I haven’t seen the latest photographs by artist Bill Henson to go on show at Tolarno Galleries in Melbourne.
But I have seen these.
So I know what Henson is capable of and how he likes to depicts and shoot young girls.
The girl (image to the right) who featured naked on the invite to the Roslyn Oxley gallery was 13. While that photo was widely circulated, an even more graphic one of another girl (image to the left) was not. She is ‘Untitled 1985/86’, quietly auctioned by Menzies Art Brands, Lot 214, for $3800, only weeks after the original Henson controversy.
And when Tolarno Galleries refuses to reveal the age of the youngest naked girl in the new exhibition, you have to suspect there is a problem. Why the secrecy? Was she at an age where she could consent? As respected teen psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg put it when I asked his view, would she “have sufficient cognitive or emotional maturity to fully comprehend the potential ramifications of what she is doing?”
Where will her photo end up? Where did the photos of the other two girls above end up?
Why does calling it “art” make sexualised depictions of young girls OK?
It is right to question Henson’s sexual depictions of vulnerable naked young girls – and other overtly sexualised imagery of children – a point I made on Channel 7’s Morning Show last Thursday. Media academic and researcher Nina Funnell also reveals here that Henson’s images have been found in the collections of paedophilies.
13 Responses
I feel physically sick having seen that other image now. When the line between art and freedom of expressions seems blurry I simply say to myself, “Would I allow MY DAUGHTER to pose for a photo like that?” And the answer is a resounding NO. What an utter disgrace.
I suppose the question here is whether naked is the same as ‘sexualised’. I don’t think it is always the case but I’m more than prepared to call these images not only sexualised but pornographic.
As someone who struggled with a porn addiction for several years, I feel I have a pretty good idea of what’s ‘normal’ in porn. I’ve certainly seen enough of it to know. It’s fair to say that an overwhelming majority of porn, if not all of it, is based on power inequality, most often with women in a position of less or no power. This is usually expressed in one of two ways – either with women physically overpowered by bondage, violence or sheer numbers (eg, several men and one woman) OR it is expressed by women being made to look like very young, innocent girls. These ‘girls’ are supposedly over 18 but look a lot younger. They are always thin, hairless, tiny, small-breasted and fragile looking – that is, they are made to look like pre-pubescent or barely-pubescent young girls. Often they are photographed or filmed looking passive, vulnerable and pliable – the implication is they know nothing about sexuality but are there to be ‘taught’ (ie, exploited) by adult men.
I haven’t seen the Henson exhibition but the two photos above are enough to convince me that they are dangerously inappropriate. Those photos would not look out of place on a ‘teen porn’ website. (Teen porn is also usually called ‘Lolita’ porn – and of course Lolita, in the novel by Vladimir Nabokov, was 12 years old.)
The girls in Henson’s photos are meant to look young and innocent. Their gaze is away from the camera, which not only makes them more vulnerable but leaves the viewer with the impression that these are candid shots where the subject was not even aware of the photographer. (I’m not saying this is true; I’m suggesting that the angles and poses are designed to create that impression.)
I do not believe the girls in these photos have the emotional maturity to understand the tone created, nor the long term implications of having these photos in the public space. They are not mature enough to understand how the photos can be viewed as not only sexualised but pornographic. They are certainly not old enough to appreciate what it means to have their images in the hands of paedophiles or on porn sites on the internet – and once they’re out there, they’re out there. There’s no taking them back, however much they might desire that in ten years from now.
Emily Sue, if you believe that, I strongly recommend you read ‘The Henson Case’ by David Marr, particular the chapter that deals with ‘N’ (the girl in the Oxley picture), and the lengths and depth of discussion that both Henson, her parents and her sister went to before a single picture was taken. He puts a huge amount of time and effort into reaching informed consent. The point of the work Henson does on this area, is to capture that period of transition in all our lives as we move from child bodies into adult bodies. It’s a period where we are generally uncomfortable with ourselves and our bodies, distance ourselves from our parents and experience large amounts of emotional turmoil. For parents, this time can often feel voyeuristic and distant as well. It seems to me that the only time that N was treated as an object was when her image was decried, described as absolutely revolting and otherwise denounced, without taking into account, or even considering, her feelings towards them or the deep contemplation she put into making the decision in the first place.
Look, I agree this is a difficult area, but I see a huge danger in blindly condemning everything. If you’re going to say that no child is capable of making a decision on a matter like this, then you’re hard pressed to allow any child actors, singers, athletes, or any other ‘decisions’ that children make. Is the 15 year old champion gymnast really capable of making that choice and the years of training they must already have under their belts to reach that level of performance? Is the 11 year old cast in a movie as the plucky, smart alec kid really capable of making that decision? Consider also that the age of consent in the ACT is 10 years old, provided your partner is no more than 2 years older. While it may not be the choice parents would make, it is difficult to say that it is the wrong choice for everyone who happens to make it.
The real problem is that this is all on a continuum. There is no thick black line between being helpless, and incapable of making any informed decision, and being capable to do so. Many 15 year olds who are fully capable of driving responsibly, while there are many 25 year olds who still aren’t. 18 is essentially arbitrary as a milestone for adulthood, and really only valid because it works well enough in the majority of cases.
As to the second issue, I have big problems with the elevation of the pedophile gaze. I do not think it is helpful to take the stance that everything must be examined as a pedophile would see it to decide if it is acceptable. That forces me to think like a pedophile, which is not something that appeals or comes naturally to me. It inevitably leads to problems, like we are already seeing, of grandparents being charged for having naked pictures of their grandchildren playing in the bathtub. Problems like parents not being able to take pictures of their children playing in team sporting events. Problems like men no longer feeling comfortable going to the aid of a child in obvious distress for fear of being mislabeled. Personally, I never saw the Oxley pictures as anything approaching pornographic. Indeed, I’ve found them hauntingly beautiful. The closest they’ve become to pornographic to me, is when I see them reproduced with black bars, implying there is something that needs censoring underneath. (As to the other picture, I agree that looks more concerning, but I’ve never seen it anywhere in context.)
This is not art. It is child pornography. I speak from professional experience when I say that if these photos crossed my desk in any other capacity there would be an immediate police investigation. I cannot help but wonder at the motivation of the parents of these children who are quite simply not of age to give consent to naked photographs of themselves being taken and distributed in the name of art. Bill Henson is behaving like a pornographer. Yes he generates a huge amount of response but to what end. The exploitation of children which if not labelled as art, would be a criminal offence. In fact I cannot understand why there is no investigation of the artist or the children’s parents. Appalling.
Excellent notes above, Emily Sue. I appreciate ALL you’ve said, your analysis has been very helpful.
Bill Henson can call it what he likes. I’ll call it what it is. Child. Pornography.
I found Emily Sue’s argument to be very compelling and I am inclined to agree with Emily Sue but I would be interested to read a response from someone in support of Henson’s art.
I have been trying to think like an artist, and considering what the purpose might be for taking these pictures, what an artist would be trying to convey or explore. I honestly can’t comprehend any reason to take pictures like this that isn’t a little disturbing (or a lot)!
If someone was to have these same pictures on their mobile phone and send them to their friends, would that be okay? Or would it be illegal outside of an “artsy” exhibition setting? What makes it different here?
I realize that art in many cases is supposed to be confronting, controversial, or not understood by society. But what I do understand is that those girls are far too young to give informed consent which makes taking these pictures purely exploitative.
Shocking stuff and makes me shudder to think that would be my daughter (or me at that age!!). Excellent comments so far and full support for seeing this as ‘wrong’.
Good question Caitlin – if anyone was caught with these images on their phone it would be deemed a criminal offence…and the charge would be manufacturing (and/or) transmitting child pornography. Even if someone under 18 has taken a naked image of themselves and stored it in their phone (without sending it) the same charge could apply.
i wonder why Bill Henson has not photographed boys under the age of 16 totally naked and in sexualised poses. Could it be because Henson is only interested in sexually exploiting young girls since he knows there is a huge commercial market for images of totally naked young girls and the buyers are primarily males.
Then too there is the fact Henson’s work is not ‘art’ but is deliberate sexual exploitation of girls. Claiming such images are ‘art’ is a common ploy pornographers make when they are challenged about dehumanising women and girls.
Note too Alice Shaw states she has had similarly posed images come to her attention in her professional capacity and they are pornography.
So bottom line is why are there not images within Henson’s work of totally naked boys posing in sexually submissive poses? Is this because our male supremacist society believes that males must not be reduced to dehumanised sexualised commodities but it is fine for women and girls to be so depicted.
The question of consent is another issue which is commonly bandied around but this is in fact a deliberate attempt to side-line the central issue and that is the now routine representation of women, girls and yes even female babies as males’ disposable sexual service stations. The US Child Beauty Pageant is one such example of men’s deliberate sexual exploitation of women and girls in the name of profit.
Given all women and girls are subjected to 24/7 propaganda that our bodies exist only to sexually entertain/sexually titilate men then ‘informed consent’ becomes very problematic. Even more so when the pornographers and their apologists have immense financial power to silence and obliterate any attempt at challenging such deliberate dehumanisation of women and girls.
Pornography is not a moral issue it is about the normalisation and acceptance that women and girls are not human but just men’s disposable sexual service stations. Remember one cannot harm or inflict pain on an object – and that is what the pseudo artist Bill Henson is promoting – the lie that women and girls are dehumanised sexualised commodities.
If we believe ‘art’ must supercede women’s and girls’ human rights then why are there not images of men reduced to disposable sexualised commodities? Why is the naked male body protected? Is there something about the naked male body which has to be protected – unlike the female naked body which must be constantly exploited and now increasingly younger and younger females are being sexually exploited.
By the way images of naked young girls is not a new idea – when the camera was invented this accorded men the opportunity of photographing naked young girls in sexualised poses and these images too were claimed to be ‘artistic.’ Henson is capitalising on the normalisation of pornography and in fact so-called child porn is not separate from pornography. Pornography is about the deliberate male dehmanisation and portrayal of females irrespective of their age/ethnicity etc. as men’s dehumanised sexualised commodities. Pornography normalises the widespread belief that women and girls are ‘just sex’ and hence can be subjected to whatever acts/poses men demand because remember – ‘no human was harmed in the making of such images.’
Interesting how the focus is always on claims that images of naked women, girls and yes even female babies are okay but not images of full frontal naked
When the first Bill Henson controversy erupted in 2008, I didn’t quite get it. What I had see of his work up until that point, I had found strikingly beautiful; it’s hard to deny that the man has an incredible talent for the interplay of darkness, light and human skin. Even what I had seen of his photographs of younger subjects I found it difficult to object to; what mountain was being made of a molehill now, I thought?
The I saw the images Melinda posted above, and more. My experience of Henson was obviously incomplete – I had not up until then realised how much of his portfolio is profoundly sexual. Which does not offend me in the least – visual art is a great way to explore and speak about sexuality. What bothered me was how many of his subjects were so very young. That so much sensuality and knowingness was being projected onto and through prepubescent bodies; the way in which his lens subverted the natural beauty and innocence of childhood nakedness and turned it into something inviting an adult gaze.
I could be convinced that it was some kind of artistic statement if it were just one or two images. But it’s not. It’s an ever-growing collection of works portraying children in sexually styled, sexually charged, sexually suggestive, pornography-referencing poses. I’m still not sure if it’s child porn, but something so close definitely has to be questioned publically….
Are there not plenty of other concepts to explore? Have we exhausted all current social issues in art? Why involve children?
If the photgraphs were good then I may consider them to be art.
Leave kids out of it.