Bill Henson art exhibit deemed child porn
May 24th 2008 17:24
One of Australias leading contemporary artists has been accused of creating child porn with his works due to an exhibition of photographs showing naked children as young as 12 in a variety of poses. The exhibition of Bill Henson's works at the Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery in Paddington, in Sydney's eastern suburbs, was raided by police just prior to opening.
Henson has said none of the children featured are professional models and some of the photos were taken up to a decade ago. Police are trying to locate the children who were photographed to question them. Detectives from the Child Exploitation Internet Unit were also called in to investigate the contents of the gallery's website. The web page displayed all 41 of the naked images, but they have now been taken down and a spokesman from the Australian Communication and Media Authority said the web link was being investigated.
Police say charges will be laid under both the NSW and Commonwealth Crimes acts for publishing an indecent article. The alleged Commonwealth offence relates to publishing some of the photographs on the internet. NSW police have seized 20 of 41 photographs from the exhibition and plan to launch criminal proceedings under the Child Protection Act.
Roslyn Oxley9 gallery's manager Amanda Rowell has said the reaction to this exhibition has been blown out of proportion and referred to Henson as a "master"
Henson was born in Melbourne in 1955 and had his first solo exhibition at the age of 19 at the National Galley of Victoria in 1975. He has since exhibited extensively in Australia and internationally, and his work is held in all major Australian collections including the Art Gallery of NSW, Art Gallery of SA, Art Gallery of WA, National Gallery of Victoria and the National Gallery of Australia.
Among international collections, Henson's work is held in the Solomon R Guggenheim Museum, New York, the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, the Denver Art Museum, the Houston Museum of Fine Art, 21C Museum, Louisville, the Montreal Museum of Fine Art, Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, the DG Bank Collection in Frankfurt, and the Sammlung Volpinum and the Museum Moderner Kunst, Vienna.
Here are some works from Bill Henson's Paris Opera Project 1991
The Paris Opera Project of 1991 was in fact constructed in the artist's studio. This was the series which seemed to literalise the effect of listening to music, to find formal expression for emotions generated by music, something which may be detected throughout Henson's photography.
"Henson's achievement…lies not so much in the twist he gives to the subject of dis-enfranchised youth but in the almost premodern beauty he conjures from such a familiar and clinically post-postmodern source."
Dennis Cooper, Artforum International 2002
Here are some works from 2000
Henson's elegant, formal photographs - of battered landscapes and fragile, wispy youths - resemble nothing so much as Flemish still-lifes; rarely has colour photography captured so profoundly the furry texture of night time."
The New Yorker 2004 And here are some works from 2003
"Henson's images are carefully choreographed moments of suspenseful drama, veritable symphonies of decadence and beauty, of squalor and opulence, of mysterious darkness and ominous light, of quiet obsession and subversive ecstasy".
Edmund Capon, Director, Art Gallery of New South Wales
Henson has the ability to generate strong flat flashes of light in his work creating the illusion of proximity even as the image is flattened and abstracted. He is a master of the use of light and dark in the tradition of the great European painters. His powerful and edgy photographs approach both the painterly and the cinematic, bringing together the formal and classical with the gritty, casual dramas of the everyday. Beautiful, confronting, and unforgettable his images capture a universal essence and enliven our own sense of being.
I have not seen the works that were removed from Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery this week (other than a couple of heavily censored images flashed up briefly on the TV news) so i cant comment on their specific content.
I dont agree with the sexualisation of children, particularly in fashion modelling and advertising. I think children should be allowed to model if they so desire but the clothing they model should be appropriate for their age (ie childrens ranges) and their presentation and image should not be manipulated by adults to indicate they are older than they are (ie makeup, style of pose)
The children Henson has used are not professional models but they did model . . . nude . . . although nudity does not necessarily mean sexualisation. Would a artistic picture of a mother and baby bathing be child porn? Are pictures of nude children from african countries considered porn? Was the primary issue that the images were published on the internet where pedophiles access the majority of child porn from? Or is there a question as to whether Henson was unsupervised with the children and whether it was appropriate or necessary for them to be nude at all?
I dont think nudity is revolting and i wonder if the confiscated pictures were as tasteful as others from Hensen's body of work . . . mostly i wonder if this incident will tarnish the artists reputation or accelerate his fame?
images sourced from Dale Sharpe, the Art Gallery of NSW, and Flickr
| 129 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
But is the naked body in itself sexual, or is it all the baggage that people attach to it that makes so? Children do not know they are naked until we tell them.
Conversely, a 12 year old child is not really in a position to give informed consent so exploitation is a real concern.
This is a tough one. I can really see both sides of the argument and I don't really know where I stand.
I do think laying charges is extreme. There is a difference between taking photographs others may regard as porn and deliberately setting out to sexualise young children.
And I also wrote this on Ahmed's post- some of these works have been around for years, why has no one complained until now? Part of me can't help thinking the hysteria over pedophilia is getting out of hand...
Hmmm. Really tricky.
Comment by Joanne Fedler
I, for instance would hate to see my 12 year old daughter naked as part of this exhibition.
Jo
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
when i worked for a local Council sometimes i would have to take photos of public works before, during and after construction and we were told to make sure that any photos involving crowds did not include children . . . i wonder if the issue is that we cannot photograph children at all, even for arts sake, and if so what is the difference between that and child actors or singers who are recorded on film?
i can understand people want to protect their children from pedophiles but is the implication that a pedophile seeing an artwork will track down the child and victimise them?
or is it an allegation that Henson is a pedophile himself due to the process of creating such images?
on this matter i have far more questions than answers . . .
hi joanne,
you raise an excellent point about consent, and i agree i would not give consent for my child to be photographed nude, although i also would not consent for my child to be in a beauty pagent at that age either, neither of these because i think they are child porn but because i think it exploits innocence.
Henson has really pushed the envelope with this exhibit as it is forcing us to define what is currently a very grey moral area.
it makes me think of the little boy actor in the Nicole Kidman film Birth and how he was shown naked in a bathtub . . . is the difference between child porn and not child porn whether genitals are shown?
Hensons body of work is basically allowing the audience to be a voyeur into adolescence and making us question which scenarios are appropriate for age . . . perhaps he has finally crossed that line he was searching for?
thanks for the thoughtful comments, it was a complex issue, i was interested to see that Kevin Rudd actually had a clear opinion on this when usually he hedges his bets and avoids answering questions
Comment by Joanne Fedler
I think the issue is not that a potential pedophile will track down the individual child in the photo, but that these images generally feed into a pedophillic appetite, making OTHER children more vulnerable to abuse. For example, with images of child porn, there are two categories of victim - the first (and most obvious) is the child used in the making of porn, and the second is that anyone who possesses these images, while they themselves may never have abused a child, they obviously get turned on by the sexualization of children, making other kids vulnerable to abuse.
My husband and I won't allow images of our kids to be posted on the internet - we always refuse consent to the school using their images in promotional material, and I won't post images of them on Facebook or any internet-accessible source. I was asked to do a paid blog for Sydney's Child, but they wanted a picture of me AND my kids to promote it. I tried to talk the editor out of having pictures of my kids, but he was adamant he wanted of me and my whole family, so I said no. Ruby may think this is being totally paranoid, but it goes to the heart of the issue of consent - my kids are too young to consent to me using them to promote my writing. When they're adults, they can give informed consent, not now. Which is why I think Henson's work can't be defended. If these were paintings from his own head, and he didn't actually USE real live kids in his work, it would be a different matter for me. I would say - this is art. But photography is just that one level more invasive because you are using real live people for your 'art.' It has to therefore be scrupulously unexploitative.
Jo
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
thanks for clarifying the threat of pedophiles, i appreciate the information, it really is an area i have alot of questions about and i think should be discussed in public forums most often rather than swept under the rug
you make an excellent point about the "second victim" of child porn which helps me understand the issue a bit more
in your opinion should there be zero tolerance for any kind of nude photography of children where there is public access?
and is the theory that nude photos of children would have the potential to provoke a predatory response in any man or only men pre-disposed to pedophilia and it it simply better to be safe than sorry?
Comment by Joanne Fedler
I used to work in the area of freedom of speech in South Africa, around pornography in particular because I come from a slightly unusual perspective around porn which is that I believe SOME kinds of pornography contribute to creating an environment in which women are not treated with respect and equality and in particular pornography that is degrading and that sexualizes violence, I think should be strictly regulated if not censored outright. But on the issue of other pornography which displays explicit nudity and sex, I don't support censorship but rather education - a kind of visual literacy about what these images 'mean' and how they contribute to our values and attitudes and obviously we have to be exposed to these images in order to have these conversations.
You ask two difficult questions:
in your opinion should there be zero tolerance for any kind of nude photography of children where there is public access?
I don't know.... I can say that I stopped taking nude photos of my kids when they got to a certain age - just beyond babies. I think children are so exploited as it is by the media, that the least we can do is refrain from making their bodies objects of our 'art.' It's not kids who go to view these exhibitions, it's adults. I'm just not sure how we get past the consent issue.... I am so interested to know how Henson convinced these kids to pose for him.
and is the theory that nude photos of children would have the potential to provoke a predatory response in any man or only men pre-disposed to pedophilia and it it simply better to be safe than sorry?
Certainly pedophiles will get off on these pictures. There is no proven causal link between porn and rape, for example (and believe me, I've researched this, though some rapists do have impressive collections of porn, but most do not... so in itself, it does not CAUSE that kind of harm, but can contribute to it in someone predisposed)
The core issue for me is not the secondary victims here, but the consent of the kids who were used in making these images. Pedophiles can get off on Kmart catalogues of kids in pyjamas... so if we're talking censorship, it's a slippery slope.
Jo
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
thanks for indulging all my questions, it seems like you have alot of experience in exactly this area!
the first question that did spring to me mind was were the photoshoots supervised by the parents and were the children coerced . . . i imagined them being the children of other artist friends who trusted him and saw the merits of the project, but that is not confirmed at this stage . . . perhaps it is more the process of creating the photos that requires examination than the resulting images?
i think there is currently a lack of consistancy regarding acceptance of nudity and exploitation across the spectrum, some people think it is acceptable to exhibit their children on stage, screen, catwalk or gallery wall while others do not, so zero tolerance (although admirable) is hard to enforce
Comment by Troy McNaughton
Secret Sydney
God's Advocate
Artists often pave the way for social change by highlighting controversial issues relevant to the times. Perhaps this was Henson’s intention?
I don’t personally see Henson’s depiction of children as pornographic or explicit in nature, however who is to say that Henson’s images are not inciting unsavoury behaviour in paedophiles?
I do not think it fare to blame Henson for the paedophilic behaviours that have existed in society as long as our society has existed, nor do I blame McDonalds for child obesity.
It comes down to what we are prepared to live with as a society today, and I fear that for the majority of people being blissfully unaware of something is a good a solution as any.
Henderson, in my opinion, is being used as a scapegoat for the Australian government who are under increasing pressure to prevent child sex abuse. Henderson merely represented a PR opportunity for the commonwealth, a government happy to pose in front of the camera…
Child sex abuse is a horrible fact within society, and hopefully something that we can prevent in the future throughout proper education, support, and a judicial reform.
If Henson’s purpose was to cast the spotlight on this issue, he has succeeded, and hopefully discussion will provide a standard of what is acceptable within our culture and society today…
On a side note, if Henson’s exhibition was held in a country with a lower age of consent, would the photographs be classified as Art, Porn, or Child Porn?
The lowest age of consent around the world is just 12yrs of age in Tonga, followed by 13yrs in Guyana and Spain; 14yrs in Albania, Austria, Canada, China, Croatia, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Peru, Puerto Rico, Romania and Slovenia; 15yrs throughout Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Guinea, Monaco, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden, Thailand; 16yrs in Australia, Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Hong Kong, Dominica, El Salvador, Finland, Guam, Israel, Jamaica, Kenya, Latvia, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Tonga, Uzbekistan, United Kingdom; 17yrs in Cyprus and Ireland and 20yrs in Tunisia
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
thanks for your input!
this is the only thing ive read that he said in direct relation to these particular works:
He said he was interested in exploring "something which is absolutely inviolate and unknowable".
apparently some of the models are now in their 30s and attend his openings . . . i also noticed there has been some emphasis on that the children were not "professional" models to clarify that they (or their parents) were not given financial incentive to participate in the project, implying they chose to on its merits
also i dont hink all the kids were 12, thats just the lowest age being highlighted by the media for effect . . . i dont know if the legal issue ends at 14 or 16 or 18 with regards to nude photography, it seems to be a largely undefined area
Comment by Mountain Fog
Infognito
QUOTE ME NO QUOTES!
The whole censorship saga has plagued us before, with the banning of OH Calcutta! a stage show with nudity. Then the Hair, again nudity.
People arrested and whatnot. Shows stopped, R certificates issued, court cases. I have not seen this fellows contentious seized work, and I wonder if Rudd and that idiot Iemma have either?
Pollies will always take the safest road of opinion, and it rarely has anything to do with the subject, but how it affects public opinion, at least that has been the way it has gone for the forty years I have observed.
Is it child porn? Is it child exploitation? Well, consider this; if it was remotely like that, do you really think the Guggenheim Museum would hang it on its walls? Let alone all the other institutions? Do you think it would get one foot in America if it was considered porn or exploitative?
If he was a new artist, and this was his first exhibition, then yes, I would really worry about what he was up to.
However, as you show here, he is far from that, he is famous for this type of work, and he has been doing it for years.
Is it tasteful? Is it right to study this area of humanity, in this way? That answer is up to the viewer, but, to outright ban something, to confiscate art? Well, I want to know, why suddenly now?
The hysteria surrounding this subject is typical in many ways, as it always seems to be, that society works in waves and packs, one spark and they are all off.
Come back in ten years, and the photos will probably be given an award, who knows, I wouldn't be surprised!
Is it art? The few photos the ABC showed seemd to fit that description.
Anyway, the only outstanding question I would have is, did he have parental consent? Were they present? If not, then indeed he may be in trouble, and mainly because of the social/political climate regading this area, which would seem to be sensationalised and manipulated to some degree. And what of their parents?
I wonder what the old masters would think of all this?
And as for Joanne suggesting painting children in a nude state is different, why?
If it is art, it is all art. If it is porn, it is all porn.
So, off to the galleries the flaming torch bearers will go.
cheers
fog
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
i always appreciate your two cents!
yeah the banning and confiscation seemed like overkill to me, apparently the child protection agency (Bravehearts) lodged the complain because the images were on advertising pamphlets that were distributed to local residents, and i know publishing the images on the internet was a seperate issue
i agree with you about all out or all in, there really has to be consistancy, and i think it would be quite a task removing the images of every topless child from our media and art . . . all the nude ethnic children from the pages of the national geographic, the medical text books, underwear and swimwear catalogues . . . do we ban Brooke Shields in "Pretty Baby" or "The Blue Lagoon"?
Comment by Mountain Fog
Infognito
QUOTE ME NO QUOTES!
Sorry Morgan, but yes!
Not for their state of undress (they took all their clobber off in those movies??), but because of their vacuous personalities and careers of inexcuseably vapid acting!!
They must go!
And I too thought of all the books, art books particularly. What about artists like Donald Friend? He liked to draw nude Asian boys! Yet he is revered as one of Oz's icons in art...well, so far!
The presumption that, all images of children are open to 'sexualisation', no matter what the context is, becomes a powerful tool to persecute and prosecute with.
The fact that you can be arrested for taking a photo of beach goers, if kids are seen in it, says it all really. And, in Victoria, and probably here too, years back they passed a law stating that anything written, that is fiction, can be deemed illegal if any of the characters are under age. So this means an author cannot write about fictional first love experiences anymore?
So art, on all fronts, is being reined in, under pretences of controlling paedophilia. One of the arguments being, any image or statement about children can incite a paedophile to act out his/her fantasy, but it is also admitted there is no proof of this, and that a paedophile could get aroused by any photo of a child, even fully dressed. Presumption is not proof, but can be a powerful tool of persecution, one suspects.
Well, what about photos of dogs? There are people who get off on beastiality too, are there not? Should we now criminalise and ban all photos of dogs, because it may incite an attack on a dog?
The presumption that because "A" and "B" exists, ergo it will lead to "C", seems like an illogical and unprovable construct to me, because it rests on presumption. When that is put in law however, you have yet another tool with which to wield power over people, particularly anyone criticising government policy etc...
Anyway, I must admit, at the end of the day, I think this artist is crazy!
Photographing underage kids, in one presumes provocative nude poses (the seized images), was really asking for it, at any time, but particularly in the current climate.
cheers
fog
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk