SubscribePolice confiscate art exhibit as child pornography
Artwork critical of child pornography still under preliminary investigation
Police raid home of artist Ulla Karttunen
Artist convicted of child pornography plans appeal
Henson is one of Australia’s foremost photographic artists with a considerable international reputation. Much of his work explores the idea of adolescence as metamorphosis from childhood to adulthood. It reminds the viewer of the anxieties, confusions and intense emotions in which their mature selves were forged.
The photographs in question are of a naked girl, back-lit, who appears to be about 12 years old. Her poses and expression convey wistfulness and ambiguity, as if she is saying “Here I am, as you see me; but who am I?”. Like much of Henson’s work they have a dream-like quality to them.
The photographs show the girl’s budding breasts, her hips and, in one case, a glimpse of her vagina. Their intention is not to arouse er-tic feelings and they are unlikely to do so except in those already inclined to view children in that way. They are imaginative, haunting and beautiful. Although not sexual images, they can be seen as a commentary on the slow, halting and unsettling metamorphosis of child’s body into an adult one.
However, the fact that the pictures cannot be characterised as pornographic is not the end of the ethical story because the social context in which the photographs are presented changes their nature.
If we lived in a society of sophisticated people with mature sexuality, one that respected children and the integrity of their maturation process, then there could be no objection to the Henson exhibition. Alternatively, if the photographs were seen only by the intended audience and in the gallery environment, the exhibition could fulfil its purpose without controversy.
Perhaps some decades ago such a world, or at least a subset of the world, existed; but it doesn’t any more. The exhibition cannot be isolated from a society in which children are increasingly exploited for commercial reasons and used for gratification.
Childhood has become highly charged sexually, in a way that goes far beyond, and distorts, the normal process of sexual development in children. I am not referring primarily to the fact that children grow up in a culture saturated with sexual imagery, but to the trend towards presenting children in advertising and media in increasingly eroticised ways.
This trend was described in detail in the Australia Institute’s report Corporate Paedophilia and has been supplemented by evidence presented to the on-going Senate inquiry into the sexualisation of children, including the land-mark report by the American Psychological Association.
In addition, the testimony of experts like criminologist Bill Glaser that paedophiles not only find stimulation in media images of eroticised children but take them as a justification for their own predatory urges inescapably casts a darkness over the Henson photographs.
There can be no doubt that the images posted on the web are now circulating around the world and being used by some men for sexual gratification. The images will be available in perpetuity. For those who want them.
It is impossible for a 12-year-old to understand the implications of allowing her naked body to be presented to the public. As she cannot give informed consent she is in the hands of the adults around her ─ her parents, the photographer, the gallery owner. I don’t doubt that their motives were pure; but they were also naïve and they have caused damage to the child.
The sexualisation of children by the media and the wider culture has occurred only over the last decade or two; yet as a result images of naked children can no longer be seen as harmless.
It is tragic that those who are responsible for sexualising children have robbed us of the ability to see Bill Henson’s photographs the way he intended. In destroying the sexual innocence of children they have destroyed the innocence of innocence.
Closing down the exhibition should not be characterised as the victory of prudery over artistic licence. Oddly perhaps, if the exhibition had been mounted in more conservative times it would have passed unremarked and been appreciated by the art-loving minority.
If artists have a responsibility to push at the boundaries of the acceptable, society has a responsibility to push back. After a decade or more in which children have been increasingly exploited, society is beginning to push back and Bill Henson has been a victim: innocent perhaps, but he should have known better.
"It is clear from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child that parents do not have the right to make that decision on behalf of their children," the chief executive of Child Wise, Bernadette McMenamin, said. "And children, at the age of 12, 13 or 14, do not have the experience or the understanding to make an informed consent"Okay. So people under the age of 18 don't have the ability to consent to things. And their parents also don't have the ability to make decisions for their children. I can assume that this extends, for some reason, only to the matter of nudity, because if this principal extended to other issues children and parents faced in their lives, I can't see it working very well.
« Older Chinese Are Left to Ask Why Schools Crumbled.... | Observer literary editor Rober... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I have been following this very loosely over the last few days, so it's possible I've missed some important facts but it seems to me that as much as Henson may very well have intended to make an artistic statement, he must have been naive in the extreme as to think that accusations of child pornography wouldn't be leveled at his work and indeed, himself.
First off, my personal views. I think censorship is, by and large, a blunt instrument that the Government should wield as little as possible, especially where art is concerned. 'Art', however you wish to define such a thing, is almost always going to be on the edge of what society finds acceptable. Indeed, the most interesting art is the one that generates discussion and debate within society and culture. Censorship is a tool that has the very real potential to stifle debate, discussion and thought and as such it should be, as I mentioned before, used rarely when it comes to the world of art.
However, that view is also tempered by my very real feelings that child pornography is about as low and disgusting a thing as any person can do. Minister Macklin is spot on when she says (in the 'measured and intelligent' link) that the sexualisation of children in todays society is wrong. It's something that should very rightly be of concern to right thinking person, and yet it is becoming more and more frequent a thing the further we descend into this new century.
So how do the two co-exist? Can they even do so? How can art push the boundaries while ensuring that censorship need not be used? And how can we as a species push the boundaries of our own consciousness, our own sphere of knowledge and indeed, our own sense of morality when censorship is actually used by the authorities to remove things that attract any controversy?
For me, there is a simple fact; child porn is wrong and children must be protected. It can be argued that such a black and white view stifles the very things I just argued against but for me it really seems as simple a thing as child porn is wrong and as such any form of it needs to be fought against.
So, where does that leave Henson and his work? Despite what I just said, I feel the need to ask the question "what was his statement meant to be?" What was the point of his work? Again, I have been following this very loosely but from what I have read, I've not seen any explanation from him about why he felt that this was art he had to create. Was he intending to make the same point I just made; that the sexualisation of children is becoming ever more prominent in society and that this is something that we, as a civilization, need to confront? Was his aim to show innocent in a world were innocence is so easily lost? I don't know; I can't know. It seems his views have gotten very little airplay as the furore drifts toward a "KILL THE PED!" mentality. It's a mentality that one can easily fall into. In the interests of full disclosure, I have pretty much fallen victim to it myself right here on Metafilter, so I kind of know where I'm coming from here.
In the end, the lack of a statement from Henson seems most telling to me. It's entirely possible his views have been given no time by the media, or that his lawyers have told him to keep quiet for the sake of keeping himself out of prison. But to me, a person who loves art, who sees great merit in art's potential to help us evolve as a species and to generate public debate, the fact that Henson hasn't made even the simplest of statements (vetted by his lawyers) seems to say that perhaps his art wasn't made with the purest of intentions.
I hope I'm wrong. I really do. But as I said earlier, even if I am wrong, Henson has been extremely naive in the extreme as to think that accusations of child pornography weren't going to be thrown at him and his work. We'll see how this story progresses as the days and months go on on. It's too early to tell definitively at this stage. But no matter what the outcome, one thing is for sure; pedophile or not, this whole debacle has once again shown a side of humanity I really, really wish didn't exist.
posted by Effigy2000 at 3:13 AM on May 25, 2008