According to Kevin Donnelly, "...most viewers, I think, would agree that images of naked, under-age girls, silhouetted and standing provocatively are unacceptable."
Obviously young Kev thinks this girl is standing "provocatively". He needs help.

zoot,
the image is about vulnerability than sexual provocation.

Clive Hamilton, who agrees the above, says:

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 s-xual imagery, but to the trend towards presenting children in advertising and media in increasingly eroticised ways.

And:

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.....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.

Henson is not exploiting the models like the advertisers. Nor can he be held responsible if the images, like the one, above circulate the internet and end up on the computers of paedophiles.

You state:

"Nor can he be held responsible if the images, like the one, above circulate the internet and end up on the computers of paedophiles."

I would be interested, Gary, where you see the responsibility of the artist ending.

The artist is aware of the wider context of his work - obviously. He is directly addressing the issue we are discussing now: the perception of child sexuality in the public domain.

This indicates a greater intent than that of creating an image.

Is it not a cop-out on your part - at worst an incredible act of arrogance, to absolve the artist of all responsibility for the response of his audience to his work?

If this work is not a critique of the sexualisation of youth in modern culture, it is just a pretty picture which contributes nothing and transgresses child pornography laws.

If this work seeks to make a statement about the exploitation of pre-adolescent sexuality (a reading I choose to ascribe to it), the artist must be fully aware that pedophiles will become members of his audience, and must accept at least a measure of culpability.

Otherwise his work stands for nothing.

KD,
Clive Hamilton argues a similar case as noted above. I don't accept that the argument justifies closing down the exhibition--banning the images from being shown in an exhibition in a recognized art gallery. Do you?

I do accept:

1. That art is part of a wider world of images and related to them.
2. the artist has responsibility for his work and its relation to the wider world.
3.art is connected to ethics as well as politics.
4. traditionally modernist art stood as a critique of both forms of earlier art (realism and naturalism) and as a critique of the values and practices of the broader society, especially those of the capitalist market.

So I interpret the image of the post as representing a young girl as a subject and sexual being expressing her vulnerability, fragility, sexuality and beauty. This is different from the way that the advertisers have treated them as sex objects. Not is that image a pornographic image in the sense of what you find on pornographic internet sites. Therefore Benson is being responsible.

Who has circulated the images on the internet outside the narrow world of the art institution where they have not created a fuss, when they were shown in exhibitions in our major galleries? The mass media of course. News Corp. Why isn't the finger being pointed at them in terms of ethical responsibility?

The law of course is a different matter. I'm not sure what the legislation says there. Nor am I sure what particular Act is being used. All I know is that the NSW police have seized 20 of 41 photographs from Bill Henson's Sydney exhibition of adolescent girls with the intention of launching criminal proceedings under the Child Protection Act.Police say charges will be laid under both the NSW and Commonwealth Crimes acts for publishing an indecent article.

The post was less about the law and more about interpreting the image. Is it indecent? If so what makes it indecent? The nudity? Is it the nudity that justifies the "sexualizing the kids" interpretation?

KD,
Catherine Lumby has an article in The Sunday Age on the issue you raise:

the artist must be fully aware that pedophiles will become members of his audience, and must accept at least a measure of culpability. Otherwise his work stands for nothing.

Lumby argues against banning as a way of dealing with thi issue. She then says:

If we go down the path of saying that all images of children and young adolescents can only portray them as ideal Brady Bunch kids, then we will spend our lives, as a society, looking for images of corrupted children and teenagers everywhere. Worse, we risk looking at every image through the lens of the pedophile.

And

Protecting children and young teenagers involves respecting their difference from adults. It means allowing them a space in which to explore their emerging selves free of the demand to always be seen in relation to adulthood — as either pure or entirely knowing. It means involving them in the debate rather than always speaking on their behalf.

KD said "Is it not a cop-out on your part - at worst an incredible act of arrogance, to absolve the artist of all responsibility for the response of his audience to his work?"

I cannot accept this. In the global, digital age we live in, you would have to presume that everyone has the potential of being your audience.
To use your argument, the artist would have to make sure that they did not provoke or upset anyone, from the criminally insane to the holiest of holy, all of whom could easily be their audience. It also presumes that any person can actually pre-empt what another person's response will be. This is a ridiculous premise.
Each individual is responsible for their own response to any stimulus.

As for Henson encouraging pedophiles? Are all parents who let their children run naked on public beaches also guilty of encouraging pedophiles? Are these parents also responsible for "the response of (the) audience".
If not, why not?

Just for your readers - an interesting interview with Henson has been made available which I have also posted.

The Media's hypocrisy over this matter, reeks to high heaven. If any group is guilty of sexualizing children it is the Media. The fact that they generate billions of dollars in revenue out of selling magazines to young girls; the fact that they conspire with advertising agencies and the fashion industry to exploit exploit the young and the vulnerable, is as self evident as it is sickeningly perverse.

By comparison, Hensons' work concerns the body as metaphor. His images are as mysteriously powerful as they are disturbingly beautiful.

But none of this will matter, unless people of good concience stand up to the witch~hunting media.

It was Heinrich Heine who said...

"Where they burn books, they will ultimately also burn people."

The same can be said for banning (and burning) of images.

How sad Australia...how sad...

Aqua Fyre

Gary, we agree on many things. Certainly I share your interpretation of the image and abhor the duplicity of the media. But to affect shock and surprise at this duplicity is to be disingenuous - it is the core critique of the image!

I will admit to feeling conflicted about the issue of censorship (a very unpopular position on this blog!). I am happy to admit that the advent of children of my own has altered my perception of this issue. Several years ago I would have been rabidly pro-Henson. Now, rather than thinking about the artist, my sympathies lie entirely with the subject.

The thought of my children being in a similar position - at the centre of an hysterical national debate about child pornography - chills my blood. And rightly or wrongly the artist is at the nexus of this.

In a nutshell, ambiguity about child sexuality is ripe for misinterpretation. My view is that it is a dangerous position to leave oneself in.

So, to lay all my prejudices on the line - Politics, History, Art, Religion - have at it! Piss Christ was a larf!

Race and Children - "think once, think twice; think don't drive on the pavement".

What are yours?

Michael - I did not suggest that any artist should moderate their behavior in any way - my issue was with Garys assertion that the artist cannot be held responsible for the way in which his/her work is used/viewed.

This is the ridiculous premise - that any artist (and I am not simply referring to Bill Henson now) can produce a work (as a critique, comment or criticism) and disown the subsequent ramifications of how that work is viewed.

Every day, everyones actions and words in the public and private domain are open to interpretation, misinterpretation and distortion. We must be sensitive to this and hit the targets we are aiming at, not shoot ourselves in the foot.

Artists (despite the almost historical cries in the media of "he's an artist - how could he be wrong!") are no exceptions.

And who is suggesting that "Henson [is] encouraging pedophiles"? I don't believe anyone in this forum is arguing that, and if you are implying that I did you have completely missed the point of my post.

And thanks, Pam, for your post. I did see that article. I got more out of your quotes than the article itself. 'Fraid to say she didn't sell me on it.

Oh, yeah, and Gary? "Who has circulated the images on the internet... The mass media of course. News Corp. Why isn't the finger being pointed at them in terms of ethical responsibility?"

Given the image at the top of this page, I assume you either A)don't consider yourself part of the mass media, or B)are circulating the images in a "good" way (after all, it is an "artistic" website so it wouldn't be propagating the hypocrisy...).

Funnily enough, I only found my way here through a Google Images search for "bill henson child pornography pictures". There you were - No. 2 in the list.

But enjoying myself none-the-less. Hope you don't mind having a Neanderthal hanging around.

Damn - pressed the wrong button!

As I was saying, Michael, I apologise. I realised that I am advocating self-censorship - but as we all do it every day it's not such a big ask.

The bottom line with this one from my point of view?

The potential harm of misinterpreting this work of art is greater than the potential contribution it makes as a critique of the portrayal of child sexuality in the mass media.

I think the unsophisticated response of the wider community bears this view out.

Cheers

KD wrote:
"Michael - I did not suggest that any artist should moderate their behavior in any way - my issue was with Garys assertion that the artist cannot be held responsible for the way in which his/her work is used/viewed.

This is the ridiculous premise - that any artist (and I am not simply referring to Bill Henson now) can produce a work (as a critique, comment or criticism) and disown the subsequent ramifications of how that work is viewed. "

Actually, that is exactly what I'm saying. An artist (or anyone) can easily disown the subsequent ramifications of how their work is viewed because they are not responsible for them.
What if someone views the above Bill Henson image and decides to start up an orphanage for homeless children? Is Bill responsible for that? Should he be aware of that ramification before making the image?
It is obvious from your comment that you are only concerned with the potential for negative ramifications by creating the possibility that a pedophile would find this image sexually appealing.
"Garys assertion that the artist cannot be held responsible for the way in which his/her work is used/viewed" is entirely correct.
The way a work is viewed is entirely the responsibility of the viewer. Bill Henson is not forcing you to view his work in any particular way. That is the viewer's choice. It is quite possible that a pedophile might find this image repulsive. I am sure that for every viewer, there are individual responses to any image. The maker of an image cannot be aware of all those responses.

The image is nought but light.

The Law protects the vulnerable.

The Law is blind.

Enter the fool Benson, worldwise yet stumbling blindly at the precipice. Yet prepare a feast for his return. Oh, the gnashing. Have the maidens temper the goats!

Fact: the image shown on this site appears to be an image of a 12-13 year old girl [stop]

If debate "about" the work is necessary, let's do the artist the credit of recognising our commentary as commentary "about" work and not the work itself - which (apologies to the Critic and Censor) is empty of meaning, empty of value.

Any movement toward critique must necessarily involve a movement toward the ethical. In Public-ation motion toward the ethical is resolved through deferral to the legal. The legal is formed by the political. The political informed by the cultural, cultural by the historical.

So let the Law have it's way for the People (hurrah, hurrah), while we learned few scribe impenetrable circuities on the ethics of public-ation.

As an aside, nudity has in some traditions been interpreted as symbolic of "freedom from discursive proliferation". Analysed in this way I find the image breathtakingly...silent.

(contrapunctus: a characteristic certainly not exhibited by many 12-13 year olds)

KD
you write:

Several years ago I would have been rabidly pro-Henson. Now, rather than thinking about the artist, my sympathies lie entirely with the subject. The thought of my children being in a similar position - at the centre of an hysterical national debate about child pornography - chills my blood. And rightly or wrongly the artist is at the nexus of this.

It is not your children that are the subject of the photos. The models and their parents are saying they were fine about this and comfortaable with what happened.

Why should we dismiss what they say as irrelevant?

KD
junk for code is a weblog and not a part of the News Corp empire. There is a difference.

You write:

Given the image at the top of this page, I assume you either:
A)don't consider yourself part of the mass media, or
B)are circulating the images in a "good" way (after all, it is an "artistic" website so it wouldn't be propagating the hypocrisy...).
Funnily enough, I only found my way here through a Google Images search for "bill henson child pornography pictures". There you were - No. 2 in the list.

What you find on junk for code is a contestation of the conservative assumption that the photo in itself is child pornography. It asks how do you get that interpretation from the image shown.

The paragraph under the image says:

For it to be pornographic image then it needs to show engaging in sexual activity, or (being) depicted in an indecent sexual manner or context. Does this image show that? Isn't this the question we should be asking?

The post is saying that you need to argue why the image is interpreted as child pornography, not assume that it is.

Paul,
you do not appear to be interpreting the image of the post. Isn't that what the debate is about? The iamge is more than light. It embodies a network of meanings and we are arguing over those cultural meanings.

This is absolutely ridiculous. It's the people who look at these photographs and think porn that are the pedophiles, not the artist or the appreciator. There is a strong message here, and less subtle than we might have thought.
Aside from that obvious conclusion I still would not recommend displaying any of this odd man's art in a middle school.

Have just stumbled on this, which may be of interest

http://www.homepagedaily.com/Pages/article4956-storm-in-an-a-cup.aspx

If an 'elite' person has a photo of a naked child it is art, if he is a 'yobbo' then it's porn.
If an aborigine molests his children they build him a new house while a non-aborigine goes to gaol.
If rich people take drugs they are depressed or something, but if poor people take drugs they are prosecuted.
Too many double standards.

RD,
there is an interesting post on Audrey and the Bad Apple, that you may find useful for your concerns. The writer is a columnist for the Sunday Mail in Adelaide. She says that:

we do have to accept that there are some limits which it shouldn't okay to cross over. As a friend said to me recently, there's a difference between aspiring to a liberal society and aspiring to a libertine one.

True. But does Henson stand for, or even represent, a libertine culture? She goes on to paraphrase Greg Pike's comments from a radio show:

Art must not be cloistered in the sense that it thinks it can say anything and the community should be expected to swallow it. I think the artist's job is to critique the community - but they have to be open to the community critiquing the arts. In some respects, I don't think the artistic community like this idea. But it has to cut both ways.

Agreed. But the criticism of an art work does need to be based on the image as well as the context of the work or people's feelings.

I thought the earlier post on the SA blog a bit precious as it went on about the wanky art crowd, rather than the images. On this she said:

In one shot, the upper body of a girl is featured while she kneels on all fours, her head downcast. I certainly did not feel they were "honest" or "beautiful".
Artistic might be capturing images of children running around laughing on a beach, caught between the devil-may-care nakedness inherent to children and the fig-leaf necessity of adulthood.
Placing them in a darkened room and fashioning them into poses not natural to a child does nothing but strip them of their power and turn them into subjects – and to me, that is the great difference between nudes and pornography.
Censorship be damned. The police were right to shut down Henson's "exhibition". That none of his fawning audience could see why is proof the art world in general needs to get a new tailor.

Does the image shown in this post fashion teen girl into poses not natural to a child and does nothing but strip them of their power and turn them into subjects (I assume objects is meant?

I cannot see it. Henson's images are disturbing because he captures these feelings and emotions of emptiness, uncertainty and foreboding.

Gerri,
you are right. The Storm in an A-Cup post on the Homepage Daily makes some good points. It says:

But why pick on an art, when trainer bras and sexy lingerie for 6 years olds are hot items, when 5 years olds go to beauty parlours and have makeovers to celebrate their birthdays, when the advertising industrys' use of very young "models" is morally questionable at so many levels, when ads for jeans are shot like pornography, when ads for lipstick are shot like pornography, when ads for cars are shot like pornography, and when 75% of the internet is pornography.

Why pick on Henson, one of the artists in the high school art syllabus for heavens sake, when our whole popular culture, what's on our telly, in our videos, our movies ,our mags and our newspapers, is shot through with exploitative and violent sexuality. Why worry about Henson when that celebration of sadism, The Passion of the Christ, was a world wide hit.

Why pick on an art photographer, when Paris Hilton's home-movie porno shot her to stardom, and matrons devouring their womens magazines at the hairdresser are tut-tutting about Britneys split-pink pole dance, when entertainers and sportstars of the ilk of the Beckhams have replaced saints as objects of veneration, and our mass media regurgitates all this vomit as though it matters. And we all gossip about it as though it matters, and meanwhile the ice caps are melting.

This broadens the debate away from art and porn to the wider culture.

I did interpret the image, but not in the same light as the other interpretations.

The point was that our discussions are "about" the work. In most instances a great distance removed from the work itself. This is no longer interpretation of the work but about culture. Once we open the debate on culture then out discussion becomes laden and subject. Let's not heap our bags on the workers (artist and model).

Once again: I see the an image of a young girl standing naked. I interpret her nakedness as freedom from discursive proliferation.

If she stood before me as a person there would be ground for an exchange. If her image stands before me why does she become an object and the ground shift to cultural critique. Must I avert my gaze by crowding my mind with false (conventional) reason?

Here is a girl, not an object. Her aspect offers up silence to me, why should I shout at/about her.

"Every day, everyones actions and words in the public and private domain are open to interpretation, misinterpretation and distortion. We must be sensitive to this and hit the targets we are aiming at, not shoot ourselves in the foot."

"I realised that I am advocating self-censorship - but as we all do it every day it's not such a big ask."

There is something to that in the greater scheme of things, along the lines of Civilisation and its Discontents. It's much easier for us to target a single individual or event than a corporate entities doing similar things with kids, and much younger ones, over a period of time. So Henson cops it but KMart carry on as usual.

Speaking of targets though, the tabloids were not Henson's intended audience, nor were perverts or the easily offended. It's much harder to target a specific audience in this day and age. For years Henson's work has been viewed by his intended audience. It hangs in galleries around the world. The ramifications of how his work has been viewed in the past are very different from the ramifications now, but to what extent can Henson be held personally responsible for that, given the media's role here?

The ramifications and the level of responsibility changed in less than 24 hours.

Didn't read all of the comments but the initial piece may be interesting to you.

The photographs of police entering the art gallery prior to the Henson exhibition opening chillingly reminded me of the police entering the Robert Mapplethorpe retrospective at the Contemporary Art Center in Cincinnati, USA in 1990. This raid, indictment, prosecution and trail shocked the art world and engendered my founding of the Campaign Against Censorship in the Arts.

Mapplethorpe was exploring sexual identity, sexual subculture, the eroticised male nude, S & M, and, by his own admission, pornography. He himself had stated that he wanted to try to make pornography to try to understand its power. Although differently framed in the trial, there should have been no uncertainty that some of the Mapplethorpe images were pornographic; but this does not exclude them from being art. The history of art is filled with explorations of pornography. Explicit sexual representation, in literature and visual art, is an entirely normal and appropriate area of interest and activity for adult human beings. Artist, like scientists, enjoy a right of research which sometimes takes them beyond the general understanding and appreciation of the general populace. Normally, we accept this.

In the Mapplethorpe instance, the CAC and its director were acquitted on obscenity charges. The work was recognized as art, and therefore protected. From what I can tell, nothing in Henson's work puts it anywhere near the level of transgression in the Mapplethorpe work. Sexual organs are not displayed, sexual activity is not engaged in or depicted, sexual practices are not explored.

At most, Henson accepts that children have a sexual identity and explores the cultural sexualization of children. Children often aspire to a sexuality, and readily act out a more adult identity. It's happening all around us. Should not this important area of inquiry be available to artists?

Perhaps the problem the medium, photography, and the confusion and difficulty it still proposes for viewers. Police are accustomed to using photographs as evidence, often evidence of a crime having been committed. I don't know for what Prime Ministers' are accustomed to using photographs, what they think when they view them.

But if you accept the subject as valid for artistic inquiry (think of Munch's "Adolescence") you have to permit your contemporary artists to explore it. Even if you insist on the Keatsian definition that "Beauty is Truth, and Truth Beauty" you ought to concede that the image of the unclothed pubescent girl which seems to have provoked the controversy contains some truth; indeed, it is its truth which so troubles everyone.

I have no doubt that, removed from their context in an art gallery, some of the Henson images have the potential to be used as stimulation by pedophiles; just as I am sure advertisement photographs of children in bathing costumes or underwear are so used. Porn, to some extent, is in the eye of the beholder. I don't think we should let the pedophiles dictate the terms. In Cincinnati, I would suggest that there are many communities of different awareness and understanding, with different rules, thresholds and limits, just as there are different communities of traffic. Imposing the restrictions appropriate to a residential cul-de-sac upon a major highway is as problematic as permitting 70 mph speeds in a quiet neighborhood.

Most troubling to me is learning of police investigating the photographs not even exhibited but stored in the gallery, and informing other institutions they should consider removing older Henson images from their exhibitions. This smacks of a witch hunt, an officially sanctioned mania. Speaking from a city (Cincinnati) which has too often accepted a repressive, anti-art mentality, I urge loud, clear condemnation of government actions and uninformed statements by government representatives.

Henson, caught in the crossfire, seems the wrong target. I think he's playing with fire and knows it, so his art is not innocent even if the children are. He has a right to explore the social edge, but should ask himself deeply and profoundly why he's doing it, and the degree to which his images will meet the wrong eyes. As for chasing child-abusers, I suggest society's resources are devoted to the evil perpetrators of child sex crimes, and not marginal figures like Henson.

Paul, London, UK

Further to my previous comment, if you cover up all but the head and shoulders in the image it has the same artistic effect, in displaying the girl's inner emotions, and arousing ours. If you disagree, then Henson is clearly and I suggest consciously, making a statment about sexuality and should be judged by that. If you agree, the same is true!

That material is illegal in the United Kingdom, it really is, Bill Henson would be arrested if he did it in London.

You can check, but topless photos of 16 & 17 year old girls are also illegal under the sexual offences act 2003,

the poor old cops down under have their colleagues in the VGT asking them to dampen down internet transactions of what CEOP (UK) would view as child pornography.

So a hundred Australian actresses is not going to change that de jure perspective, it is silly to think that way.

So wave that photo about in Oxford Street, as live art, and you'd be a live pedophile on his way to the cop shop. So if it is art, it is not British art, it is CP there.

If its ok for Bill Henson to take underage nude photos, than lets make it legal for everyone to take underage nude photos.
What a load of rubbish, it makes me sick to see these art people think you have one set of rules and everyone has another set of rules.

Jurgen,
your comments assume that Henson's work is porn. That is what is currently being debated, and you have provided no arguments to support your assumption. You need to because the mother of the model in question strongly supports the work of Henson:

There is a police investigation under way and we cannot say anything other than (that) we are very strong supporters of Bill Henson and his work.

They do not see the work as bad (indecent/porn) as you do. So there is a conflict of opinions. Hence the ongoing debate.

It is being investigated as child pornography by a growing number of agencies around the world, the australians are being asked to act.

Websites reported for using Henson images
Email Printer friendly version Normal font Large font Yuko Narushima
May 30, 2008

In Britain it is obviously child pornography, how stupid are people not to know that?

The Aussie media are reporting that the govt. is being pressurized to act, by other VGT partners.

NSPCC - Media Centre - Media Briefings - Sexual Offences Act 2003The NSPCC believes that if sexual abuse of children is to be addressed .... It is now illegal for papers and magazines to show pictures of topless girls ...
www.nspcc.org.uk/whatwedo/mediacentre/mediabriefings/policy/Sexual_Offences_Act_2003_wda40640.html - 26k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

It is child pornography, the law in the UK was because of people like Bill Henson, it was intended to catch people like him.

Tazia,
Australia is not Britain. No charges have been laid in Australia yet, and so the courts have yet to hear the case re indecency. There is still a debate going on in this country about Henson's photographs.

There is a censored photo of the girl with her bottom half exposed too. I don't know how revealing that is but this photo is not child pornography.

However there are concerns with these photos and that is with the consent of the girl in the photos. She is not old enough to consent of her own and I doubt if she has the maturity to make an informed decision. It must be that a parent consented to the release of the photos.

This whole row is also getting the girl a lot more attention than would have been ever anticipated. I wonder if she would be happy that her classmates etc can see her nude on the net.

This type of situation really doesn't have a right answer. You can argue it either way.

Tazia
The NSW Police are now waiting for the DPP's advice on whether there are sufficient grounds to lay charges of possessing and creating child pornography and of displaying an indecent image, the police statement said. It did not specify whether the charges would apply to Henson or to galleries displaying his work.

The police in a variety of countries are asking the Australians to do something, Canada, UK, Ireland.

"There is still a debate going on in this country about Henson's photographs."

Fine, but take London off his CV, the verdict is in there already, the Limey police have made up their minds, they've asked the authorities in Australia to act.

So, he is a 'restricted' whatever type of artist he is, I can also bet you a Lincoln to a pre-owned Datsun that Henson isn't going to get a laptop through US customs.

I feel the idea that his rep is gonna get the Brits, Irish, Canadians, to forget, what he is doing, is not a happening idea, it just isn't. one of those countries had Henson in mind for a new law!

That's pretty famous and it isn't the expedited VIP lounge at Heathrow.

I don't think Bill Henson is a real artist a real artist would have found a model who was 16 but looked 13 or 12 sorry Bill you blew it mate if you did th