While we were getting ready for the Festival of the Photograph, in Australia many were up in arms against the photography of artist Bill Henson. His photographs of nude teenagers were confiscated by police and his exhibit shut down before it even opened.
Child advocacy groups argued that even if the photos are art, today’s internet technology makes it too easy for pedophiles to get their hands on the photos. Police also interviewed the young models, to see if Henson violated any child pornography laws. The Prime minister declared them “revolting” but members of the art community including actor Cate Blanchett say this is censorship and makes Australia look like it doesn’t support its artists or culture.
The photos in question are part of a larger collection of Henson’s work, featuring dark photos of people in minimal environments wearing loose clothes or in the nude. Supposedly the photos confiscated are supposed to represent the transitive beauty of the young body but a lot of people are offended. When can art just be art? Just because somebody could take art and use it for the wrong purposes does not make it into something wrong. And just because a piece features nudity does not make it porn or wrong. I think the bigger question is why are we not allowed to see the beauty of a nude youth without feeling like it’s wrong? This incident, not unlike the Abortion art project, raises some interesting questions about what art is exactly and what it means.
Is the innocence of children being violated if we look at them naked? What about parents who take pictures of their kids? Is it different just because those pictures are not put out in public? Meanwhile, over in a local gallery hangs a photo of a naked dead girl being placed in a burial shroud. Is that picture different because the child is deceased?
The photos were eventually declared nonpornographic by censors, as they were not “sexualized” but there are still those who believe the opposite. What do you think? Are there certain things that shouldn’t ever be photographed, even artistically?
Photos from The Daily Telegraph
Popularity: 53% [?]
Tagged as: Art, Bill Henson, Censorship, Nudity, photography
Carl Jung is spinning in his grave.
Is it pornography? Ask led zeppelin.
wow pinkie, you’ve outdone yourself this time.
i think that rules about pornography (which are rooted in general rules about adulthood) are they way they are because of the subject’s ability to make a conscious decision about acts they perform. sex with a minor is illegal; a compelling argument can be made that a minor doesn’t possess the knowledge or maturity to fully understand the act. same goes for voting, smoking, and… well not drinking, but i’m losing my point.
my point is that this same criteria should be applied to child subjects of art that confronts adult themes. portraiture, photography, film, and theater are for the most part harmless, even educational. i’ll argue that this photo session was NOT harmless, and here’s why: does the girl in those photos possess the faculties to really understand why she’s being photographed? being naked can be weird and scary when you’re a teenager (even more so with a bunch of people looking at you), and i’m willing to bet that the subjects were more than a little confused about what was going on.
i’m a little confused about what’s going on, really. why is it important to show this to the world?
@1: Thanks for that B-yo. My dad had that on vinyl and I remember seing it as a kid. Funny thing is, the naked girls didn’t seem weird or dirty or bother me one bit. I just wondered where they were going.
@2: I don’t think he used subjects who weren’t comfortable. It’s also the biggest compliment you could give to a teenager going through the rollercoaster of puberty: Your body is art. It’s beauty.
To have someone say, “No, that’s porn!” , how uncomfortable do you think that makes the teenager feel about their body?
And to answer why to show this to the world, there’s an interesting article here. The author states,
I would argue that those that would call these pieces pornography are those that are afraid of their own tendency to sexualize the images. All is projection, and art is the most obvious example of such. Never underestimate the power of repression (just ask Ted Haggart).
/physician, heal thyself.
@5 you callin’ me a pre-vert?!
oh wait, just kidding. it’s true that an interpretation of anything says more about the viewer than about anything else. i don’t think it’s sexualized imagery really, but i do think it makes me uneasy. nsfw? probably, in most places.
turns out this is an interesting examination of socialized sexual repression, or something like that. i’m probably in trouble now.
i don’t think it’s sexualized imagery really
You kinda have to say that at this point in the argument though, dontcha…
/just pullin yer chain (i mean that in a totally non sexual way, i swear!)
Moderator, please strike comment 7 from the discussion as it is completely off-track.
/kidding
@6: Tell us why it makes you uneasy, parlie.
Moderator, I was only kidding. Now it looks like I’m hating on B-yo.
When art stretches it’s legs’, they can kick wrong places.
/Sorry for going off track. “Please Wash Me!”
I expected to have a knee jerk reaction to this, but you raise some interesting points that are having me reconsider. Namely, why aren’t we allowed to appreciate young bodies as something amazing and nonsexual? I totally agree, but I think the answer here might be photography.
Photographs are the medium by which many young people have been exploited. Though these photos are lovingly created and “tasteful,” seeing the actual child is a bit disturbing, as opposed to a painting, a fictional movie character or a description in a novel.
breast are not sex organs.
nudity is not pornography.
we have the founding puritans to thank for the confusion.
oops. breasts, plural.
I think it’s a little bit of both, art and pornography. And the two can be separated by the manor in which the pictures are presented or viewed. It’s not necessarily black and white. Should the photographer be charged with a crime? No. Should the guy looking at these while holding back his lust? Yes.
calm down, thought police… you should convict someone of lust in their mind?
There’s always gonna be somebody out there that’s turned on by something that wasn’t meant to be sexual. I think the more interesting thing is the fact that we don’t feel comfortable looking at these photos.
@- starting with the fact that if you take away those blackout areas, and all of a sudden i can be charged with a crime for having this up on my screen… that makes me uneasy.
Oh crap. I have the images saved on my computer. I’m gonna get arrested.
I’ll visit you in jail, pinks.
But seriously, you aren’t gonna get arrested for having a nude painting or a copy of lolita. Even though this is classified as “art,” it’s still a photograph of a naked kid. Society is pretty quick to label photographs as exploitation. You create a painting, you “take” a photograph.