Bill Henson gets a Break

Australian authorities have determined that their case against Bill Henson has no reasonable prospect of a conviction according to the Director of Public Prosecutions.  New South Wales Law Society president Hugh Macken says the decision establishes a simple fact: that nudity is not obscenity. The Federal Police who investigated the charges determined that Henson’s work did not cross the line and that his images did not breach the law. The Australian classification board that reviewed the images stated that the photographs were not pornography. The debate is in the hands of the community which on a large scale supports Henson or at least the idea that this kind of artistic debate is better handled by the community rather than the authorities. Of course the police must investigate alleged complaints as a mater of procedure.  Australian anti-child abuse advocate Hetty Johnston, from the Bravehearts group, says it is a dark day.” This is a big green light for the commercial sexual exploitation of our children,” she said.” There was money exchanged so that this child could pose nude as a model to take these photos. Those photos are then sold. That is commercial sexual exploitation.” said Johnston.

But the law disagrees. At least it does in New South Wales. I think the difference in Henson’s work and pornography is clear to anyone who is able to engage in an objective evaluation of art verses pornography. I am still not convinced that the public is agreeable or prepared to have that kind of discussion. Passions rise and good causes along with moral expectations rule the outcomes of such debates in the public domain. Henson may well have gotten a break because the authorities did evaluate his work instead of the public. They the police and the Classification board are professionals and are also experienced in what is pornographic and what isn’t. They were able to make there assessment of the work objectively and not on the passion of the issue. I think this is dangerous ground to stand on for the artist who is by his words relieved and grateful for the decision.

The other side of this argument is where Henson got most of his support from the community. Do we as a free society really want the police going around and determining what art is and what isn’t? Do we artists want to be in court rooms defending our ideas and work. I do suspect that we will see more cases like this in the future with the internet and the changing public opinions about public behavior. I am not sure how a case like this would play out in an American community. Australia may be a far better place to test the system than here in the United States. On the other hand some states and communities prohibit pornography and others allow it to be displayed on bill boards. As for Hetty Johnston’s allegation that this opens the door for commercial sexual exploitation of children, just turn on the television or read almost any magazine. Those beautiful models are mostly very young. In the end I stand by my last statement. It all boils down to common sense and the risk as an artist you want to take or perhaps better said how much trouble do you want. Bill Henson will surely benefit from history for almost going to jail because of his work. Art History loves controversy.

 

Links to this Story:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/06/2267360.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/06/2266778.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/07/2268123.htm?section=justin

 

Filed under: Art, Art News, News, On Art, Photography, Politics , Bill Henson

Bill Henson a Question of Censorship or Common Sense

• The other day I wrote about the Bill Henson controversy over nude pictures of an adolescent child removed from an exhibit in Sydney Australia by the authorities.

The debate goes on about the issue of Art verses pornography. The debate is also about the censorship of art by the state.

• I have read numerous arguments about the nature of the photographs in question that support the fact these images are art.

Some of the arguments state that the subject is posed in long held traditional stances and that the intent is about the form and is non-sexual. Others suggest that many artists have used adolescent children in their work throughout history posed nude and that history gives justification to Henson’s work.  

• The debate will undoubtedly go on for week’s months even years with no real resolution.

Many of the reasons this will occur to Henson’s supporters is a lack of enlightenment of the public. Somehow, Artists and their knowledge are above what the public will accept or reject, that the public is not capable of understanding the artistic intention of enlightened artists.

 

I will admit that this does seem to be the case; this may be a valid point of view if you are a trained and experienced artist.

• Artists generally are able to understand the need to create work on the edge, work that may not gain public support, work that is important nonetheless.

Bill Henson certainly is one of those artists and I do not believe that he intended to create pornographic images. His intention was to create art, honest, truthful and beautiful innovative images.  

• As for the question of sexual content, I would have to say that the human figure regardless of age, form, stance or intent has a sexual element to it as a representation of a sexual being.

We humans are sexual beings and that is one the attributes of the human form. That does not make the portrayal human figure vulgar or pornographic regardless of age from an artistic point of view.

• On the issue of pedophiles a little research will prove, that as a group, there are numerous stimuli that pedophiles find arousing.

The nude form may or may not be arousing to some. The clothing children wear arouses some, some are aroused by specific ages of children as well as the specific sex, male or female, of the child. Eye color, hair color and physical build of the child.  

To say that these images fit any general category of child pornography is a generalization at best and I think that if this case goes to trial this will be an important point.

• However, up to now I have given Henson the benefit of the doubt because he is very established in the art world. 

His body of work is tremendous and he has a long and honest record of accomplishment.

• So where did his common sense go when he was working this project.

Common Sense is really the only debatable argument as I see it. And I think it is an issue with a lot of artwork today. Do we as artist just chuck our common sense in the wastebasket and go forward with work that we know will land us in hot water and if we decide to go forward what is our real intent.

 

• Depending on the intent, it may be worth the trouble or it may not be. If you are reading this and you live in the civilized world then you know where I am heading.

You or I would never take nude photographs or make nude images of the neighbor kid or family friend, with permission of the parents and expect we could publish those images.

 

• You know that if you live in the civilized world that if you did that the authorities would be knocking on the door, eventually.

It is unacceptable to do such and act in today’s world regardless of intent.

• It is just plain common sense that should stop you, you should know better if you are a fifty something year old mature established artist.

But I guess not in the case of Bill Henson. I can say with certainty that the general public knows better and certainly anyone with pedophilic intention knows better.

• So perhaps Henson just either felt he was above the use of common sense or he is just lacking in it, in this case.

So forget all of the aesthetic arguments because they just do not hold any relevance today in our current world when it comes to under age children and perceived sexual misconduct.

• The lesson here is using ones common sense before you make a social blunder.

Bill Henson is in an impossible situation. Many people will understand his work and many more will reject it without much thought as to the artistic merit and view it as illicit and morally wrong and at the very least in poor taste in today’s society. Many more will call it pornographic and they will be the ones who will determine the outcome of this impossible dilemma for Bill Henson.

 

 

Filed under: Art, Art News, News, On Art, Photography, Uncategorized , Bill Henson, Censorship, Common Sense