Why not expose children to nudes?
Our kids today learn almost nothing about art, never mind nudity in art. Their only exposure to nudity is the semi-porn they see on TV and in videos. So if you pass this sculpture with your kids, I say get out of the car and talk to them about the beautiful ways artists can interpret the human body.[From Show your kids nude sculptures!]
Heh what a great take on this controversy! and from a parenting blog too. you know, I haven’t weighed in on this yet because I think everything I need to say on the subject I have said many many times over. it’s just so refreshing to read online someone who agrees that a nude sculpture in public is not the end of the world.
Personally I think it’s a very interesting piece, I haven’t seen any great photos of it though to really look at. the subject matter is fascinating also, perhaps people should be focussing on that more if the nudity is really bothering them, but as it says in the quoted blog post and in many others I’ve written you don’t have to look at it if it offends you, but freedom of expression still means that it has a right to be and that others have a right to not be offended by it.
Itzik Asher titled Journey to the New, which represents the journey of Russian and Ethiopian Jews from their homes to Israel.
It depicts a family — a father, a mother holding an infant and an older child by the hand. The figures are larger than life and elongated. Their nudity is subtle.
“It’s a figurative piece, somewhat abstract,” said Richard Caster, who owns the shopping center and has other large sculptures peppering its front lawn. “It’s natural and beautiful.”
Caster said he’s received some complaints, but also praise. He said he rotates the sculptures throughout the shopping plaza.
[From PTA president, parents, irate over nude sculpture near school -- South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com]
I think it’s strange that nobody has mentioned what a cool thing it is that a shopping center is showing artworks and rotating them around. people don’t go to galleries and museums that much these days it seems, but the mall is still eternal. to have some exposure to art on a daily basis like that can only be a good thing.
Who’s side are you on? body painting nude art debate
Painted Models by Grace Tam
In my usual news feeds about nude art I came across these two articles. or rather this article and a rather negative response to it.
Rather than do my usual discussions and debates on the matters at hand I would like to turn them over to you, who do you side with in this issue? the artists or the council? Personally I find the language involved fascinating.. I will wait to voice my own opinion for now.
Both Baggio and Grace Tam said they were approached during the painting process by a member of the Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Arts Council who voiced concern that the nudity could become an issue.
“I was a bit confused,” said Baggio. “Normally with body painting, it’s done completely nude, but we’re covering the bottom already.” Baggio was wearing black bikini bottoms and was topless, but Tam had already finished painting over the entire chest. She and Tam agreed to put flesh-coloured Band-Aids over her nipples, and those were painted over. They both say they thought it became less of a taboo issue now after Baggio’s nipples weren’t exposed.
Baggio was covered in paint by the time the show began, and Tam painted on a second human canvas later in the evening. The second model also covered her nipples and she was wearing tights on her lower half.
There were children both in attendance and performing in the show, but the artists said they received a mature reaction from the young attendees.
“The children couldn’t care less; not one child was making a deal out of it,” recalled fellow performer C.J. Jackman Zigante. “It was one of those things where if the adults didn’t make an issue of it, they didn’t either.”
“They thought it was neat, and their parents were fine with it too, from what I could see,” said Baggio. “They were there for an art show.”
The discussion over the boundaries of art and nudity are worthwhile and timely. The arts council presents undraped models in painting classes and we are pleased to do so.
But, just like it is appropriate for all people to be able to judge whether they wish to attend an “R” rated movie with their children, it is appropriate that we inform people in advance whether there will be nude art at what was advertised as a family event. This is allowing families to use their judgment; an important freedom we respect.
Freedom of art is not advanced by trampling on parents rights, but by artists and the public having mutual trust and respect
…
The members of the board of the arts council are hardworking volunteers. Many of them are artists and they are certainly not prudes. We were happy to have body art tastefully displayed in the lobby, and apologize to those families who have shared their upset that the models then appearing on stage beside their children (without the director of the show’s permission), and to anyone in the audience that also took exception to this.
I look forward to reading your comments. it’s an interesting situation!
Sarah Palin Nude with Gun
Sarah Palin Nude with Gun by Bruce Elliot
CHICAGO.- Bruce Elliott, 68, of Chicago, has unveiled a nude portrait of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin in his bar in the North Side of Chicago, the Old Town Ale House. The work is four feet tall and is drawing crowds to the bar. In the portrait, the governor is wearing her trademark hairdo, holding an automatic rifle and standing naked on a polar-bear skin rug.
Bruce Elliott said, “I don’t see how she could be offended by this. I made her into a sex figure.”
Bruce Elliott admits to being a supporter of Senator Barack Obama. He also said that his daughter posed nude for the painting.
He said, “My daughter is a heck of a stand-in for Sarah Palin. She can even do the voice.”
Bruce Elliott further stated, “I’ve been following her (Sarah Palin) religiously. I had never heard of her before, like everyone else. I find her bizarrely fascinating, even though I pretty much despise everything she stands for.
I actually have mixed views about this. granted that part of my concern is that it’s not actually very good in my opinion. I’ve actually been mulling over that one line Bruce Elliot Said about this piece “I made her into a sex figure.” because nudes are always sexual by definition right? and granted it is a pinup style pose, but it actually irks me because nobody would consider doing the same with a male candidate. It drives me insane that the female candidates have to worry about so much more than politics because apparently it matters more how they look, than what they believe in. a number of people have even mentioned that Palin’s appearance is one of their deciding factors in voting. remember Hilary’s big makeover? it was all over the media. why is appearance so important for female politicians, does it affect their politics? and why is it ok to turn female politicians into “sex figures” but not the males? (note, this opinion is not because this work is a nude of a politician but because of the artists comments about his intent)
anyway, back to the piece, it’s an excellent tactic to draw publicity for yourself by leveraging a hot topic and combining it with controversy. it’s always a good publicity draw, and it’s working wonders for the artist and the the Old Town Ale House but I really wish the actual artwork was better!
Should henson be allowed to scout in Schools?
The recent interview and book about Bill Henson and the controversy in May has brought to light how Henson goes about searching for his models and has, in turn, caused it’s own furor of media activity. It appears that the powers that be are not content to have lost their favorite whipping boy and have dredged up all new ways to try to make Henson and his work shady and inappropriate.
the book, by Journalist David Marr, takes an in depth look at Bill Henson and some of his practices. I believe the interview in which Henson details how he chooses a model was designed to set people’s minds at ease, to show that it’s not arbitrary or sexual but a careful process involving the parents at every level. Unfortunately one of his methods has set off a whole new range of debates.
Henson was having trouble finding the models he needed for the Sydney exhibition due to open in May this year. Friends introduced him to the principal of a Melbourne primary school. This wasn’t the first time the photographer had been invited into schools in his search for models.
[From No misgivings about those photos, says Henson - Arts - Entertainment]
The media has been having a field day, asserting that Henson scoured the schools implying that no child is safe from the unsupervised depridations of deranged artists.
Australian Primary Principals Association president Leonie Trimper said it made no difference that the school principal accompanied Mr Henson, it was still wrong.
“It doesn’t matter which way you look at it, I think it’s still inappropriate,” she told AAP.
“Primary schools are not there to be a ready commercial market for individuals.
“I am not aware that parents knew this was going to happen, whether staff knew.”Ms Trimper said the issue was a timely reminder about schools’ responsibilities to students and their families.
“I guess someone should sit down with the principal and have a talk about the protocols in their school and if it needs to be taken further, if there needs to be counselling for the principal, then I think that should occur.”
Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan said it was the ultimate betrayal of parents’ trust and someone ought to be sacked.
Mr Marr said Mr Henson was accompanied by the school principal at all times and he did not tell the children he wanted them to model for him or take any photographs.
“The only contact with the photographer was if the parents of the children wished to talk to him,” he told Sky News.
“The impression has been put about by Senator Heffernan and by others that he kind of roamed, roamed the playground unsupervised, perhaps interviewing children, perhaps photographing children.
“That is not the case. The impression that he is sort of loose in the playground is actually factually wrong.”Mr Henson told Mr Marr he mostly found his subjects through friends or friends of friends.
[From Henson 'scouted school for child models' - Breaking News - National - Breaking News]
The public outcry is what about privacy? what about our kids and their right to be kids? Now, I remember going to school and having talent scouts, model scouts and so on parading through, talking to the kids. it was highly competitive, a meat market if you will. I know that studios and actors still scout schools for likely children with differing levels of interaction with the kids. Henson, had no contact with the children. he was never unsupervised and never spoke to the parents directly. he pointed out the two children he was interested in photographing, the principal contacted the parents and the decision was left up to them- one family said yes and one said no. The boy who was photographed in the end was not photographed nude. there is a call for the principal to be sacked, for laws to toughen, but I don’t see that what he did was particularly wrong and definitely not illegal. what do you think?
Bill Henson Speaks out about teen nude controversy
The Henson controversy has heated up again with the first interview and official statement given by the artist since the whole mess began back in May.
…”If you believe you’ve done nothing wrong, that what you’ve done is right, you can draw a tremendous amount of strength from that. If I’d had misgivings about my work, that would have had a profoundly destabilising effect.”
…Henson doesn’t see this as a Sydney v Melbourne story or even an only-in-Australia story. “I strikes me that beneath the panic and nonsense there was the basic common sense and decency of the vast majority of people. There were people who said to me: this sort of thing is peculiar to Australia, and I tell them of course not. These things can happen in any society, in any part of the world at any time, and they have.”
He adds: “Perhaps we are a little more prone to it as far as the arts are concerned. At times I think Western culture has a tenuous grasp on this continent. It’s like the topsoil, very easily blown away.”
[From No misgivings about those photos, says Henson - Arts - Entertainment]
Henson seems to have risen past this controversy, holding tight to his vision and his ideals. He does admit that the choice of image for the publicity may have been a mistake, however, I understand the reasons behind his selection. to Henson this piece was the crown of the exhibition, the most “alive”. From the position of only having viewed a few works from this oeuvre, I can understand his views. this photograph captures something fleeting and real. it’s a magnificent piece and while it may have been a little too out there for most of the public, his decision to use it in the publicity makes sense.
along with Henson’s comments to the press are the first statements from the family of the young female model involved. a lot of the controversy around this exhibition was centered around the concern that the models were incapable of deciding for themselves and that the parents couldn’t decide for them, creating an impasse. I never understood why none of the politicians raising a fuss ever considered the parents and children discussing it and arriving at an educated decision together. that seemed to me to be the best and only resolution. strangely enough this seems to be exactly what the model (referred to in the article as N) and her parents did.
“We talked about how she might feel if her friends, teachers or uncles and aunts saw the pictures,” she says. “We pointed out some of the potential implications of working with Bill (we did talk about the possibility of causing some controversy over the pictures, although not to anything like this extreme). She also tried to imagine how she might feel when she was older, realising that she may feel differently. She had already talked about all of this with her sister and none of it bothered her.”
[From No misgivings about those photos, says Henson - Arts - Entertainment]
as an aside, I think every potential nude model – regardless of age – should have a similar conversation with their nearest and dearest. iron out misunderstandings and expectations at the beginning so that you too can stand tall and collected during a national art censorship witch hunt.
the dignity exercised by Henson and N and her family go to prove once again how ridiculous this controversy really was. another example of making assumptions and leaping in blindly without checking facts first.
For my coverage of the Bill Henson controversy click here
MF Husain’s Nude art aquitted
Bharatmata (Mother India) by M.F. Husain
On Monday, three Supreme Court judges described his painting as a work of art and rejected a petition by complainant Dwaipayan Vekateshacharya Varkedkar seeking Husain’s prosecution for offending Hindus.
“It is an art like the sculptures. None get scandalized looking at the sculptures,”
The Times of India quoted the court as saying.
An elated Husain said he would consider returning to India after he has finished his work in Dubai. “It could be this year,” he said.
Akhil Sibal, attorney for Husain, said the Supreme Court’s ruling would serve as a benchmark in three other cases pending against Husain in New Delhi courts accusing him of offending the sentiments of Hind
Finally the proceedings that started with Husain’s elective exile have been put to rest. I think it’s wonderful that the courts have overturned such absurd charges but I wonder what this ruling, and the subsequent cases for which this is now a benchmark, will mean for the undercurrent of dissent about Husain and his work in India. will it actually be safe for his return? we have seen numerous examples of his work being vandalized and riots forming about his paintings all over the world. the reason he fled in the first place was to protect his body and his works from harm. I fear that this court ruling will not actually prevent that.
Here are the posts I’ve written about MF Husain to date. where do we go from here? who knows?
12/05Nudity is a part of Art – MF Husain Exonerated
24/03Controversial Nudes did sell… and well
Prudish council rejects nude art
“I unwrapped my work and they looked at it and told me it was inappropriate and they would not hang it in the exhibition,’’ Ms Tuckey, a TAFE art teacher, said.
“They said that school children would be seeing the exhibition. I couldn’t believe anything as simple as a nude drawing of a female adult that is not full
frontal … would not be accepted. It was a rude shock.“I think some of them are ignorant of what art is, this is art and this is an art exhibition. I’d say (to the council) grow up.’’
A nude portrait won an award at the same exhibition last year in which Mr Eames was allowed to enter a nude sculpture of the Greek god Poseidon “rising
from the cliffs with his penis exposed’’.Mr Eames, of Tea Tree Gully, said he was “dumbfounded’’ to be excluded this year. “I said `you’ve got to be joking’ and the organiser said `if you’re both going
to continue to protest, I’ll have to ask you to leave the premises’.“I argued that school children go through tours at galleries like the South Australian Art Gallery and see nudity all the time. The (organisers) said it’s coming
from the Mayor and their hands are tied … They need to get with the times, don’t be a bunch of prudes, this is the real world.’’[From Is it too rude? TTG Council thinks it is - - News | Leader Messenger ]
Another example of a knee jerk reaction following the Henson and Nelson Debacles. The fact that a nude won last year just highlights the sheer hypocrisy at work in the Arts councils at the moment. the works are very nice, classical nudes. there is nothing sexual, indecent or provocative about them. There was a time when the US was considered to be more prudish, more censored and fearful, but this year Australia has really taken the cake. According to the Mayor, who had not actually seen the works in question, these pieces are “extremely graphic” nudes.
Mayor Miriam Smith denied she had ordered staff to reject nude entries.
She said it was a “staff decision’’ but one she supported. “Staff rightly so rejected the pieces based on their graphic nudity,’’ she said. “… it’s not about the pieces of art work, it’s about the environment they were to be displayed it’s not an art gallery it’s a community show where children can come into.’’
While Ms Smith said she was not “personally opposed to nude art … when people go (to the exhibition) they don’t expect to be confronted with extremely graphic nude pieces of art work’’.
[From Is it too rude? TTG Council thinks it is - - News | Leader Messenger ]
There is, however, a happy ending. Russell Starke of Greenhill Galleries was so appalled by this senseless censorship that he snapped up both works for his gallery. within days, the sculpture by artist Scott Eames sold for $1000. He has also received an offer for a solo exhibition at Greenhill galleries next year.
Melbourne regulates freedom of expression
ARTWORK depicting sex, violence, nudity and drug use could be removed from Melbourne council-funded galleries under tough new regulations.
Artists will face strict censorship on what can be displayed under a shake-up of Melbourne City Council’s art protocols.
Curators and gallery owners will also be expected to alert council to potentially controversial pieces ahead of schedule. Questionable work would go to a council review panel before going on public display.
This is a big deal for melbourne based artists. Under the excuse of the Henson witch trial, censorship has become more and more apparent in this previously artist friendly city. these regulations are the latest step in an attempt to try and enforce censorship and restrictions to one of the last bastions of freedom of expression. artists will be screened for acceptability before exhibiting in any government sponsored gallery or art space. our art will be policed and our work will have to fit into a socially comfortable mould. after all, why challenge people? why confront them and make them think? what can possibly be gained from stepping outside of a pre established, government sanctioned comfort zone?
crusade against nude art harmful rather than helpful to children
The goal of protecting children should have no argument. But making children afraid of all nudity doesn’t protect them. It makes them anxious, insecure and more susceptible to poor body image and other problems, including abuse.
The desireless subjectivity that we construct as childhood innocence seems never to work. Then we construct dangers to justify our wrong notion, like pedophiles lurking on every street, or good sex education causing teens to have sex. These are contemporary versions of warnings about masturbation causing blindness.
Australia’s insidious media frenzy in these fiascos may seem exaggerated to us. But the censorious attitude is also found in North America. To develop real child protection and teach teens about responsible sexual health, we must stop misconstruing photographs, oversexualizing children and fabricating a moral panic.
This is some of the sanest arguing on this subject I have seen. and not just because it mirrors my own beliefs. I believe that they are tackling this issue the wrong way and in a way that will ultimately be more harmful for children. the latest news in this long line of histrionics is the decision to change classification laws in Australia. in other words, “we don’t like the results the classification board is giving so we are going to change them to suit our own means”. does this strike anyone else as wrong? I thought the point was that the classification board was above the meddling of any one group. totally autonomous. that was supposed to be their strength last I heard.
there are genuine child sex abuse crises happening in Australia at the moment. and have been for some time. and I’m pretty sure that the key demographic involved neither read Art Monthly Australia nor visit upscale Sydney Galleries. but this is a way for the government to look like it’s doing something I guess. it’s something that says we care about children (white, middle class children anyway). it just happens that what they are doing is completely useless to the children involved, and harmful in other ways that they’ve never considered. but like most crusades, it’s more about the face value than the actual damage and actual results.
Rudd thinks Children should be neither seen nor heard
the July cover of Art Monthly Australia
Many of you are probably wondering why I haven’t weighed in yet on the Olympia Nelson scandal that’s sweeping the nation. I haven’t posted on this yet for a number of reasons.
I’ve already covered a lot of the key debates in my series on Bill Henson and his works and don’t wish to bore you by repeating myself over and over. here is a bried summary:
06/06Bill Henson’s Nudes are officially not Porn
03/06From the mouths of Babes – Bill Henson from the Children’s perspective
30/05friday nude quotes
29/05Just because it’s a Nude doesn’t mean it’s Porn
28/05Community Support for Bill Henson’s Nudes
27/05Sexualization of Minors in Art
26/05Bill Henson’s Artworks are Innocent
01/05Media Furor over Teen Nude
I actually feel it’s a badly timed stunt that has probably hurt the cause rather than helped it. I’m also concerned that this may be a case of trying to garner publicity off another’s story. while this is a tried and true method for publicity, especially in the arts, I think it’s in bad taste in such a contentious issue. it feels to me to be less about raising awareness and trying to gain respect for nudes and children in the arts and more about “I photograph nude children too.” I could be wrong, but if it seems that way to me it probably appears that way to others as well and that can’t be good for this cause. Part of my reasoning in this regard has to do with the fact that Robert Nelson used to be very frank about his dislike of Henson’s works, to now turn around and defend them appears to me as if he has a different agenda.
I do think it’s good to stand up for this cause. I do think that it’s great that two notable arts parents are weighing in and that their daughter has been so forthright. I do not think this work is sexualized or in bad taste. I do think that Rudd should keep his mouth shut on topics he clearly doesn’t understand, and I certainly think he should apologize to a young girl who has done no harm other than to love being photographed and to stand up for her beliefs. I think that children are smarter than he gives them credit for and that their opinions are the ones that matter the most.
Bill Henson’s Nudes are officially not Porn
A spokeswoman for Australia’s Classification Board, speaking on condition of anonymity under board policy, said six photos had been referred to them. The board gave five of them a G rating, and one a PG.
The PG photo — of a 13-year-old girl — was used on the cover of the invitation to the exhibit. It was believed to have caused the initial complaints that led to the police shutdown of the exhibit and investigation into possible obscenity charges against Henson.
The image “creates a viewing impact that is mild and justified by context … and is not sexualized to any degree,” the board found.
I am delighted that the censorship board has cleared Henson’s nude photographs. This strikes a blow for artists and freedom of expression everywhere. it is still uncertain whether the case will proceed or the exhibition will resume, however the key case for the seizure of the photographs and the legal cases pending hinge on the notion that these works were pornographic. as this notion has now been rather spectacularly thrown out, I doubt there is a legal leg to stand on. The newspapers are already reporting it as a victory and that the cases will be shut down.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd still defends his blandishments but states that he wont interfere with the decision, which is at least something. personally I couldn’t be happier at the Classification Board’s findings and I hope that we can see an end to this ridiculous saga. Henson has still not made a statement, which strikes me as a wise idea but I would love to know his feelings on the matter after the fact.
This debate has raised quite a lot of ugly arguments and discussions. more than that, it has raised some ugly feelings towards art in general and nudes specifically, it has seen galleries taking works off their walls for fear of persecution and to people being afraid to express their opinions. it became a case of pedophiles under the bed and an ugly sizing up of everyone debating the issues. Only art can take us to those places, that it can make us debate and shape our society, it can make us wonder, fear, and feel outrage. These decisions made today will shape the course of art and people’s perceptions of art for years to come.
Edit 3:45pm: This just in..
Photographer Bill Henson and the Sydney gallery which displayed his controversial pictures of naked children last month will not be prosecuted after police accepted there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.
Police today said they made the decision following advice from NSW Director of Public Prosecutions Nicholas Cowdery.
Assistant Commissioner Catherine Burn said the matter was a “complex area of law” but police were obliged to launch their investigation after complaints from the public.
“Police did receive complaints and this has been a matter of significant public concern and debate. This is a complex area of law,” she said.
[From Henson in clear: prosecution scrapped - Arts - Entertainment - smh.com.au]
Edit: 6:21pm Henson has made a statement about the past two weeks. details here
From the mouths of Babes – Bill Henson from the Children’s perspective
A local paper, from Bill Henson’s old stomping ground Northcote, took a different tack in this case by interviewing local children and seeking their opinions on the controversy. what is interesting in my opinion is the fact that the children seem less concerned about the issues purported by the media and more about their own body images and the perception of their peers. I think that it’s sad that that is their first concern but my biggest fear is that all the hype and furor may make the young models feel ashamed of their bodies and nakedness when they shouldn’t. can you imagine the courage it took to model? as a young, insecure child? I remember those days all too clearly and I think that it’s important that no matter whether you agree with the works or not, whether you accept the models choices to pose, take a moment to appreciate the bravery it took and the strength they must need to stand tall in the face of this controversy.
Year 9 arts students from Thornbury High School said they wouldn’t like to see Henson prosecuted but neither would they want to pose for him themselves.
“I wouldn’t (pose for him),” said Mutinta, 14. “Imagine coming to school and you guys going ‘I saw you … ‘ “
Classmate Mary, 14, said the decision to pose was up to the individual. “I think it’s all a personal choice. A naked person is not a big deal for me,” she said.
“If I felt comfortable with my body and whatever, I probably would, but it depends on what you think.”
“I think it’s a bit wrong because the girl’s a bit young,” said Damien, 14.
Mary said she didn’t share her mother’s concerns about paedophiles getting excited by the photos.
But Billy, also 14, said it was something he’d thought about. “Knowing there might be a dirty old man fantasising about it that would scare me,” he said.
And while the students had concerns about the impact of the work and the ability of young people to give consent, they also defended the right to freedom of expression in art.
“I think you should look at art for being art and stop focusing on the negatives,” Mutinta said.
[From Split on Northcote artist's nude furore - Leader News: Melbourne community news]
Just because it’s a Nude doesn’t mean it’s Porn
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.
Community Support for Bill Henson’s Nudes
Support for Bill Henson and his art has been pouring in from all sides of the community. an open letter, signed by over 40 arts leaders in Australia – including actress Cate Blanchett, has been published in The Age calling for Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to review his statement and the controversy surrounding the works.
The work itself is not pornographic, even though it includes depictions of naked human beings. It is more justly seen in a tradition of the nude in art that stretches back to the ancient Greeks, and which includes painters such as Caravaggio and Michelangelo. Many of Henson’s controversial images are not in fact sexual at all. Others depict the sexuality of young people, but in ways that are fundamentally different from how naked bodies are depicted in pornography. 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 inviolabilty of the human body. In contrast, the defining essence of pornography is that it endorses, condones or encourages abusive sexual practice. We respectfully suggest that Henson’s work, even when it is disturbing, does nothing of the sort. I would personally argue that, in its respect for the autonomy of its subjects, the work is a counter-argument to the exploitation and commodification of young people in both commercial media and in pornographic images. Many of us have children of our own. The sexual abuse and exploitation of children fills us all with abhorrence. But it is equally damaging to deny the obvious fact that adolescents are sexual beings. This very denial contributes to abusive behaviour, because it is part of the denial of the personhood of the young. In my opinion, Mr Henson’s work shows the delicacy of the transition from childhood to adulthood, its troubledness and its beauty, in ways which do not violate the essential innocence of his subjects. It can be confronting, but that does not mean that it is pornography. Legal opinion is that if charges were laid against Mr Henson, he would be unlikely to be found guilty. The seizure of the photographs, and the possible prosecution of Mr Henson, the Rosyln Oxley9 Gallery or the parents of Henson’s subjects, takes up valuable police and court time that would be much better spent pursuing those who actually do abuse children.
[From Open letter in support of Bill Henson - National - theage.com.au]
Around the country, while some galleries are cravenly pulling their Henson pieces out of their collections and off the walls other galleries are standing firm and standing up for freedom of artistic expression.
In an act of solidarity with the embattled artist, leading dealer Denis Savill hung a Bill Henson image of two nude young people in the window of his Sydney gallery.
“This will give them something to grizzle about,” Mr Savill said as he hung one of the works from Henson’s 1992-1993 Untitled series.
Mr Savill, like many of his art industry colleagues, was appalled when police last week confiscated photographs by Henson – one of Australia’s leading contemporary artists – and decided to hang the picture beside an Arthur Boyd nude, “to remind people that nudes have inspired artists for centuries”.
[From Defiance as gallery tests boundaries | The Australian]
This travesty of a case is already being likened to Hitler’s book burning and Howard’s Children Overboard scandal. the media seems to be turning itself and has stopped referring to the artworks in question as “”art”" and now seems to be on the side of the besieged artist. Some have been wondering if all this is a desperate bid by the PM to regain right wing votes but it seems very ill conceived to me. International media have been discussing Australia’s history of censorship and restrictions in artistic “freedom” and are referring to Australia as a cultural backwater, a country that handles it’s artistic resources like a tyranny.
Sexualization of Minors in Art
It is now the task of art historians, critics and fellow artists to explain Henson’s work and defend his status as one of our finest artists. Their job is almost impossible.
The current debate about the representation of children and adolescents is so charged that anyone who disagrees with claims that pedophilic images are proliferating before our eyes is open to the charge of pedophilia themselves.
Henson’s work is art and, as such, it falls into a different cultural category to the ads for kids’ clothes and the tween magazines that have been the central focus of this debate. But these distinctions are irrelevant to people who believe that visual representations of children and adolescents are the real source of child abuse.
I have been thinking further about the issue of sexualization of teens in art. I think if the case against Bill Henson were to go through we will start to see extreme limitations in the freedom of expression and artistic freedom. we will also see a harsh and difficult change in the way we handle teenagers and the way they see themselves. This article fascinated me because I think there is a real fear that if you aren’t shocked and offended by Bill Henson’s artworks you are obviously a pedophile. I think that is the reason so many other galleries are following suit. it’s almost gestapo tactics.
I wonder what it says about the person who sees these pieces and immediately thinks they’re sexual. is it automatically because they are nude or is it because they felt a response and assumed others did as well? or is it that all emotional responses to a nude work, especially one of a nude minor, must be either outrage or titillation? I had an emotional response when I saw the first uncensored piece in the age. it was one of almost sadness, a fear for her going through puberty and experiencing so many new things, physically and emotionally. it reminded me of going through puberty myself and the uncertainty of it all – a sense of pride warring with fear.
Viewing this website forcibly reminded me of the dangers of fetishising innocence. School uniforms may well titillate pedophiles and prompt them to commit crimes. But is banning school uniforms the correct response?
If we go down the path of saying that all images of children and young adolescents can only portray them as ideal Brady Bunch kids, then we will spend our lives, as a society, looking for images of corrupted children and teenagers everywhere. Worse, we risk looking at every image through the lens of the pedophile.
I agree with this, by trying to anticipate what might turn a pedophile on we may be stepping into their shoes and thereby, not only destroying our own view of art, but possibly ruining the experience for others. the reality is that there are sick people in the world. there are people who will get turned on by the images of corpses in CSI, who will get excited by the shoes in a catalogue or even the feet in the Sound of Music (read this article for more on that surprising development). so what can we do? we can stop trying to predict them, stop trying to anticipate what they might find titillating and risk damaging freedom of art and expression, the reputations of renowned artists and focus instead on making sure our children are safe and educated. that they have control over their bodies and their own sexuality. I don’t want to step into a pedophile’s shoes, I don’t want to try to think like they do. and I don’t want to see beautiful artwork degraded just because some strange person might think it’s sexy.
if this goes ahead, what is on the cards next- huggies ads? Anne Geddes? where do we draw the line?
Bill Henson’s Artworks are Innocent
Officers raided the Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery, in Paddington in Sydney’s eastern suburbs, just before the exhibition was due to open on Thursday night. They seized 20 of Henson’s images which feature a naked girl and boy said to be aged 12 to 13.NSW Police Force has said it intends to lay state and federal charges, and the investigation has also gone interstate as the young girl is understood to be living in Victoria. Rose Bay Local Area Commander Superintendent Allan Sicard said the seized images depicted a child under the age of 16 years “in a sexual context”.
Commonwealth charges could be laid over the gallery’s website with state charges applying to the pictures, he said.
The raid, and the prospect of an artist facing criminal charges, has reignited the debate about what constitutes art.
[From Law Society backs nude child pics artist - Breaking News - National - Breaking News]
I have been so angry about this whole mess that I haven’t been able to write coherently till now. I don’t know what has me more outraged. the police raid and seizures, the statement by Prime minister Kevin Rudd that these works are ‘revolting’, the galleries that are also pulling Bill Henson’s works from their collections or the constant newspaper articles referring to these artworks, by one of Australia’s premier artists, as ‘”art”‘. At the same time I am heartened by the reactions of the art community and the NSW law society that have rallied behind Bill Henson.
The fact that people can debate whether these works are art or not is an outrage. the fact that the PM of Australia has gone on record saying these works have “no artistic merit” is downright disgraceful. whether you like the pieces or not they are the epitome of art and artistic intention. they are beautiful and pure and definitely not sexualized in any way.
Henson has explored many themes in his long and successful career but frequently returns to the notion of innocence, coming of age, adolescence and the confusion, fear and emotion of that age. captured between the innocence of youth and the freedom of adulthood these teens are neither sexual nor innocent and uncertain of where they stand. the stark reality of Henson’s works is what is truly gripping. the uncertainty is palpable and it is probably that which has everyone in a bind. It’s honesty is so compelling.
the key word here is sexualized. and sexualization of minors is an issue. but these pieces are not pornographic, they are not titillating or sexy. I think they are the opposite in fact. Henson has always received permission from his subjects and their parents and is noted by other artists and his models for conscientiousness. the treatment of him in this case is disgusting.
Recent Comments