For those who live under the proverbial, in the last couple of days a cause célèbre has emerged in the art world, centering on the work of photographer Bill Henson.

He has photographed young children — twelve and thirteen-year-olds — in the nuddy.

While the PM sees "no artistic merit" in Henson's work, most people who are interested in art do. I have been a fan of his gothic, broody, cut-up images for at least a decade. He's internationally important, he's hung everywhere — I've never heard someone who loves art dismiss his contribution. While there's a sexual undercurrent in his previous work, it was never pornographic or exploitative. While you could sometimes tell his models were naked, they were most dark blurry outlines.

I haven't seen the current work thought, except for pixelated in the paper. I think the pixelation makes it look more sexual than it otherwise would.

On another thread, somebody asked if they would be happy if their adolescent child posed naked for Henson. I know a mother who was in a similar position about a decade. (Not for Henson, but for two other Sydney photographers.) She said yes, because her daughter wanted to, was emotionally mature, understood the art, which wasn't in the least sexual. As far as I know, they have never regretted the decision.

Personally, I agree with the art gallery owner (I think) who said that society is transferring its anxieties about pedeophilia onto this work. Henson's art is about the dark heart of adolescence, it's about as far removed from teen porn as you could get.

Here are some examples of Henson's work:
http://www.pavementmagazine.com/billhenson.html
http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/photography/past_exhns/twilight/henson/index.html

Some meeja articles if you so desire:

Bill Henson's career: http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/career-framed-by-controversy/2008/05/23/1211183097203.html

Our PM turns art critic: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23745396-2702,00.html

Fairfax on Henson as a whipping boy: http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/henson-a-whipping-boy/2008/05/23/1211183060448.html

The Australian on other artists defending Henson: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23749123-16947,00.html

What do you think?

I agree Vanilla. This is classic 'moral panic' hysteria.

It's an interesting twist on the notion of obscenity - works of art being banned because people are frightened that paedophiles might get their jollies from looking at them. I understand that there are some sad losers out there who get their rocks off from Target underwear catalogues... they should be banned too!

What a load of crap.

Vanilla

I practically cried in despair when I heard that Henson's work was being vandalised by the sexually challenged.

As you said, society is transferring its anxieties about paedophilia onto Henson's work.

In a world where our sexuality and bodies were considered absolutely normal, this wouldn't happen. It is appalling that work like this is desecrated while paedophile priests are protected.

I guess that parents everywhere should destroy their children's photos of them (their kids) in the nuddy.

:-)

Instead of reaching greater enlightenment, we are becoming seriously mentally imbalanced as a society.

Are we entering a new Dark Age?

Why?

I have a daughter of this age and I find the photographs offensive.

After all, if the community decided that an underage model should be prevented from being the (clothed) face of Australian fashion week, then these pictures of a naked child are surely beyond the pale.

I have no problem with nudity in art in general, as long as we are talking about adults. But a 12 year old is not, and should not be presented as a sexual being. The same images, if they were found on your computer would result in possible jail terms as pedophilia.

That artists feel they need to push boundaries is understandable. This does not absolve us of the need to have boundaries, however. Just because the artist claims it is "art" doesn't always make it so.

I am an art fan, I worked for a number of years in Fine Arts.Where is the artistic merit in presenting images which sexualise a child and titillate pedophiles? I wonder how the kid is likely to feel at school now, when all the kids will have seen her naked? It has the potential to be VERY challenging and possibly damaging to the child's welfare. We have an age of sexual consent for a reason.

Personally I find this work to be in the same vein, although far more offensive, than those beauty pageants where 5 year olds wear make up and provocative clothes. There is just no need for it.

I would not consider myself a prude and for example, didn't feel Salo needed to be censored, but this is too much. Pedophilia and the sexualisation of children is taboo for a very good reason. I don't see what light the artist could possibly be shedding on this area. And if it isn't saying anything of value then it isn't art, its titillation.

It's tasteless obscenity organised for maximum shock value. Truly, this is "art" madonna style.

That's an interesting perspective Paul, and persuasive. But I disagree with it.

For one thing, "It's tasteless obscenity organised for maximum shock value. Truly, this is "art" madonna style." I just don't see how anyone could get this from Henson's work. Coincidently, I took my husband to the Art Gallery of NSW about two weeks ago, mainly to show him the three or four pieces that are hung there (he'd never seen any Henson before) and we discussed the controversy that dogs him. Just looking at that work again reminded me how I've often wished I'd been aware of him when I was the age of the models that he photographs. Everything he says about adolescence, I understand. I find his work comforting.

I find it comforting and eerie, beautiful and mythic. I understand why others find it difficult, impenetrable, confusing, confronting. But I just don't get why anyone would find it tasteless or obscene. I think it's pretty obvious he wasn't motivated by shock value, and he has nothing in common with Madge.

Paul: "I have no problem with nudity in art in general, as long as we are talking about adults. But a 12 year old is not, and should not be presented as a sexual being. The same images, if they were found on your computer would result in possible jail terms as pedophilia."

The way I read Henson's work, he is presenting children as innocent but latent sexual beings. He's not presenting them AS sexual beings — they look childish, innocent. But they appear to be drifting off into an uncertain adulthood. His figures always look quite tabula rasa to me — it's us who are painting them with a veneer of sexual consciousness.

Paul: "That artists feel they need to push boundaries is understandable. This does not absolve us of the need to have boundaries, however. Just because the artist claims it is "art" doesn't always make it so."

With this I entirely agree.

Vanilla I'm not familiar with his work or the pieces in this exhibition so I can't comment on the specific pieces.

I do wonder about the precedent, will the next step be to remove older pieces from art galleries where they include images of naked children? Are those images OK but newer ones somehow obscene? If so how does that work?

The precedent is concerning because there seems little logical reason to stop just at this one exhibition.

I'd better stop now and see if I need to rip some pages out of any art books on my bookshelves. Maybe we could have a big art and book burning festival to help protect children. Anybody got any prints of old masters that could be mistaken for child porn to contribute to the bonfire?

On the other hand we could get over our religiously inspired body taboo's and develop healthier attitudes to the body.

R0bert