Expression Or Exploitation?

www.samesame.com.au
  • 57
  • 5
  • 2972

Last night prominent Australian artist Bill Henson had an opening of his current work cancelled, as police investigate the exhibition and Roslyn Oxley 9, the gallery where the work was to be shown.

The exhibition drew community interest because it contained naked images of young adolescents, the invitation to the opening displayed an image of a young girl facing the camera, a light illuminating her figure from behind.

Child protection groups have called for both the artist and the gallery to be prosecuted. Although, the gallery claims it had made the decision to cancel the opening due to public pressure and controversy, the exhibition itself would be shown as planned.

Henson has always drawn interest, and at times criticism, for his work that often depicts adolescents, relationships between these young men and women, in varying states of exposure, at times intoxication, and ribaldry.

Australian Democrats leader Lyn Allison who instigated a Senate inquiry into the sexualisation of children in the media said “I think it is shocking and confronting, but I am torn on this. I have to say because I was an art teacher and I am very reluctant to want to censor what artists do and a lot of artists do want to be confronting, to raise issues, and in some ways, this does that.”

Henson is a world renowned artist having exhibited at the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in New York, the Venice Biennale, the National Gallery of Victoria in Melbourne, Australia, the Art Gallery of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia and the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris.

Roslyn Oxley9 gallery today issued this statement:

“After much consideration we have decided to withdraw a number of works from the current Bill Henson exhibition that have attracted controversy. The current show, without the said works, will be re-opened for viewing in coming days.

“Bill Henson is one of Australia’s leading contemporary artists and is internationally respected. His works are held in every leading art institution in Australia and are included in the collections of a number of the world’s most prestigious art museums. The Art Gallery of New South Wales and the National Gallery of Victoria have both recently held a retrospective of 30 years of the artist’s work.

Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery will remain closed while the current exhibition is re-hung.”

And so another important voice is silenced in the name of conservatism.

Social

  • hollyk19
  • peterr3445w
  • phonakins
  • twinstar
  • billys raie

Comments

www.samesame.com.au arrow left
3341
marly

marly said on the 23rd May, 2008

I saw Bills exhibition in 2005 at the NSW art gallery and it was amazing and beautiful. Some of the photos were suggestive yet they seemed to be making a statement on adolescent sexuality and werent intended to be pornographic or a turn on.
Theres nothing wrong with photos of naked youth depending on the context and although I havent seen this latest work of Bills I bet these photos have been taken way out of context and the whole thing blown completely out of proportion by the usual very loud right wing conservative minority.
I heard a radio interview today and someone mentioned the famous photo of the little naked girl running and crying in the vietnam war and how it is a picture of youth naked yet completely innocent. The only thing that makes
naked youth dirty or revolting is the dirty and revolting minds of the fear mongers who are so quick to jump in and judge such photos based on their own self righteous, puritanical and more than likely religious views.
I dont want to live in a society where people arent allowed to make up their own minds or even to think what they want and thats the way Australia appears to be going. I thought that the Rudd government might have been a bit different but judging from Rudds comments about the photos hes just another spineless politician pandering to the moral crusaders.
Let us see the photos and make up our own minds.
Lets face it at the end of the day we are all human and we are all sexual creatures. Why is it ok to see a girl running Naked in fear and pain yet not in an innocent depiction of teenage sexuality? Those of us who are older have all been there at that age so I dont see whats the problem with it especially as the models and their parents have consented to it. Its absolutley ridiculous and I hope this all blows over and that Bill gets to show his Photos and gets more exposure due to this inane controversy. That will really shit the idiots who choose to push their archaic views on to the rest of us.

marly

marly said on the 1st Jun, 2008

It's irrelevant whether the images are deemed to be art or pornography. Either way, it's sickening that anyone would want to see photos of naked girls and boys who are barely in their teens.

If Henson really wanted to capture "the innocence of youth", I'm sure he could have done it in many other ways. The fact that he's done this consistently throughout his career is even more alarming.

In the meantime, I'll await the next Milton Orkopoulos or Patrick Power who'll resort to the lame excuse of "art" to explain why it's ok to do the vile things they do.

Oh please it is not irrelevant at all. Im sorry but thats fear mongering hysteria. Have you even seen his work? Because most of the criticism is coming from people who glance at a couple of images out of context and make snap judgements.
Its not about wanting to see teen boys and girls in the nude. Its about the natural beauty and innocence of the human body at any age. Its only sick and sexual in the sick minds of those who deem it so. His works are amazing the way he juxtaposes the beauty of the body against urban landscapes.
Weve all been teens at one stage so its not as though the teen body is something we dont know. If it was in some biology book it wouldnt be deemed revolting at all. When I was growing up we had multiple books with naked teens in them explaining about the body, puberty and masturbation etc. There were even pictures of female masturbation. Im sure there are books like this out there today, why arent they being banned??
If we are going to ban Hensons work because it shows a bit of teen tit and bum wheres it gonna end? I mean there are sick fucks out there that most probably enjoy looking at naked pics of babies but I dont see anyone banning any books, art etc with naked babies in it. Why are the teens in Hensons work banned but everything else is still out there? Because hes being used as a scapegoat thats why. His work isnt even sexual let alone porn. Its very dark, moody and quite beautiful.
Art through the ages has always had naked youth in it, what are we gonna do now, destroy it all including statues and paintings in case it upsets some idiotic paranoid prude? Quick we better burn down the sistine chapel there are naked cherubs on the ceiling!!
Many years ago pictures of people in underwear would have been considered revolting and pornographic. Why arent they banning catalogues advertising teen underwear? Im sure theres probably some desperate old perve masturbating over them somewhere!
You can go into any sex shop and buy a porn mag with depictions of schoolgirls getting spit roasted yet a hint of teen tit in a beautiful artwork is banned and classed as revolting. Im sure Paedophiles can get real porn if they wanna get off, they dont need to go to the art gallery!!!
Any night of the week you can turn on the box and see women being raped and slaughtered at the hands of serial killers yet nobody does anything about this gratuitous violence because its considered entertainment.
How bout the Iraq war where the US troops kill innocent families and babies every day in the name of freedom!! Oh yeah and dont forget the hideous porno shoot they did that time with the prisoners in Abhu graib ! Dont whinge to me about some Henson art work with a hint of teen tit leading to the moral decay of society. Thats already happened.
Its absolute insanity and I dont wanna live in a hypocritical over regulated over censored hysterical neo conservative community. Its akin to a witch hunt.

marly

marly said on the 2nd Jun, 2008

The ancient art thing is a weak argument.

If some artist, going through some kind of mid life crisis, decides he's got something to say about teenagers, and that it's best said with them naked, at his direction, then there is nothing to stop paedophiles from doing similar things.

Unless you want to judge what is art and what isn't.

Or simply stick to the rules. It's pretty clear.

But there is a massive difference between 'some paedophile' and Bill Henson.
Bill Henson is a well known and well respected artist who would not risk losing everything hes got by abusing children. Hes not some unknown kiddie porn pervert as people are suggesting.

Im sure Parents out there arent about to let their children pose naked for some unknown paedophile photographer.

Why shouldnt people be allowed to admire the natural beauty and magnifence of the human body at any age. It appears as though its ok to admire an image of a naked baby but not of a teen. Im curious as to why the teen body is tabboo but the baby is not?? Surely babies are way more vulnerable than teens.

Once again I recall reading books in my youth with depictions of teens masturbating. These were books explaining to teens about their own bodies , puberty etc These books werent banned and they are still out there but noone complains. Also I made a comment about porn shops selling mags and dvds with depictions of teen schoolgirls but these arent banned either! I can think of many examples of things in our society that are a real problem unlike this ludicrous witchhunt around Hensons work which in all honesty makes me feel like becoming an expatriot somewhere. The climate of fear in Australia at present is depressing!

marly

marly said on the 2nd Jun, 2008

Wasn't too long ago either Marly that the people under the GLBT community were targeted for being sex offenders or just as bad for our sex or gender preference. Children are exploited world over for things which are quite abhorrent. These are photographs taken under supervision, with consent and for the purpose of art...

The more this story is dragged through the mud, the more people will want to see the art, which is a good thing as you can't form an opinion without seeing it. We live in a day and age where parents can no longer take photographs of their children at public places like the beach, baths or parks because our justice system doesn't actually address the problem of known and convicted offenders, instead placing them in our neighbourhoods in amongst families and schools.

I'm sorry I refuse to be dictated to what I can see and cannot by a majority of people who follow some corny GOD endlessly declaring "what about the children" then sending their very own flesh and blood to the slaughter with their local vicar.

Im with you Dread, its pathetic and Im quite suprised that some of the apparently gay men on this site are so conservative in their views.

I saw Hensons exhibition at the NSW art gallery back in 2005 I think it was. I remember thinking how amazing the photos were. I didnt even notice the ages of any of the models, it was more about the way he used the models and juxtaposed them with the urban landscapes. They were truly amazing.

Im glad Kate Blanchet and others have voiced their opinion about this. Ive always liked her. The chicks got cred,

marly

marly said on the 2nd Jun, 2008

The problem with art is that it's subjective. What one person sees as art, another sees as bizarre shapes. What one person sees as art, another sees a kindergarten child's squiggles. It's totally subjective.

So when it comes to naked photos of children who are barely in their teens, who's to say it's art? Sure, they're probably not pornographic, but that doesn't make them artistic. As a society we've got to draw the line somewhere. We can't say that naked photos of children are ok just because they're shot in a different light by a celebrated artist with a 'message'.



I respect your opinion but I completely disagree. Theres naked and theres naked.
Porn is no go of course but nudism in art is completely different.
Nudism in art has always been. Its natural and its beautiful.
I stress once again that the only sick thing about it is in the sick minds of those that deem it so.

I am quite suspicious of those that so vehemntly try to make non pornographic images of the body into a dirty and revolting thing. What is it these people are trying to hide? What is it they are really so ashamed of?

Its almost as if they are the ones who are experiencing shameful feelings and so they need to project this shame outward onto others so that they can somehow rid themselves of it.
"if only we can rid the community of the evil within, if we can weed out the wrong doers,we can prove that we are not evil, it is they not us"

Its like George Bush's axis of evil "we must destroy the evil doers" Its right wing hysteria.

I can understand if it were offensive material such as porn but once again it most definitely is not.
If we allow ourselves as a community to let these sorts of hysterical book burning /witch hunting occurrences to take hold God help us because its a slippery slope.
Whats next, burn anyone at the stake who has naked photos of their own children.


Have James A and Jasn even been to a Henson exhibition and seen his art in context?

marly

marly said on the 2nd Jun, 2008

Marly, that quote is just like saying that people who campaign for longer jail sentences are really criminals, or that people who support rape victims are really rapists.

We're not pedophiles just because we're opposed to children being photographed in the nude and put on public display.

No its not like saying that at all. Its completely different because there are no victims in this instance. You are blurring the boundaries just as many campaigners against gay rights do with paedophilia.
These are teen models who along with their parents guidance have consensually taken part in an artistic photo shoot with a well respected artist. Its hardly the same as campaigning against rape, child abuse or for longer jail sentences.
Why do you see anyone that wants to look at such photos as sick? I find that to be a very extreme and unhealthy view. You are assuming that any person who looks at such photos is doing so for sexual reasons which is absolutely not true. Just as any person who takes photos at a beach is not taking photos of peoples children. These sorts of conservative views stem from fear and are usually completely irrational.
As a community we cannot ban and burn everything that may be a risk or makes us feel uncomfortable. Life is a risk. We can minimise certain risks but I really feel that the moral crusaders should spend their time doing something more useful instead of hysterically reacting to a bit of teen tit in an art exhibition.
When HAIR the musical was coming to sydney in the late 60's it was harshly criticised. The critics said that it would cause debauchery and moral decay on the streets of sydney. There was even a bomb scare at the opening.
What happened? Sweet FA.
It just attracted more attention. More people went because of the fuss.
And then they just got on with their lives as usual. No debauchery, no moral decay. And as usual the moral crusaders were a laughing stock.

Im asking again have James-A or Jasn even seen a Bill Henson exhibition?

marly

marly said on the 2nd Jun, 2008

Not sharing my view to make myself feel safe - more for the safety of children who are less able to protect themselves.

I'd chose that over art. I'd chose that over people selling art.

And yes I've seen his work. Not in a gallery, but I've seen it. And it does involve under age people in sexual situations.

So not "pushing" my view, more like pointing out why the laws exist.

If you think wanting to protect children's rights more than an artists or art salesman makes me "right" then fair enough.

I dont mean you in particular when I mention people who push their views. I just meant in general.

Ok so you say youve seen his work out of context. And that you have seen work of his with under age people in sexual situations. What exactly do you mean by sexual situations? I saw his exhibition at the NSW art gallery and I would not call it sexual situations. I also dont think that his previous work has used under age models in any such way. Im thinking you are telling fibs Jasn.
As the quote below says his work is not intended to arouse erotic feelings and they are unlikely to do so except in those already inclined to view children that way.

"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 erotic 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."

Thats all I have to say on this matter.
This debate could go on till we are all blue in the face. We may have to agree to disagree as usual.
But I will say that this whole thing will increase the long held reputation of Australia being a country of prudish philistines.

marly

marly said on the 3rd Jun, 2008

Marly, please explain how having two naked children clearly all over each other is NOT sexual. The link below leads to a photo of Henson standing in front of a few of his images. There's one on the bottom right which (if I'm not mistaken) looks like a naked young kid standing right behind another naked child that's bent over. If that's not sexual, please explain what is.

http://www.news.com.au/gallery/0,23607,5031912-5010140-18,00.html

Before I answer your question you need to make sure that your assumption that the image is of a child is correct. I dont see how you can tell a persons age by that background blurred image. All I can see is a persons back. I have no idea whether that is the back of a child as Im sure you don't either. If you wish to debate about this image then provide the evidence to support your assumptions.

Having said that ,as I explained to Jasn, I do not and will not ever agree with either of you. The reason being that I feel that your views are extreme, unbalanced and unhealthy particularly the sweeping generalisation that you made about "anyone who wants to look at these images is sick" but I do respect that you are entitled to them.
Im sure Im not alone though when I say I resent that there is a very loud minority of right wing prudish philistines within the community that use their power to force their archaic views onto the rest of the community and also to relentlessly lobby politicians so that laws are changed to suit them and make themselves feel more comfortable and you appear to be part of that group.