hinchley.net

Those of you living in Australia will undoubtedly be familiar with the story of Bill Henson; however, if you’ve managed to avoid the media hype, here is a quick summary: Bill Henson is an Australian photographic artist. In the course of his 25 year career his work has been exhibited in myriad notable locations including the Guggenheim Museum in New York and the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris. He is a critically acclaimed artist with a global reputation. Last week an exhibition of his work scheduled at the Roslyn Oxley9 gallery in Paddington, Sydney, was canceled, and the art work, which included a number of photographs depicting child nudity, were seized by police. Henson and the gallery are expected to be charged.

These rather unexpected events have garnered considerable public attention. The Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, had this to say:

I find them absolutely revolting, and whatever the artistic view of the merits of that sort of stuff — frankly I don’t think there are any — just allow kids to be kids.

In contrast, Zahava Elenberg, photographed by Henson over 20 years ago when she was 12, has stated:

I absolutely support Bill Henson. I’m a parent myself and I abhor child pornography, but this is not child pornography. It’s artistic and creative.

The most common argument i have heard in the media against the photographs (both by social commentators and by the general public via talk back radio) is: “How would you feel if naked photos of your 12 year old daughter were on public display?”. This statement leaves me cold. Firstly, it’s an emotionally charged question that seeks to gain credibility by drawing on the instinctive protective mechanisms of parents, and secondly, and most importantly, it’s a perfect example of a straw man argument. It takes the original scenario, reframes it into an alternate and irrelevant context, discredits this reframed position, and in doing so, seeks to discredit the original proposition. In other words, if you would feel it wrong to display photographs of your naked child in public view, then it must be wrong for Bill Henson. However, how you or i want to raise our children, or how they feel about being photographed naked, should not be the focus of this debate. The photographs are not of our children; they are of other children that were comfortable being photographed, with parents who are comfortable with the way the images were intended to be used. To mutate the argument into how we would feel if our own family were caught up in a similar scenario is completely irrelevant.

The second most common misguided argument i’ve heard is: “How would you feel if you opened your work email and were confronted with an image of a naked 12 year old girl?”. Again, to engage in this commentary is to participate in a completely off-topic discussion. These photos were never intended to be distributed as email spam. They were intended for display in an art gallery. And the context is relevant. There is a world of difference between an unsuspecting employee receiving unsolicited emails of child nudity at work, and an informed citizen making a conscious decision to visit an art exhibition in the full knowledge of the kind of material on display. To frame the debate any other way is to be emotionally manipulative and intellectually dishonest.

There is another aspect to this debate. It’s the realisation that many people will never appreciate the rich diversity, complexity, and haunting beauty, that can be found in the arts. Too many people refuse to look beyond the surface; preferring instead to use simple cues to box the world into good and bad. They automatically disengage from a powerful film when confronted with violence. They quickly put down a deeply profound novel when confronted with coarse language. They miss the meaning in life because they can’t move beyond stereotypes and simple classifications such as “nude girl = perversion”. That is not to say that people are wrong to think this way. Who am i to tell others how they should evaluate art? We each respond to stimuli in different ways, and we are each entitled to set our own thresholds; deciding of our own volition what is right or wrong, consumable or detestable. However, what i do find distressing, is when people who are offended by the work of artists like Henson or Hamilton, assume that those who appreciate and admire such work are twisted perverts.

As a senior student i remember openly declaring that a number of young girls at my school were incredibly beautiful. These were anything but sexual claims. Like appreciation for the way two colours meld together in an abstract painting, or sunlight diffuses through the petal of flower, this was nothing more than the honest and benign appreciation of human beauty. And yet there were some who insisted that to proclaim a 12 year old beautiful was tantamount to self-professed perversion. At first i was dismayed. And then i became angry. Who was the pervert? Was it me? Or was it those that were incapable of looking at a young girl, and appreciating the beauty and fragility of life, without automatically thinking about sex?

I think it is commendable that people are willing to stand up against the crimes of peadeophelia and child abuse. However, we need to be clear, the art work of Henson, even when viewed out of context, bares no resemblance to child pornography. These are not photos to “get off” on. They are compelling artistic creations that wonderfully capture life in that awkward and yet empowering state of transition into adulthood. You may not see it. But others do. And unless there is evidence of coercion, manipulation, or exploitation, those that don’t get it should quietly walk away.