henson photos
30 May 2008
Kids are People Too
The Bill Henson debate boils down to one question: did his models understand the consequences of their actions? The answer is: it depends...
For a lay person like me, familiar neither with pornography nor the work of Bill Henson, the current debate has been instructive. I have followed with interest as it ranged across definitional argument, questions of censorship, and moved finally to the rights and capacities of the child as subject: can a 13-year-old be adequately informed and sufficiently cognisant of consequences to consent to being photographed in revealed nakedness?Here the debate largely has been cast, as it has throughout, in the form: "yes she can - no she can't". And once sides have been taken there the debate stalls; we understand the unambiguous extremes, but are no clearer about how the question is to be resolved. At this point I would like to put one foot tentatively into the middle ground, and to suggest that "it depends..."
My starting point is the unremarkable claim that all children are not created equal in terms of capacity and experience.
My grandson is seven. For as long as the family can remember he has been interested and engaged in the collection of bits of the natural world: bugs, feathers, bones, shells, flowers, old bird nests. The detritus of nature.
Along the way his collecting behaviour has been refined. In part this has been managed by parents when it comes to the practical questions of number, size and smell; and in part by Grandpa, a fellow collector. Over years we have had to traverse territory including the ethics of collecting the living and the dead, specimens of heritage value and those that may legitimately be taken, specimens which if removed would deprive other creatures of food or shelter, how many to reasonably collect keeping in mind the interests of others, and the economics of specimens purchased, specimens donated, specimens swapped and specimens found.
At seven he gets it. He is across these issues. He is able to articulate the practical, ethical, economic and political arguments, and to reach conclusions that are coherent, consistent, defensible and that do not always coincide with those of mentoring adults.
Just last weekend, while idly poking through a tray of oddments, he asked: "What do you notice about that shell, Grandpa?" "It looks in very good shape to me," I said, cautiously. "Well that's what worries me," he said. "I think it was collected alive. And have a look at this one," he continued, displaying a fine specimen with long, fragile spines, still intact. "I think that must have been collected alive, too, to be in such good condition." And then, in answer to my unspoken question as to where all this was going: "I really regret buying these, now that I think they must have been collected alive," he concluded.
I checked with his parents. No one had said a word. These were his thoughts, his concerns, his conclusions.
So far, so good. But can my argument - that some kids "get it", even as young as seven, based on context, capacity, interest and experience, and some kids who lack that background just don't - be extrapolated to the case of the un-named 13-year-old who posed for Bill Henson?
I know absolutely nothing about this girl, so let me hypothesise: she has grown up in an "artistic" family - ie adult members of the family are themselves artists, or have an overt appreciation of art and share that with their children. The family knows Bill Henson - he is a family friend - and wholeheartedly and openly approves of his work. On family holidays and at barbecues together they discuss all aspects of his artistry, including the controversial; and because they encourage mature intellectual exploration in their children, they too are engaged in these discussions in order that they may form and defend opinions about artistic things.
Some members of the family and mutual friends of all ages have posed for Bill Henson; and the children have asked (as children do): "what was it like?" especially when the subjects posed without clothes. Nakedness is treated with respect within this family. Nothing is hidden, neither by generation, nor age, nor gender. All are trusted with their bodies, implicitly. For them there never was another way.
The artist and the child, and the parents and others involved in the question of consent, given their (hypothesised) view of the body, have no case to answer. It is for the rest of us to cope. The Henson photographs are not a celebration nor expose of sex, but of the sexual body. And what else can a body be? Once accessed by the public these images may be turned by some to pornographic purpose, as are other images. But in themselves these photographs are the production of people whose understanding and appreciation of the body is one to which we would do well to aspire.
On the basis of this completely fabricated hypothetical family I think my argument can, with good reason, be extrapolated. Granted, there is a fair stretch between a seven-year-old's understanding of the ethics of shell collecting, and the moral and psychological implications of being exposed, naked, to the public gaze. One does not lead, directly or indirectly, to the other. But both draw on similar principles: if the context and experience of the girl in question has imbued her with an understanding, an interest, a predisposition, an intuition, for the nature of the artistic endeavour; and if she can demonstrate this with a level of sophistication approaching that of her mentors, then yes, I say it's fine.
I say leave it to the trustworthy adults, together with the child, to determine where the boundaries best lie.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
shakira
I’m not convinced - as you say, "it all depends". I can imagine a situation where an intelligent child from the type of family you describe might be less able to give automonous consent than a child from a less artistically inclined family. According to media reports, the child is very interested in the arts. Ok - so perhaps that means she understands the issue. But it also raises the issue of a very serious power imbalance. Here is a famous artist, asking for collaboration from a very young girl who may well have artistic ambitions of her own. Such a child might well feel that her hopes for her future would be compromised by failing to go along with Henson’s wishes. She might feel that she needed to strip off in order to show that she was "serious" about art. She might feel the need to conceal any discomfort at the time (especially since her parents are apparently friends and admirers of Henson). Or she might not. But I’m not sure that even her parents could tell for certain.
And later on, she might feel that she made the right decision. Or she might have regrets and feel that her hopes and dreams were used to exploit her. I actually think that a child who had never heard of Henson would be more likely to be able to reach their own decision - perhaps more likely to go on their own gut feeling, not so likely to feel that their own reservations don’t stack up against the thoughts of a "great artist". So I am inclined to think that a child of that age cannot give meaningful consent - however much we may respect their intelligence and judgement. Intelligence can lead to overconfidence, after all, and to regrets further down the track. And intelligence is not the same as autonomy. 13 years old can be smart, but they are not autonomous.
Nice article Roger. But a question: did this hypothetical family discuss the existence of paedophiles over family barbecues? and the fact that certain people, many much older than her or even her father, might get sexual pleasure from looking at her photos? I don’t know whether the full gamut of sexual behaviours is something most parents explain to their kids, nor would they want their kids to have full knowledge of it
Most women will describe a point in their adolescence that they realised they were an object of sexual desire - and it generally comes from the the wolf whistles of others before its a realisation from within. You’re walking down the street in what was just one year previous a totally innocent short skirt, but which is suddenly a provocative statement. At 13, 14, 15 you are still testing these boundaries and figuring all this out.
Girls’ bodies mature much quicker than boys’ - and usually much quicker than their minds or emotions.
(hmm..my username has taken on a whole new meaning. i swear i’m just a janis ian fan!)
The still from Little Miss Sunshine accompanying Roger’s article is well chosen. Beauty pagents for young children are of far more concern. Apart from concerns about the mental welfare of the child, I have little doubt that those sick and damaged individuals known as pedophiles would be far more interested in the grotesque combination of sexuality and innocence on display there than in the work of Bill Henson.
This doesn’t really make sense. You say "leave it to the trustworthy adults, together with the child, to determine where the boundaries best lie" but in the case of whether it’s okay for the child to have sex we say "no, don’t leave it to the ‘trustworthy’ adults because kids aren’t emotionally ready for it" (and presumably lots of other reasons generally agreed by society).
Probably few of us are really truly bothered though by a 13 year old who experiments and has consenting sex with his/her peer. The law against underage sex is in place to offer maximum protection to kids, even those who "get it" and so perhaps don’t need the protection. The laws under which Henson’s photos were seized work in the same way — to offer protection for kids against adults who vary in "trustworthiness".
I like the choice of image to go with this: the coy, highly sexualised little girls from Little Miss Sunshine versus the genuine innocence of the actor who was able to play total raunch.
The point about the Henson image (can’t use photograph as it was the invitation card) that launched the current witch hunt is that it doesn’t fit either childhood (the photograph is of an adolescent), mock kiddies posing as showbiz adults, or porn. The poignancy comes from the pose, the face, and the fact that the body is on the cusp of puberty. The painting this is closest to is Edvard Munch’s Puberty http://www.artchive.com/artchive/M/munch/puberty.jpg.html. The emotional range Henson has achieved in this image with his use of shadows, is a reminder that as a photographer he is not only a great artist, but also understands the way tone can be used to convey emotion. The physical context of this image was black, not bedroom. It was in an upstairs art gallery, not in a shop front. It was made for people to appreciate its aesthetic and emotive qualities, not to perve on while making prurient comments.
The model and the artist both deserve some respect.
The photograph may have sexual resonance for some people, but they can find actual pornography on the internet that fulfills all their weirdest requirements and then some. And they can see living, breathing 13 year olds in skimpy bikinis at the beach every summer. This photograph would make most viewers think, not about sex, but about the hazy zone that lies between childhood and adulthood, the back-story and the future life of this person. The photograph is not selling something, it’s telling something. I think anyone who finds the image of an adolescent body "revolting" is sick in the head. It’s those who are calling for Bill Henson’s head who should be getting help.
Peterbest, you’ve got a point. The words "disgusting", "revolting" and "depraved" are completely unrelated to the aesthetics of these photos.
Probably the most useful adjectives would be "inappropriate" or "exploitative".
Why is it that politicians must use emotionally-charged words without the slightest clue of how ill-informed it makes them sound!!?
The reality is that someone, somewhere, will be aroused by looking at ANY photo. To a paedophile, an ordinary school photo may be arousing. And in considering people’s responses to photos, there are people who will respond with ethnic/racial/religious hatred or revulsion to a photo that pushes their ‘hot buttons’. In the case of Bill Henson’s photos, we already know they evoked ‘revulsion’ in our prime minister.
We can’t decide what images are recorded of our children based on some hypothetical person’s response to it - whether it’s lust, dislike, envy, hatred or approval. And, of course, when it comes to art, all these can be provoked.
And a lustful response isn’t, of itself, a wrongful or criminal act.
Many or most of us have been aroused by an attractive adult of either sex. However, ACTING on that response inappropriately or without consent will be either offensive or illegal.
The thought of someone being aroused by a photograph of a child or teenager may be disturbing or disgusting. However if they keep it to themselves and don’t act on it, they’ve done no harm and committed no crime.
And, as I said, we can’t control someone else’s response. The current attempts to do this with prohibitions on photos at school events etc will do nothing to arrest paedophilia. But they will make innocent people feel guilty and ashamed for wanting to photograph children innocently and harmlessly. They will also make blameless children feel guilty for "allowing" this.
The UN convention for the protection of children explicitly supports their right to participate in artistic and cultural life. It’s interesting to note it also prohibits signatory countries from having soldiers under the age of (wait for it)…15
You have got in two davidg. Paedophiles can potentially be aroused looking at any image of a child. I do not think that the level of arousal is necessarily directly proportional to how sexualised we may think the image to be either. Sexualisation of children by the advertising industry, (and especially) tween magazines which ruminate over the ‘celebrity look’, i.e. so your 7 year old can look like Paris Hilton and glorify and embrace celebrity obsession is the real problem.
The fashion industry has had something to play here with little kid fashions looking almost identical to what 18 year olds wear. I have heard some fashion designer say they wanted to make kids clothing ‘more contemporary’ and ‘funky’ by engaging with the teen look and ‘downsizing it’. All they have done is make the gender distinctions extremely sharp at a very early age, and make little girls especially look like they are wearing clothes suitable for clubbing. Again I do not think this would have any added appeal to paedophiles but it does say a lot about how some sections of our society want girls to grow up fast to be a particular type of woman—not a very strong one. Childhood should be enabling not disabling. The celebrity obsessed muck does the latter.
Your comment about banning photography at school events hits the mark perfectly because all of a sudden a lot of normal people think photographing children at all is just plain dirty. And yes, it will do nothing to arrest the problem. All it has done so far is heightened fears.
Well, I guess I’ve heard some straw-man arguments but the last two contributions really take the cake.
Joe
Joe
I am trying to find the stawman I have erected in my argument. I cannot find it so if it is there and I cannot see it then it was not there intentionally.
I strongly believe that the moral criticism of art, the adversiting and celebrity industry, and our fear of the paedophile coming to the school play to photograph the kids has been conflated into a monolith that it is not. These are separate issues the last two perhaps more closely related than the first but separate nonetheless.
Danoo8,
1. Who said anything about banning school photography ?
2. The evils of the fashion industry (which surely, if anything, strengthens my case, not yours: how can it be wrong for clothed young girls to be used by advertisers but right for naked young girls to be used by ‘artists’?).
Joe
What about the Walt Disney organisation ? They have cartoons with this half-clad duck - and he seems to be guardian to three young nephews who also flaunt a similar incompleteness of dress. Call the AFP - if not the FBI !!
Personally, I think that worrying about whether the girl’s consent was ‘informed’ misses the point. Just knowing that some decision may have adverse consequences, doesn’t make it any better when or if it happens. Moreover, often it’s impossible to judge consequences. Bill Henson wouldn’t in a million years have guessed the consequences of taking the series, for instance.
More at issue here is whether nudity is always sexual. I grew up in a family of hippy nudists. We used to skinny dip in the family pool regularly and during summer almost never wore clothes at home. I can still recall Mum exhorting Dad to go and get some undies on because he was dangling in the butter. One of my first boyfriends was terrified when my then seven-year-old brother ran through the house, stark naked, and jumped over the boyfriend’s outstretched legs. And no, before anyone asks, there wasn’t any paedophilia in our household.
As such I find it impossible to believe that nudity in children is, in and of itself, immoral. I have pictures of my kids as babies and toddlers naked - I’m now scared that I should burn them lest the moral police turn up and drag us away.
Recall the show "The Human Body"? Remember the 18 naked children and adolescents flash past in the opening credits? Better burn that CD too.
One of the things I always liked about Australian culture was our relaxed attitude to being naked, as mentioned by Elle Macpherson while defending her nudity in the film Sirens (hardly a great cultural theorist, but there you go). It would be a damn shame if this means we take a turn for the Victorian.
rmg1859
1. Davidg mentioned that some schools do not want parents to take their own photography at school events (plays, sports carnivals); I know instead they get an official photographer instead that parent my purchase photographs from. I suppose this is to prevent photographs being distributed electronic and getting into the wrong hands for the wrong purposes.
2. I and many others do not believe that being naked is either a necessary or sufficient condition for being exploited. Exploitation is independent of nakedness because one can be exploited either naked or clothed. The artist is trying to get us to think about both the frailty and beauty of the human for when expressing their art in the nude form. In nudity there is a mechanical as well as aesthetic part I suppose. Nude art featuring subjects of all ages has been around for a long time. For many people that is not evidence enough to justify it, although for a conservative for example, it should because conservatives argue from the premise of tradition, artistic tradition in this case. Ultimately making equivalent nudity with sexual exploitation and availability fetishes the human form.
The fashion industry does something quite different. It made children’s fashion highly gendered, which is where the sexualisation starts, you are also implying that it does not end there either and in that you are absolutely right. The yummy mummy/mini me phenomenon that exists within fashion is driven I think by that part of the culture that worships celebrity; vacuous celebrity like Paris Hilton, Britney Spears in particular. So it does not demand choice or thought, instead it demands a narrowing of options i.e. "You shall aspire to be this type of woman, in a male dominated consumerist society", or something like that.
Art however, demands contemplation, demands thought. I believe that this can only expand our collective choices in how we view ourselves, because no one is dictating that you must conform to what the market demands.
Latest news says that the model in question (not just the parents) has now spoken supportively of Henson. Former models of Henson including children now grown up have also come out in support. Unless we suppose they have been brainwashed by a master manipulator of cultic proportions, I think we should give creedence to their veiws.
Would everyone please take the time to have a look at Bill Henson’s images. I, sadly, lack training and talent when it comes to art - but the haunting quality of his pictures of pre pubescent children is more likely to make a pedophile pause than to provoke his or her lust.
Fortunately the police have been unable to remove all Henson images from the internet; Google Images still displays sufficient examples of his work to give a feel for his vision. So please have a look and have some idea of what Hetty Johnson et al have been offended by. Then we may be able to stop the abstract debate on nakedness, pornography and childhood innocence - and discuss the actual works of art in their challenging actuality.
I don’t think Sydney needs or wants to add a William Henson Hall to that of Eugene Goossens.
Tim47
Geoffb,
If ducks are your thing, then go for it.
Straw duck ?
Danoo8,
Strictly this is not about nudity per se, but about vulnerability, the rights of children, the possible misuse of their images by a tiny minority of pervs posing as art critics. I keep thinking of that scene in the Life of Brian where all these people with fake beards were waiting to stone him - women not allowed - but they all had suspiciously high voices.
Nudity can be beautiful, innocent, carefree - yes, of course, and it can also be, in the case of young people under the gaze of older people, exploitative. Not necessarily, but possibly. That’s partly why we have laws protecting children. Too many people around with fake beards.
Joe
Joe
Despite disagreeing with you most of the way through this discussion your last very thoughtful post raises some very interesting and important issues in this debate for reflection.
I accept that a naked image can be used (by action or thought perhaps) exploitatively by someone with ‘a fake beard’. But does that make the image itself (the tangible object) by corollary exploitative? And if so how does the object itself attain the property of being exploitative by the action of the person with the fake beard?
If we substitute "naked image" for "half dressed image" or just "image" does anything change and if so how do we treat it differently?
Good article. But I was wondering about these "consequences" that a child may not be aware of - what exactly are they? If the gallery hadn’t been raided, Henson been accused of a crime, the issue splashed all through the media, what we would have had is photos of children in an art gallery. What, precisely, are the awful consequences of this? What is abusive about seeing a child with no clothes on? The whole outrage seems to be inspired by some sort of accepted wisdom that has no basis in thought.
Perhaps paedophiles may "misuse" these photos, and gain sexual pleasure from them. So what? I can’t actually see how that would harm anyone - if a paedophile sits at home getting in a lather over a photo of a kid, it doesn’t affect the kid in the least. Why should we care what paedophiles think?
Finally, when are we going to the Melbourne Museum to arrest their curators for putting big naked children on the walls of their human body exhibit? There must be a lot of paedophiles prowling that museum for kicks.
Ben,
So should there be any laws at all against child pornography, penalties against pedophiles/pederasts ? It’s all just harmless fun ? Where do you draw the line - anywhere different from where it is at the moment ? There shouldn’t be a line at all ? Or should there be more protection for children rather than less,as our concept of human rights becomes more progressive and enlightened ?
What was that statistic about child abuse again - that up to half of all girls, and a quarter of all boys, are sexually abused before they turn sixteen ? Something like that ?
Joe
With the tough laws we have and an unprecedented level of community hysteria that many kids are being abused? Let’s double the punishments and the level of community hysteria. No depiction of children is permissible ever. Children on the beach must wear full bourkhas. Children at school must wear full bourkhas. Children must wear full bourkhas at all times. Children may not spend time unsupervised with any member of the opposite sex, even their parents. Especially their relatives, since relatives are by far the most likely people to sexually abuse them. Austria is abolished and the state of Israel is moved there, freeing up the land for Palestine. There will, of course, be disagreements. How old is a person when he/she ceases to be a child? Children’s views on this will not be canvassed as their responses will be immature. At what point will a child’s responses become mature? There will naturally be arguments about this. New Matilda readers may have views they wish to air. Some may say 15, some 25. Some adults remain childish into middle age. Look at Molly Meldrum. How many ghastly crimes might have remained uncommitted if we’d been spared photographs of Molly Meldrum? So we completely eliminate any trace of sensuality from children’s lives and then, when they turn 17, or 18, or 21, or 25, they fall upon each other like rabid beasts and start wildly experimenting while the perverts cheer them on and take photographs that can be freely distributed and admired. Something like a more widely-based Schoolies Week. Beautiful!
Now that’s what I call hysterical over-statement ! Thanks Peter, you’re proving my point.
So let’s get back to it - where do you draw the line ? Should there be a line ?
Joe
My point is that the line is infinitely stretchable and nobody will ever agree where it should be drawn. Women in many muslim societies are believed to be so dangerously alluring that the only way to protect men from their siren-song is to make them disappear into an all-enveloping tent. Is this infantalisation of women what we want to do to our children? Is it what we want to do to our entire society? You tell me.
What a crock!
Everyone I know has photographed their children in the nude or semi-nude at some stage or another and I challenge any sick SOB to make an issue of that fact!
It’s not Henderson or his subject which requires investigation, but society itself.
There’s no hope for the lot of you sickos!
You don’t need policemen to investigate this matter, what you need is an army of psychiatrists!
Filthy animals!
I agree, Rockjaw. Compulsory counselling for all of them, especially Hatty Johnston. What’s the old saying: "Mad as a Hatty"? All you can do is laugh at the idiocy that’s being enacted. But I’d love to know who’s inside this pantomime horse, galloping foolishly from gallery to gallery. Is it a rogue, right-wing Catholic senior cop, or is there a state politician or two from the same background pulling police strings? Of course we can’t expect our toothless, brainless, clueless media to investigate. They only want to tell us things that sell us things. Who’s pushing this barrow?
No, Peter, the line is not ‘infinitely stretchable’ - where should it be ? Please, mo more hysterical over-statement, just answer the question. As a Marxist, I am wondering what rights should children have to protection from capitalist exploitation ?
Joe
Look, Joe, we’ve had experience in that area too, unfortunately. The father of one of my daughters’ friends was abusing another little girl. He’s out of the picture now, thank heavens, but there was absolutely no grey area there. This was unambiguously wrong, and if it weren’t for the ridiculously slack ACT legal system, he’d be in jail. (As it is, he’s dead, which is sad but we all think was ultimately for the best.) In that case, the one consolation is that the girl had no idea that the abuse had taken place as she was unconscious when it happened. That doesn’t diminish the crime in the slightest.
The Henson photos are totally different. Henson’s photos were not taken in a sexual context for the purposes of titillation. That child was not abused, and as the arts editor of the SMH said on Radio National Breakfast a few mornings ago, Henson has been taking these photographs for two decades. If any of his subjects had felt abused, now would be the time for them to step forward. But they haven’t.
Somewhere in the National Archives, there are pictures of a class of girls leaping around outside wearing nothing but bloomers (I’ve tried to find it again, but can’t. Might be at the NLA?). The picture was taken in the 1950s in Britain. Back then, it was okay for girls to show their chests so long as they didn’t have breasts developing, because kids’ chests (and kids in general) just weren’t seen as being sexual.
When women wore dresses to the floor, the slightest flash of ankle was distinctly sexual. (I was going to make a comment about Wahabism, but I didn’t want Shakira jumping on me. :-P ) The point here is that the more we are divorced from nudity, the more slight trangressions of the dress code will shock and be seen as sexual.
I think it’s fine if the majority of the society decides they can no longer deal with child nudity. Every now and again societies change their laws and no logic can intervene; it’s just group dynamics. However, Henson’s photographs were taken before this social discussion took place. It’s therefore unfair to prosecute him (and the gallery, and the parents, and the SMH, the printing company of the flyers and every poor sod who tried to view the pictures over the internet to see what all the fuss was about) under the rules of the new society. It’s like changing a law then prosecuting ex post facto.
Exactly Chartreuse!
Peterbest, as that Jewish animal and child rapist Josef Fritzl from Austria has so recently demonstrated, sexual depravity is not peculiar to any religion, and so blaming the Catholics or Muslims or any other religion for this sordid affair is as counterproductive as it is unnecessary.
At least the Catholics have addressed their problems in public and have achieved nowhere near the level of success which other religions have achieved in hiding and censoring the religious identity of their criminal deviants from the world’s media.
And Joe, since Marxism is an over-rated political scam designed to deprive the less intelligent of our working population their rightful proceeds of their productivity in favour of a very small elite, and since Australians pride themselves as a nation of free people who have provided refuge and liberty to thousands of victims of Marxism for more than a century now, it remains my belief that our children should be protected from Marxists just as vigorously as they should be protected from sexual deviants!
While you go charging about looking for photos of nude children, I will busy myself making life as uncomfortable as possible for the Marxists, Stalinists and other power hungry control crazy political deviants of this world, especially the ones who would destroy the future of my children whose right to live in this free nation of ours will be protected by most Australians at any cost.
George Vickers
Peter, Chartreuse and George,
My word, NM does flush out some beauties.
So, if the current law is deficient (too strict or too lax ?), where should those lines be drawn ? Should there be lines at all ? Yes/no ?
And says who Fritzl is Jewish ? And don’t confuse Marxism with Leninism and Stalinism, George. It’s a bit like cursing Christ for the crimes of the Inquisition.
Joe
This is getting too mad for me. I didn’t say Fritzl was Jewish and can’t imagine why anybody would. May I ask George Vickers whether he’s Catholic? Not because I believe they’re especially bad in this area (though my God they are!) but because I’d like to know what authorities are making his nipples go hard. Once I know where he’s coming from he can know that I’m an atheist, father of two daughters and grandfather of two grandsons. I’ve been there and know what it looks like, and I think here are too many maddies trying to destroy innocence by making all of us terrified. If you work hard enough on it you can make everything seem dirty and threatening until you and your children are dangeously neurotic about the real world. The next step is too scary to think about. Burn the books, kill the gypsies, drown the witches. For heavens sake, after a while you start worrying about the priest! And Joe, where do you think the line should be drawn? Ban Alice in Wonderland on account of the Reverend Dodson’s photographs of Alice and her friends? Ban Poussin, Picasso, Courbet, Bacon? Where do you stop? Do you ever stop? Tell us where your line is drawn Joe.
I’m sitting here watching a preliminary rough cut of George Gittoes’ next film Miscreants . This is about the north west frontier of Pakistan where the Taliban are burning and bombing cd and dvd shops where local Pakistani (Pashtun) films are sold. According to the owner of one bombed out shop, the Taliban hate this lively popular culture because it is ‘vulgar’.
I am very concerned at any culture that wants to place its own construct of refined culture on the lives of others.
shakira
I’m actually familiar with the north west frontier province and have interviewed musicians etc whose livlihood and safety has been affected by the events you mention.
I do not think these are analogous situations. The issue as I see it with the Henson photographs is consent, and whether or not a 13 year old girl is capable of giving it. As it happens, Taliban-style Muslims are also rather casual on the issue of consent, and have no problems marrying off young girls. I don’t think that is a legitimate analogy with the Henson case, but frankly it is as least as plausibel as the analogy you suggest.
ABC 2 is repeating the Bill Henson documentary at 7pm tomorrow. For people who want to get a sense of Henson’s work in context rather than listen to the book burners, this is well worth a look. It might change your mind.
Meanwhile book burners are no doubt pleased by the news that the latest issue of Art World has been pulped because it contained reproductions of Henson photographs. Sad days.
Of course there should be a line, Peter - if you gave one moment’s thought to this matter, you would agree. Your line may not be mine, but surely you would agree that in relation to child exploitation, definition of ‘child’, etc., there are limits. Otherwise, why have child pornography on the books ? Surely you are not proposing open slather ? No protection for children at all ? So where is your line ? I’m fairly happy with the legal position at the moment, actually, perhaps a bit more in the direction of children’s rights, but certainly not fewer rights.
Joe
Shakira, I don’t believe consent is relevant to the debate. The child clearly is a child, and therefore is incapable of giving informed consent, whatever her intelligence. You’ve convinced me of that, pretty much. Mind you, as children grow there is a continuum of increasing responsibility for themselves rather than a date before which they are children and after which they’re out on the streets. I’m giving my eldest much more control over her life than she had as a pre-teen.
It seems to me that the real question is whether these photographs are harmful in any way to the girl, or to ‘society at large’. Parents make all sorts of decisions on behalf of their children, and it’s only a problem if the decisions are harmful. Only science can answer that one with any rigour, but I can’t imagine that being involved in this sort of art would harm her in the long run. I speak as someone who a. grew up in a nudist family without sexual abuse (probably not something I admit over coffee) and b. has been in a social group which we discovered included an active paedophile.
This really does remind me of the mindset that took over in Christchurch at the time of the Christchurch City Creche trial, and saw Peter Ellis convicted on completely imaginary charges. Google it. It was a crazy time; we had parents pulling their kids out of childcare centres because they thought they were too dangerous, and male teachers weren’t allowed to touch children in any way at all. It was madness - some sort of hysteria. This seems to be where we are headed.
For the last day or so, I’ve been trying to post on this site a very clever blog started by one of my students as a critique of the nonsense being spouted on kiddie porn it’s called stopannegeddes blogspot com but whenever I paste it as a url this site won’t load.
The reason it’s relevant to the Henson debate is that if you want images that will turn on the average pedophile they are all out there on the web and in kitsch calendars. And none of those babies ever gave informed consent. Henson on the other hand challenges people to look inside their own darkness. That can be intense: good visual art is often intense in the same way as literature or music can be intense.
His models (once they reach maturity and are finally listened to) have no complaints, and he’s been taking these photographs for over 30 years. There have been many opportunities for complaint. He has in the past had open discussions with school children on his photographic practice and interest in the transformations and vulnerabilities of adolescence (he is on several states’ high school art curriculum). The only people in a moral panic over Henson seem to be those who have never ventured into a Henson exhibition and who rely on their ‘knowledge’ of an invitation card and the Daily Telegraph’s prurient blacked out images.
shakira
It might or might not be harmful, just as an adult woman might or might not mind being photographed naked (and might or might not be harmed if she was).
My point is that I don’t think a 13 year old has sufficient personal autonomy to make her feelings known, perhaps not even to herself It is not have an equal transaction. There is a power imbalance between Henson and the girl, and there is no getting away from that.
I also don’t think that Henson’s supporters can have it both ways - the language they use to describe his "edgy" photographs is just not the kind of language you apply to family shots of kids who happen not to have clothes on. They might not be porn, and they may not be arousing to most people, but they are meant to raise issues about emerging sexuality. And being at the focus of that would be intense for an adult woman, let alone a child.
I don’t have any hard and fast answers on where this should stand in a legal sense, just ethical concerns.
"So should there be any laws at all against child pornography, penalties against pedophiles/pederasts ?"
I look forward to discussing this issue with you Joe. Let me know when you get around to reading something I’ve written.
Joanna and Chartreuse, it’s good to see somebody bring to this debate that measure of common sense which it has lacked so far.
Shakira, the analogy is in my view a good one, complete with hysterical reactions from the fringe element of a community against a perceived attack on their moral values.
Besides, and despite current views to the contrary, it is a little premature to assume that this issue will remain strictly one of consent, but even if it does, how will the outcome affect the scenario of the thousands of parents who have filmed/photographed their own children from the delivery room right up to the "age of consent", and in this respect what of those who have requested others to do it for them?
How will it affect those Australians responsible for the millions of films and photographs of their own children, or the children of friends or other relatives held in treasured family albums and precious film collections right throughout Australia?
By "analogy" I refer, of course, to Joanna’s reference to Afghanistan.
I’ve seen the photo published by the Age
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/the-controversial-career-of-bill-…
It’s beautiful.
A little work on clusty.com established who the subject is and her family. She certainly shows no signs of damage.
I cannot understand the drama except that a few religionists in the ALP think is might garner votes, and a lot of people weigh in without seeing what they’re talking about. If Hetty and co were serious about protecting kids they’d be better off doing something useful instead of trying to shove their moral hangups onto everyone else.
Oh, and yes of course a great article. Well done New Matilda.
I wonder whether tourists from Brussels can expect to be arrested for any pictures they might possess of Manneken Pis or Jeanneke Pis, after all, a two year old could not possibly have consented to modelling for those statues, right?
In fact, should Denis-Adrien Debouvrie be alerted to the fact that if he visits Australia he may be required by the Federal Police to answer some really embarrassing questions about whom he used as a subject for his naked girl statue urinating in a squatting position at the Grand Market in Brussels?
I wonder, should somebody alert Interpol?
Good thing Michaelangelo is already dead, can you imagine how much cr*p he would find himself in if he ever had to explain his works of art? I mean take a look at that madonna and child statue of his! How naked is that!
Boy, am I glad I’m not an artist! Now, until the heat blows over I had best go and clear my garden of all those naked cherubs and bury my family album before the Marxist thought police find out I own them!
While I’m at it, let’s not take any chances and get rid of those naked sheep photos on the wall, after all, sheep are even less likely to consent, right? And we all know what happens and sick minds and thoughts of sheep converge.
Forget adulthood, life is really complicated for children these days! No wonder they all want to grow up so quickly!
Come off it, we all know that the ‘object’ of this exhibition is not a baby, not a pre-pubescent child, and not a young woman of 17 or 22 either - she is an in-between, an ambiguous figure, one who is not old enough in law to consent to be photographed like this, but we all know damn well that she is naive/unknowing/unaware of what effect she may have on viewers - unknowing about something that we adults know very wel all about, i.e. her sexuality. Leave the poor kid alone, for Christ’s sake. Respect her rights as a child in law, even if she is not a child biologically - and of course, this is the issue, isn’t it ? Bunch of pervs, all in false beards, pretending to be interested in ‘art’.
And for the record, my nudist grandma and her husband raised me for some time and we used to go to the Naturists’ club at Waterfall, great times.
Joe
Shakira,
You’re spot-on ! Exactly !
Ben,
Sorry, I didn’t realise this was all about you.
Shakira wrote: "There is a power imbalance between Henson and the girl, and there is no getting away from that."
There is a power imbalance between any artist and any model, whatever age they are. Even when Rolf Harris paints the Queen he has power, unlike hers but potent in its own way. But Henson is not photographing this girl to put her on a postcard, or in a peepshow. And in photographing her he’s not stealing anything from her. He’s just photographing her body. It looks vulnerable, which it is, and beautiful, which it is. There’s a tender solemnity about the image that catches the heart. As Tony Bond (AGNSW) said, what message are young girls supposed to get from all this uproar, with words like "revolting" and "disgusting" applied the depiction of an adolescent body? I think the revulsion and disgust are in the minds of the prurient zealots who want to decide what the rest of us may watch, and read, and hear. Seriously, if you can see something dirty in Bill Henson’s work you need help. And if it’s not dirty what’s wrong with it? Should this young girl feel ashamed of herself?
To be pedantic, Rockjaw, Joanna was talking about Pakistan, not Afghanistan.
And no matter the difference of opinion on the Henson case, I think people should be careful about drawing analogies with societies they don’t know much about. The NWFP is real place, not just a convenient rhetorical device. "This is like the Taliban" - well, I’ve met the Taliban (they have them in Pakistan too) and no, it isn’t. I don’t have space to go into the complexities, but just for a start, the Taliban has absolutely no concern for issues like "informed consent". They would regard the girl as complicit - they would be a lot more likely to punish her than to punish Henson, frankly. And in punishing her, they would believe that she had given full consent, which is really the opposite to what is being argued by Henson’s critics.
Exactly, Peter ! In representative art, there is a power imbalance between the viewer and the ‘object’, especially between a male viewer and a female ‘object’, ewspecially between a clothed male viewer and a naked female ‘object’, and especially between a mature-aged clothed male viewer and an under-age naked female ‘object’ - can you see that ? Please don’t be so disingenuous as to claim that it is all no more than photography. Certainly it might be for Henson, and for many viewers, but your statement that ‘Henson is not photographing this girl to put her on a postcard, or in a peepshow’ - for many viewers, that’s exactly what it is. And we know that the poor girl is very likely unaware of what male viewers - mature-aged clothed male viewers - might make of it.
So there is indeed a massive power imbalance. Thank you, Shakira, for cutting through the hypocritical bullshit.
Let’s get something else straight; almost nobody would look at this young girl with ’ revulsion and disgust’, or as ‘something dirty’, far from it, and you know it. If you want to get off on naked women (like most of us men), fine, but at least try to keep it above legal age. And straighten your false beard.
Joe
Just over 2 months ago our family was having lunch at a public place when we were approached by a couple who asked if they could take some video footage of our 2 young sons who looked mischievous and pleasant looking for the possibility of inclusion in a new TV commercial as they were from a casting agency. I automatically asked for some ID as to the company they represented and stated surely they had enough experienced kids on their books without needing 2 more who had no acting skills. They did not have any ID with them but assured us they were genuine and would take about 30 secs of footage of each of the children as they asked them some questions and if we were successful could be worth a couple of thousand dollars for us and besides they had already asked a few other families who were quite happy for the filming of their kids .
I was still suspicious and asked what guarantee footage of them wouldn’t end up on some Eastern European pedophile site. As a sign of re-assurance we were asked if we recognized the male with her who was some actor who features each week on some TV series. No we didn’t as we never watched the show. After a bit more discussion my wife and I relented and they took footage of the boys and us the parents as well and said we would be contacted in a few days. Yeah sure…but true to their word we were contacted but were interested only in our eldest son and me and to go for some rehearsals. To cut a long story short my son who was days from turning 13 was selected for the commercial and I took him to the site for filming which was an all day affair. My son is a fit and big boy who could physically pass for a 16 year old.
What the above has to do with Bill Henson is that if they had asked he take his gear off for the commercial for whatever reason whether to enhance the storyline or to show the innocence of young kids just mucking about I would have said no.
Having my son naked in front of a bunch of people he had never seen before although they were all extremely friendly and made him feel welcome and a little important, is not a natural and responsable response from a parent. I do not know how it would affect him now or at a later period of his life if I said it was ok to be naked for the commercial.
I have always been against censorship however I draw the line when it comes to children being allowed to be photographed in provocative or suggestive stances for supposed artistic reasons. I have heard countless times during the 10 days from defenders of Henson’s work using language that is typical of cultural elites defending their ‘high culture’ works. Edmund Capon the director of the NSW Art Gallery was quoted as saying "Hensons images are veritable symphonies of decadence and beauty, of squalor and opulence of mysterious darkness and ominous light..". while the SMH’s art critic John McDonald when explaining his opinion about the children used by Henson said they "…are caught between night and day, between freedom and responsibility. Why are they naked? Well, truth is naked” Can someone explain in plain English what the hell Capon and McDonald are banging on about? I think it was Louise Adler on the ABC’s Q & A on Thursday who felt the 13 year old girl’s image in the photo at the centre of attention as being “exquisite”. The girl is undeniably attractive but would Louise and others being saying the same thing if the girl was obese and ugly?
The supporters allowing the public showing of the photos strongly suggesting this could be the beginning of another period of heavy censorship with books being banned/burned/prohibition etc are talking rot as the issue is about a naked 13 year old being photographed to be shown in public its not about some innocent photo of someone in the family photographing someone as they are changing whether it be at the beach or in the bath usually done with humor or to embarrass the brother, sister child or parent.
So the mother of this child said it was ok to have her photographed so what? This does not make it right. If this same mother then says its ok to have her daughter fondled while an artist takes photos are we to accept the images as being artistic and therefore acceptable behaviour.
I have been very disappointed with a number of our public commentators attitude over the Henson incident as I have usually had a high regard of their opinion but I feel on this issue they have lost all sense of logic. In the meantime there is no doubt this young girl’s image is already on some paedophile’s website.
The reason I used the example of the Taliban’s acts in the north-west of Pakistan is not because of their attitude to women, but because of their attitude to any culture that is not their own, that they do not control. I’m sure you’d agree with me that misogyny in Pakistan is hardly restricted to the Taliban. The parallel with their activities in bombing the shop stalls selling dvds and cds and the current witch hunt on Henson (which is extending to the ‘elite’ arts) is that they assume their way is the one true way, and therefore it is proper to destroy anything that does not comply.
Sound familiar?
The reason I used the example of the Taliban’s acts in the north-west of Pakistan is not because of their attitude to women, but because of their attitude to any culture that is not their own, that they do not control. I’m sure you’d agree with me that misogyny in Pakistan is hardly restricted to the Taliban. The parallel with their activities in bombing the shop stalls selling dvds and cds and the current witch hunt on Henson (which is extending to the ‘elite’ arts) is that they assume their way is the one true way, and therefore it is proper to destroy anything that does not comply.
Sound familiar?
Don’t ask me why that posted twice. It’s the reverse of a while ago when nothing came up when I posted it.
No, Joanna, it doesn’t. How is it familiar ? Who is being blown up ? Whose property is being destroyed ? On the other hand, whose rights are being infringed upon, if not this child’s - and that’s what she still is, in law ? Or do you (feminists ?? feh !) deny that there should be any age below which consent cannot be given ? Where is the line that you would draw ?
Many years ago, I was tutoring some Indonesian TAFE teacher-students and the guys took me aside to ask me, all conspiritorally, when does a girl become a woman ? I went into a long spiel about legal age, maturity, blah blah, but they giggled and said, ‘when she’s got hairs.’ Perhaps a bit previous, I thought, but at least it’s an honest point of view. Presumably, even they would draw a line somewhere, so where is yours ?
Joe
Shakira, at the risk of sounding argumentative, I made no reference to the Taliban, but I am sure we all accept your view that the Taliban shows little regard for issues such as "informed consent".
Your claim that we differ from the Taliban because we do not recognise "informed consent" as a legitimate defence against prosecution, given the Henson facts, is entirely false.
It is exactly because we might refuse to recognise this child’s legal capacity to consent, just like the Taliban, that we are witnessing this hysteria in the first place!
Look at the other similarites, for example the Taliban, like the AFP, could consider the Henson set of facts criminal or hold the similar view to ours that the "unlawful act" is an offence against an egotistically jealous perception of morality as it’s victim and that, just like "us", somebody should be punished.
The only area where our systems appear to be different is in deciding who is punishable for the "offence".
We can window dress it as much as we like but so long as both our communities consider the facts in this matter to be criminal and punishable, well then our two systems are almost identical except that we might choose to burn a different victim at the stake than they would, don’t you agree Shakira?
Rogerio,
The child does not have a legal capacity to consent, that’s the point. Such a legal constraint is designed to act as a protection for her, until she is deemed to know her own mind, which for legal convenience, for everybody, is at a certain age. Otherwise where would YOU draw the line ? At what age ?
Burning at the stake ?!? The Taliban might machine-gun Henson, or string him up by crane, and stone the little girl to death, but I respectfully suggest that there would be no such punishment for Henson in Australia (perhaps a fine?), and of course none at all for the little girl. So how is that similar ?
Joe
Sorry, just to add to that last blah: the Taliban may not even punish Henson at all (perhaps they would make him Minister for Cultural Affairs), but most certainly they would stone the living shit out of that little girl, for knowingly enticing an innocent man to photograph her. Would that happen in Australia ? Don’t talk rubbish, Rogerio.
Joe
Rogreio, I think Shakira was referring to my comment in response to Joanna who mentioned Pakistan while I misreferred to Afghanistan.
Your attempt to find similarities in the Taliban is exactly the point which Shakira incorrectly rejects and which Joanna initially raised. I agree with you and Joanna.
Very broadly speaking, the test for criminality appears to have an objective as well as a subjective element. Objectively speaking the views of the community is referenced for the purposes of determining what the accepted moral standard of that community is and then, once determined, we apply that test subjectively to the behaviour of the accused to determine criminal guilt.
Objectively speaking, society views, with repugnance, the exploitation of children, regardless of gender, and based upon this perception of our contemporary view of morality the facts in the Henson case will be examined, and rightfully so.
The defence of "informed consent" may well be excluded from both an Australian as well as a Taliban accused. I accept this similarity exists although we must recognise that different outcomes will result from the same facts.
The Taliban, if they are in any way relevant, are also similar where they also make objective determinations based on the perceptions of their own community’s moral views and they test criminality on that same basis. Henson’s subject would have failed to meet the minimum requirements of that "morality" and criminal sanction could well be the result. In this respect our two systems are indeed broadly similar.
The findings may differ, and a completely different accused might attract criminal prosecution, but the basic principle remains the same, especially if a criminal conviction results at home from the facts in our Henderson case.
With respect to the Henson case, criminal intent should really be the primary consideration because even the ancient Romans recognised that only Barberous and uncivilised societies inflict punishment on an accused who lacks the "mens rea" to commit a crime. The Romans would probably also consider whether any harm resulted from the facts in considering a verdict where I believe harm is not an Australian requirement to determine guilt.
If the Henson case is prosecuted, resulting in conviction and a punitive sentence, then it will clearly occur in the absence of any criminal intent by Henson to commit any crime and in this respect even an ancient Roman would consider us a barbarous society and our law would not be considered "ius civile".
George Vickers
Okay George, I get your point, I think.
In our system a youth is mentally incapable of forming consent and they are also "doli incapax", to use your Roman law terminology, placing them beyond criminal prosecution because they are unable to form criminal intent.
An adult, on the other hand, is "doli capax" and therefore capable of "mens rea" BUT, for the reasons mentioned above, is unable to rely on consent in defence of facts such as those in the Henson case because children lack the capacity to consent.
The Taliban, in similar fashion, also do not recognise "informed consent" as a defence, but then they also do not recognise that a child is "doli incapax" either and can therefore be punished for an offence.
What confuses me though is that children have a defence against criminal prosecution BECAUSE they have no criminal intent, but Henson, who equally lacks criminal intent, faces the risk of criminal prosecution despite this lack of intent.
In this respect we are no better than the Taliban except that we will prosecute Henson and the Taliban might prosecute the child.
Either outcome is unacceptable and uncivilised and in that respect the two systems are identical.
I understand it, and it makes perfect sense, but it is a worry that we are unable to deal with these issues in a more civilised and mature way minus all the hysteria and threats of prosecution.
Philistines George, that’s what we are, but at least we believe, mistakenly, that we have superior moral values to the Taliban whose major immorality has been to have gained control of a region which the West urgently needs for it’s oil and energy supplies.
George,
Your statement that ‘If the Henson case is prosecuted, resulting in conviction and a punitive sentence, then it will clearly occur in the absence of any criminal intent by Henson to commit any crime’ is not for you to say, but a court’s prerogative to make a judgement on.
As well, there are many grounds, even from this layman’s point of view, which could attract a conviction ‘in the absence of any criminal intent’, such as neglect, negligence, reckless behaviour, sheer bloody stupidity and being in the company of etc. Given that, in this case, it is still illegal to exploit a child in this way and to exhibit her, one would think that at least the parents have committed an offence by giving consent on behalf of a child who could not give it herself, committing the tort (?) of wilful negligence. And Henson should have had a bit more common sense and human decency than to expose a kid to this sort of scrutiny, although it probably has kicked up the value of his assets quite a bit, so from a capitalist point of view, presumably your favoured anti-Marxist position, he hasn’t done too bad, so what’s the problem ?
Rogerio, how much bullshit CAN you squeeze out of a dead duck ? Identical, indeed.
Joe
Joe,
The only reason for the massive publicity on these and other images by Henson is the witch hunt whipped up by 2GB, Hettie Johnson and Miranda Devine. I know it’s hard for you to imagine a world not totally ruled by money, but Henson’s intentions are aesthetic. He has pursued his path, supported by collectors, curators and public collections over more than three decades.
The current hysteria is more a symptom of our times (and residual guilt over recently finally acknowledging paedophilia in the inner sanctum of the NSW state government). Whipping up hatred, turning those who don’t fit the one standard straitjacket into objects of fear and loathing are hardly the hallmarks of a civilised society.
Joe, clinically speaking, are you a moron or an idiot?
It makes a difference in our legal system which one you are Joe, but even morons and idiots are required to possess the capacity to form a will of their own in order to be found guilty of an offence based on "wilful negligence".
I notice you again mention your own particular specialty, "sheer bloody stupidity", which will probably please you to know is not considered criminal or illegal in non-Marxist Australia.
So you are safe from prosecution for the present Joe, but I would not give you much hope when you finally do live amongst your beloved Marxist friends, they have little regard for idiots and morons you know Joe, and they would probably just shoot you without the bother of a trial.
GV
It seems to me that there are people, who are considered adults (and therefore able to weigh up complex issues)that are completely incapable of any such rigour.
Peter
I’m sorry Peter, could you expand a little on that.
Adults able to weigh up complex issues that are simultaneously incapable of any such rigour?
Are you referring to Henson perhaps?
Joanna,
Yes, it is a capitalist-controlled world, on the whole: people will try to make money out of anything, including other people’s misfortune and political weakness - I’m glad you have come around to agreeing with me on that point. This is not necessarily a matter to do with Henson’s aesthetics, but to do with (I would have thought a feminist would have grasped this ab initio) the rights of a female object (your sister?) not to be subjected to the male gaze, and certainly the rights of a female child object to be protected (as the law tries to do) from the uncontrolled gaze of mature males.
It’s illegal, Joanna, to wilfully expose young girls to situations over which they have no control. I would have thought that Feminism 101 would have taught you that much.
Hi George - no, I don’t know - please tell me how it feels. Sheer bloody stupidity does not necessarily mean that people are morons or idiots - merely ordinary people who, in moments of ‘sheer bloody stupidity’, do bloody stupid things - most of us have been in that situation, especially when we were a bit younger and with a skinful. I don’t think that Marxists have a monopoly on that particular idiocy. So, apart from the free kick against me, what’s your point ?
Actually, I don’t have any Marxis