knee-jerk?
Bill Henson's latest exhibition has been shut down by the government, following accusations of sexualising children in his images and questions of the legality of his work. Read more here.
I have long been a huge fan of Henson's photographic work - eerie, atmospheric, gothic images of mythical landscapes and disassociated bodies - a lot of which include topless teenagers which Rudd finds "absolutely revolting". In fact, my Year 12 major work, which also featured nude portraiture, was inspired by an early body of his work.
It hard to know what I think of his work now, in light of these accusations and the current crusade against sexually explicit imagery. I have seen a lot worse in art - in film, paintings, photographs, even in real-life installations, so a few naked pictures have never bothered me, though maybe it should.
The measure of whether it falls into "art" or "pornography" (so we were taught at university) is whether the work is engaging in societal critique, or indulging in sexually explicit images for the sake of it.
It is here that Henson's work walks the fine line. On one hand they have an sensual quality akin to eroticism that makes us uneasy - it's hard not to cringe when his works are reminiscent of that dark night when disgraced MP Milton Orkopolous picked up a young homeless youth to abuse and ply with drugs.
On the other hand, Henson's work reveals the dissassociation and dislocation many people - particularly youths - feel in today's society. Their bodies and limbs, removed from any sense of personal belonging or investment, become corpses (at least that's what I think of when I look at them), scattered on a wasteland where there is little meaning and everything seems like a dream.
There has been far too much discussion of the former and far too little understanding of the latter from the government and lobby bodies who banned this exhibition (shown in a private gallery. Perhaps they could have restricted viewing to adults only, if they were concerned about children being exposed to mature content). Many works of art which inform our culture and allow discussion of hard topics like the exploitation of youth use confronting imagery to "shock" us into awareness. Unsuprisingly, in countries where censorship is rife and knee-jerk reactions to societal problems has given way to senseless lobbying, the only solution is for such works to go underground; they rarely go away.
While I'm not necessarily putting Henson's work into the category of social critique, it would be a shame to dismiss his work without having that conversation, without asking what these images stand for and what the artist is trying to achieve. I'm sorry Mr Rudd, but "I find these outrageous" and "Kids should be allowed to be kids" just isn't going to cut it. The fact is, kids these days aren't just allowed to be kids, giving way to the drifting, haunted figures in Henson's work. Banning an art exhibition is not going to change that.
Yes, let's protect our children from being exploited via imagery, by all means, but let's not destroy art and freedom of expression in the process.
9 comments:
It's a tough issue. I think you've raised a good point about the meaning and aim of the artist's work, but my concern would be with the children themselves who are being photographed. I don't know a lot about this kind of thing, but what effect does posing for this kind of work have on kids and young people? If it's potentially damaging, isn't there any other way for an artist to get his message out? I'd really be interested to hear your thoughts on this.
Hi Lara,
Good point!
As for the legal issues, it is definitely illegal to photograph kids without their parent's permission, so I would assume that Henson's team have permission.
Is it potentially damanging, though, for the kids themselves? We can only assume. It is an important issue to look at, but I think we need to be careful on ruling out art just because it is potentially damaging. Think about the works that would fall under the chop - movies where child actors are called on to perform traumatic experiences, documentaries, etc. I'd sooner rule out "Kid Nation" than an exhibition if our concern was potential damage!
I guess my point isn't that we don't impose restrictions at all on these things, but that we do so with intelligence, looking at both sides of the issue and without making blanket assertions.
I remember reading an interview once where Kirsten Dunst, who was offered Meena Suavi's role in American Beauty, turned it down because the idea of acting initmate with an adult man frightened her (though now she regrets it as it was a fantastic role). Fair enough. I think we assume that young people are being exploited without acknowledging that they have a choice, that they're not being exploited or forced into something they don't want to do (unlike in other industries...)
Thankyou for a thoughtful post, Soph. I felt uneasy when I saw the headline, and saw a clip on one of those rubbish current affair shows last night.
There is a lot to debate and talk about in regards to Henson's work, and it can't be black and white. Obviously on one hand you can't exploit kids, but on the other, you can't just do this blanket kneejerk banning.
What really irks me, and what stands out in these sorts of instances, is the ignorance and ugliness of the criticism. You have a tv reporter getting all up in arms, tsk tsk-ing, but at the same time you know if it wasn't for regulations they would have loved to show some of the photos in their story, to get better ratings, and shock, and sensationalise.
So really the whole moral aspect in the reports seem so trite and hypocritical.
You also get the impression that the people who are so quick to write off the work, are the kind of people who would not even give his work the time of day if the subject didnt offend them-- And yet suddenly they are the art critic who gets to say what can or can't be shown.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/henson-show-charges/2008/05/23/1211183060208.html?page=2
That's a link to an update to the story - on year 11 and 12 students who studied Henson as part of their course (as did I).
Ben I totally agree!
I guess my point isn't that we don't impose restrictions at all on these things, but that we do so with intelligence, looking at both sides of the issue and without making blanket assertions.
I do agree with you there!
Another issue I thought about this afternoon when I was driving to uni: although this exhibition is being shown in a private gallery where adults can choose whether or not they are exposed to these images, and the artist is not intending to harm children in any way, nor is he producing these pictures for anyone's sexual gratification, what about people who are susceptible to the temptations of child pornography, who might use this exhibition as a legal way to get a fix? Or even someone who might not know the effect that it could have on them, and might be then tempted to seek out other forms of similar imagery which are not legal nor made with such care? Can the artist be held responsible for what people do with the images?
I don't know. It's a tricky issue. But I'm with you on the idea of avoiding knee-jerk responses.
I heard on the radio this afternoon that the police are planning to press charges against the artist. I can understand the need to protect children, but that does seem a little extreme to me.
shut down by the government No, the police shut it down, and are likely to be pressing charges. They're under-age children, ergo, nude images are illegal.
I'm all for knee-jerks actually, especially when it comes to children. Act first and fast, re-evaluate, and change course if need be. I think it's better to err on the side of over-caution in the case of the vulnerable.
I think the issues raised by Miranda Devine in today's Herald on this subject are more worthy of debate then the "art vs pornography" issue.
I'm going out to burn my National Geographics as I'm sure there's naked images of South American tribes in them, hopefully the police will be be removing those nappy ads shown on TV showing babies bottoms and cherubs will be removed from paintings and gardens everywhere.
Post a Comment