And just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s not art.
the key debate in the Bill Henson controversy is whether these images are pornographic. the case hinges on the phrase “depicted a child under the age of 16 years in a sexual context.” The murky area is the sexual context. as I have previously postulated, anything can be seen in a sexual light. there are some strange, strange people out there, but that I don’t think that these pieces are sexual in any way. This debate seems to have come right down to my favorite topic of nudes and sex.
Pornography is designed to be titillating, arousing, erotic. it is created with an end in mind, and that end is sexual gratification. Nude art is sometimes created for that purpose, but more often than not it is about other things. the nudity can be a symbol for freedom, youth, purity, innocence, fear, starkness, vulnerability, openness, hatred, vilification, aloneness, atonement.. I could go on and on. it is a choice and a powerful artistic subject conveying so much meaning and depth. it is a subject with a glorious history and a perennial favorite of artists everywhere.
There are those out there who are insisting that because it’s a nude, it’s sexual and because it’s sexual, it’s pornographic and therefore illegal. I want to know – why do these people see it as sexual? what is it about these pictures that is titillating? tell me please! am I missing something? because when I look at these pieces I see a nude child looking confused, lost and forlorn.
Recent Comments