In today’s Crikey, Clive Hamilton expands upon — actually, merely re-elaborates — his earlier essay on Bill Henson’s work, identifying three ways of viewing it: as ‘art’, as ‘pornography’ and as… well, ‘pornography’, albeit of a more nuanced variety; a product less of the artist’s intention than of the social environment, one in which children are subjected to ubiquitous forms of sexualisation (See Corporate Paedophilia: Sexualisation of children in Australia, E Rush and A La Nauze, Australia Institute, October 2006).
And again, it would seem that Hamilton is contradicting himself: on the one hand maintaining that “Despite her nakedness, the girl is not posed or presented in a sexualised way; if they are consumed in a pornographic way it is not the artist’s intention”; on the other, “In such a cultural environment, the naked body of a child, particularly a girl of 12 showing the first signs of sexual development, can no longer be viewed “innocently”, and cannot but be seen by everyone, other than hermits, in a sexual context”. So, with the possible exception of social hermits, Henson’s photography (to be precise, a handful of images until very recently on display at a gallery in Sydney), must be viewed as p-rnography. Perhaps the only saving grace for Henson, according to Hamilton, is the distinction that may be drawn between his intention — not, presumably, to produce titillating imagery of young girls — and the social context in which his work is received. But even in this instance Hamilton equivocates. Thus “Even among his fans, there seems to be a widespread feeling that his earlier images of intoxicated youths engaged in sex in dingy settings are ‘creepy’ and exploitative”. So too, presumably, his latest work.
It seems to me that, in vastly broadening the scope of artistic interpretation to the whole of society, Hamilton has effectively condemned Henson, as well as the gallery owners. Under Section 91G of the Crimes Act, the Act under which NSW police were authorised to confiscate Henson’s work, the crime of child pornography is defined, in part, as follows:
Any person who:
(a) uses a child who is under the age of 14 years for pornographic purposes, or
(b) causes or procures a child of that age to be so used, or
(c) having the care of a child of that age, consents to the child being so used or allows the child to be so used,is guilty of an offence. For which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 14 years. In addition:
(3) For the purposes of this section, a child is used by a person for pornographic purposes if:
(a) the child is engaged in sexual activity, or
(b) the child is placed in a sexual context, or
(c) the child is subjected to torture, cruelty or physical abuse (whether or not in a sexual context),for the purposes of the production of pornographic material by that person.
Assuming that (a) and (c) do not apply in this case, it would appear that guilt or innocence would depend on whether or not “the child is placed in a sexual context”. If one were to accept Hamilton’s logic — the context is society, and the society is one in which children are ‘sexualised’ — this would seem, perhaps sadly, but inevitably, to be the case.
And Henson is a p-rnographer.
The Art Gallery of NSW makes Bill Henson part of its “for schools” program.
Henson represented Australia at the Venice Biennale in 1995 which broke records with 123,649 people attending the exhibition. He also received a $20,000 Australia Council fellowship that same year.
He had a major retrospective in 2005 at the Art Gallery of NSW and the National Gallery of Victoria in 2005.
According to the AGNSW, Henson’s 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.
“I find them absolutely revolting,” said Kevin Rudd, who may not know much about art…
2 . Hamilton: Art or p-rn is not the question
Clive Hamilton writes:
For decades in post-war Israel performances of works by Richard Wagner were banned. The associations between Nazi Germany and Wagner’s music were too strong in the minds of most Israelis.
The argument was not about the quality of Wagner’s music but the political meaning of it. I make this observation in the context of the furore over Bill Henson’s photographic exhibition, which includes pictures of a n-ked 13-year-old girl, to remind us that art, like sport, cannot be separated from politics.
All art engages with culture, at least good art does. Henson has been praised by critics and supporters for challenging our sensibilities and pushing the boundaries of social acceptability. So why is Henson, by all accounts a garrulous man, refusing to defend his work?
Artists and the artistic community cannot push the boundaries of social acceptance and then, when they get a reaction, step back declaring “I’m just an artist” or “Art is sacrosanct and should be above the fray”, especially when the reaction is the one they wanted, if in smaller doses.
There are at three ways of looking at Henson’s latest images. The first is to see them as artistic representations designed to elicit certain feelings and ideas concerned with themes like the vulnerability of youth, the transformation of children into adults, and the contrast between teenage angst and the pointlessness of life.
Something along these lines is Henson’s primary purpose and, it’s fair to assume, is the type of experience anticipated by most of those who would have visited the Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery to see Henson’s work.
The second way of looking at the pictures is through the eyes of pederasts and perhaps the much larger number of men who have normal s-xual lives but cannot help finding these sorts of images disturbingly er-tic.
In most of the public comment on the controversy these are the only two ways of understanding Henson’s photographs ─ they are either art or p-rnography. Within this conventional frame, they are art in my opinion. Despite her nakedness, the girl is not posed or presented in a s-xualised way; if they are consumed in a p-rnographic way it is not the artist’s intention.
Although not expert in the law, I would be very surprised if a court convicted anyone for taking or displaying these pictures. However, deciding that the photographs are not p-rnographic does not end the ethical argument. Despite the predictable positions taken by moral campaigners and civil libertarians, the situation is more complicated, which brings me to the third way of seeing Henson’s pictures.
Over the last decade or so advertisers and the wider culture have increasingly er-ticised children. They have been over-loaded with adult s-xual material and have had attributed to them forms of adult s-xual behaviour, including being dressed, posed and made up as if they were s-xually active, taught that having crushes and s-xual feelings is normal and even that engaging in various s-xual practices at their age is fine. Children as young as eight and nine are now routinely treated in this way.
This has been a recent phenomenon ─ previously it was only teenagers of around 16 or more who were presented this way ─ yet it has occurred slowly enough for most Australians to be inured to it or to accept that that is just how the world is. After all, when even respectable retailers like David Jones er-ticise 10 and 12-year-old girls in their advertisements, it is easy to dismiss any objections we may have as peculiar to ourselves.
The er-ticisation of childhood means that we have been conditioned to see children differently, as having adult s-xual characteristics, urges and desires. How else can we explain why we seem to accept mothers going shopping with 12-year-old daughters dressed like pr-stitutes? Why are we blasé about pre-teens watching video clips showing simulated intercourse? And why do we allow girls magazines widely read by pre-teens to advise that an-l s-x is a “personal choice”?”
Why have we done nothing about these and a hundred other manifestations of child s-xualisation?
In such a cultural environment, the n-ked body of a child, particularly a girl of 12 showing the first signs of s-xual development, can no longer be viewed “innocently”, and cannot but be seen by everyone, other than hermits, in a s-xual context.
If Henson did not know this then he should have, and so should the gallery owner and the girl’s parents. Putting the images on the internet was unforgivable, for in doing so they relinquished all control over how the images are seen and consumed.
It is fair to ask whether Henson was entirely innocent of the s-xual context in which his pictures would be viewed. Even among his fans, there seems to be a widespread feeling that his earlier images of intoxicated youths engaged in s-x in dingy settings are ‘creepy’ and exploitative.
Yet it is now clear that over the last two years, the Australian public has woken from its apathy and has become restive over the exploitation of children by the marketers and purveyors of popular culture. We should not be surprised that this disquiet has boiled over in response to the Henson exhibition.
I suspect that the extraordinary levels of anxiety over paedophilia in recent years have represented, at least in part, an over-compensation by society for its complicity in permitting children to be s-xualised. Now that anger is being directed at the real targets, Henson’s latest work might be collateral damage or it might be more deeply implicated.
CRIKEY: See Leo Schofield in conversation with Bill Henson here.
Crikey hyphenates words like s-x and v-gina not out of prudery, but in an attempt to lull over-zealous email spam filters into a false sense of security.
See also : Bill Henson: Art or Pornography? | mgk / suki has an opinion down after complaint by local white supremacists to MD Webhosting | Stateporn (archive : s0metim3s)
Pingback: hello.com.au » The blogosphere reacts to Bill Henson #2
Worth a thousand words…
Link to an interesting video about Bill Henson’s photographic work:
the obvious capacity for harm to the subject doesn’t appear to figure in your analysis, I would therefore suggest that it is incomplete.
Kate: thanks for the link.
krypto: You’re correct. None of my posts have discussed the capacity for harm to the subject. On the other hand, thus far, I’ve concentrated less on the subjects than the subject of Henson and the police action. Further, on recording the reaction to this affair, aside from taking note of the reaction on a few dozen blogs, I’ve tended to rely on corporate/state sources.
As for the matter you raise, as I understand it, there’s two, related issues, One is: what harm, if any, was done to the subject — and here I assume you’re referring to a boy and a girl which feature in some of his work (not) on display at the Rosyln Oxley9 gallery — in the process of making the work, and secondly the harm which may be inflicted on them by its public display.
With regards the first issue, as far as I can gather — and I’m obviously unaware of the exact circumstances under which the work was produced — there has been, thus far, no allegation of abuse or coercion. Of course, being minors, the unsettled question is whether or not someone of that age is capable of giving informed consent to their use as models. Under the law, the answer would seem to be ‘no’; the fact that consent is obtained, whether on the part of the subject, parent or guardian, does not, in and of itself, preclude harm being done or exploitation occurring.
As for the second, the prospect has been raised that, even if ‘informed consent’ were actually possible, and obtained, it may be that, in future, the models find their participation harmful to themselves. Thus:
Beyond this, I think the relevant question is if Henson’s work (these perhaps 20 or so photographs in particular) may indeed be understood as constituting child pornography.
More later. Perhaps you could elaborate on what you view as being the case?