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.
Worth a thousand words…
Link to interesting video about Bill Henson’s photographic work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaEi9ESRB8o
I just realised … Jennie, your works are PORNOGRAPHIC! I have pornography hanging on my lounge room walls! Good lord, last night in the shower I was putting on a real pornographic show (naked AND water!)
Good god, Jennie — did you have to show me that girl’s bare torso? I’ll probably become a pedophile now or — worse — a politician.
More seriously, Henson’s got some beautiful nudes there. Very poignant. Not sexual at all, in my humble opinion.
related to your thoughts on this, here’s a short and lighter take on the perennial “but is it art” question: http://blixity.wordpress.com/2008/05/26/two-birds-in-a-cage/
the 27-second video from creature comforts is precious!
I have found one of his pictures, and it seems to be that the picture is all about lighting, posture and so on. That is to say, it’s art.
Thank you for your blog. It’s always informative.
“Titallating, sexual, erotic”. Doesn’t that pretty much cover most prime-time TV shows, soap operas, commercials, magazine ads, etc? I mean, Brittany Spears? Madonna? Aerosmith? Jeez, Elvis?
But a picture of a sad little girl? Nah, sorry. - Steve