeply human and emotional - the work is not obscene or titillating and untoward. Sure there's an element of burgeoning sexuality, but so too, is there alienation, anger, sadness, joy, love... But of course sex as always gets the press.
The law and the social moors in place in our society dictate the way in which we act, but the expression Henson makes is a worthy one, and an important one. The line in the sand has already been drawn. The law of the land is black and white, however real life and the gamut of human experience is not.
Posted by: funnel | May 27, 2008 9:08 PM
The absence of any real commentary about the parents of this girl, and their role (or lack thereof) in her participation is really interesting to me.
Bill Henson didn't just find this girl in an alley somewhere and entice her into a studio with the promise of candy (or some other cliche). I don't think we can say in good conscience that the artist shouldn't be allowed to produce work in this way or that, if in this situation we have parents and a subject who are freely consenting in their participation (and presumably receiving a handsome payment for their trouble).
I take your point about exposure and exploitation, but if the argument is about exploiting the child, then the question follows, does this exploitation come from the artist for producing the work, the parents for allowing participation, or the audience for whom it was intended? (or in this case, an audience for whom it was not intended, who have not seen the work, and who have formed their opinion by proxy through the rantings of the popular media).
Posted by: Jen | May 27, 2008 9:24 PM
Just a point to clarify my first comment. I had intended my question to be read as follows:
"Should artists be permitted [by law] to ask minors [via their parents] to strip for them to make an artistic point (albeit an important one)?"
i.e. I had parental consent in mind, and I had legislation reform in mind, and still think the answer is 'No', for the reasons I originally stated.
Sorry for the lack of clarity in the original post! :)
Posted by: Bernie | May 27, 2008 10:48 PM