Long time no post
It has been awhile, but I have recently written an article for another arts blog (can't remember address, eek!!! but google ccad and it should pop up), and I thought I might share it on my own blog. I know not everyone will agree with what I have written (and may not even be aware of all the circumstances), but I am Australian and an artist and am coming from that position. For those who don't know, Bill Henson is an Australian photographer who is well known around the world for his images of children and young adults at vulnerable and fragile moments of their lives. He produces beautiful images which reveal an appreciation of the body/figure, lighting and mood. I am biased in that I really admire his work. Recently he was accused of producing child pornography, and censorship laws were hence questioned here in Australia. So what is now in question is censorship and how far do you take it or not take it . . .
Should we be ashamed of our nude body? Should we allow other people to tell us to be ashamed, or be more modest? How can we explore for ourselves the meaning of our bodies if other people deny us the opportunity? I ask these questions in relation to the recent controversy that has surrounded an exhibition by artist Bill Henson. His photographs in this exhibition were called into contention because of his continuing exploration of the theme of the adolescent body. Depicted to reveal the fragility, vulnerability, and inherent beauty of the teen years, the police, certain members of parliament, and the general public have subverted the images intention into something vulgar and nightmarish.
The questions that I have asked about the body are inherent to my own research and art practice into ‘ownership’ of the body and who constitutes what is proper representation of certain embodied aspects of the body. I specifically look at the disabled body (as I myself have an impairment) and how representation of the disabled body can signify certain, unfair assessments of these bodies. How do I relate my own research to Bill Henson’s work? I draw comparisons between the disabled body and the children’s/teenage body as both are considered vulnerable members of our community.
As a perceived vulnerable member of society it becomes apparent that, yes, there is potential for exploitation and that you must be protected from these exploitations by any means possible. Perhaps this was the view of Hetty Johnson, who I believe is the person who initially complained about the work. This is admirable of Johnson, however, her claim of Henson’s photographs as child pornography, I feel, is a naive assumption, which promotes a fear of artistic expression onto an already fearful society (by a fearful society I refer to the now common assumption that ALL men should be suspected as paedophiles and hence are dangerous to children).
We now live in a society where everyone is presumed guilty before proven innocent. Henson, by being accused as a producer of child pornography, has fallen fowl of this edict. He was accused, tried and hung, before he was even given a chance to defend his work. Even our new prime minister gave his two cents, stating that the images were “revolting.” I would like to ask the prime minister, before commenting had he actually seen any of the images, had he ever seen any of Henson’s work before?
I can understand the fear for children who are being exploited. Any child pornography is disgusting and humiliating and producers and consumers of it should have the full weight of the law thrown at them. However, as stated previously, we now live in a world where all men are regarded with suspicion, and any man who photographs children (nude or clothed) is condemned. What of a father who is innocently recording images of his children at the beach or in the backyard? What about the artist, who wishes to give these children a voice, who wishes to show these children that their bodies are beautiful, that they are beautiful? (Beauty essentially does not have to be sexual in nature, seeing beauty can be as simple as gazing at a flower, or observing the way light reflects on skin . . .)
And that is where the rather thin line is drawn. We are confused by the over sexualised society that we live in and can no longer differentiate between the naked form and sex. What has happened to appreciation of the human figure, at all ages? Whatever our forms, we all have vulnerability, a beauty that should be celebrated, not shamed or called disgusting. Did any of these people that called the images disgusting and revolting actually think about what their words would mean to the teenagers who were photographed?
To sum up, I understand the delicacy of the issue; we are all disgusted by child pornography, or any abuse or exploitation of any child. The issue here though calls into question just how far we will go in declaring what is right and what is wrong in visually representing the nude body (child or adult). How can anyone believe that a world-renowned artist would risk his reputation to produce disgusting, pornographic images of children? If anyone actually bothered to carefully observe the photographs . . . with their minds out of the gutter . . . they would see that these photographs aren’t pornography, but simply beautiful interpretations of young figures, vulnerable, yet strong, coming into their own. And for those who believe that a nude image of any person, that’s intentionally to unfold the beauty of the human form, and not to exploit the figure, perhaps should question where their views about this world are coming from, and not be so quick to judge that every person thinks of sex when they see a nude body. I know I don’t.
Please respond, whether you agree or disagree, for that is the benefit of living in a free, democratic society, we can have our opinions, discuss, and then agree to disagree. And I also believe that it is debate that keeps the world moving forward.
:-)
Should we be ashamed of our nude body? Should we allow other people to tell us to be ashamed, or be more modest? How can we explore for ourselves the meaning of our bodies if other people deny us the opportunity? I ask these questions in relation to the recent controversy that has surrounded an exhibition by artist Bill Henson. His photographs in this exhibition were called into contention because of his continuing exploration of the theme of the adolescent body. Depicted to reveal the fragility, vulnerability, and inherent beauty of the teen years, the police, certain members of parliament, and the general public have subverted the images intention into something vulgar and nightmarish.
The questions that I have asked about the body are inherent to my own research and art practice into ‘ownership’ of the body and who constitutes what is proper representation of certain embodied aspects of the body. I specifically look at the disabled body (as I myself have an impairment) and how representation of the disabled body can signify certain, unfair assessments of these bodies. How do I relate my own research to Bill Henson’s work? I draw comparisons between the disabled body and the children’s/teenage body as both are considered vulnerable members of our community.
As a perceived vulnerable member of society it becomes apparent that, yes, there is potential for exploitation and that you must be protected from these exploitations by any means possible. Perhaps this was the view of Hetty Johnson, who I believe is the person who initially complained about the work. This is admirable of Johnson, however, her claim of Henson’s photographs as child pornography, I feel, is a naive assumption, which promotes a fear of artistic expression onto an already fearful society (by a fearful society I refer to the now common assumption that ALL men should be suspected as paedophiles and hence are dangerous to children).
We now live in a society where everyone is presumed guilty before proven innocent. Henson, by being accused as a producer of child pornography, has fallen fowl of this edict. He was accused, tried and hung, before he was even given a chance to defend his work. Even our new prime minister gave his two cents, stating that the images were “revolting.” I would like to ask the prime minister, before commenting had he actually seen any of the images, had he ever seen any of Henson’s work before?
I can understand the fear for children who are being exploited. Any child pornography is disgusting and humiliating and producers and consumers of it should have the full weight of the law thrown at them. However, as stated previously, we now live in a world where all men are regarded with suspicion, and any man who photographs children (nude or clothed) is condemned. What of a father who is innocently recording images of his children at the beach or in the backyard? What about the artist, who wishes to give these children a voice, who wishes to show these children that their bodies are beautiful, that they are beautiful? (Beauty essentially does not have to be sexual in nature, seeing beauty can be as simple as gazing at a flower, or observing the way light reflects on skin . . .)
And that is where the rather thin line is drawn. We are confused by the over sexualised society that we live in and can no longer differentiate between the naked form and sex. What has happened to appreciation of the human figure, at all ages? Whatever our forms, we all have vulnerability, a beauty that should be celebrated, not shamed or called disgusting. Did any of these people that called the images disgusting and revolting actually think about what their words would mean to the teenagers who were photographed?
To sum up, I understand the delicacy of the issue; we are all disgusted by child pornography, or any abuse or exploitation of any child. The issue here though calls into question just how far we will go in declaring what is right and what is wrong in visually representing the nude body (child or adult). How can anyone believe that a world-renowned artist would risk his reputation to produce disgusting, pornographic images of children? If anyone actually bothered to carefully observe the photographs . . . with their minds out of the gutter . . . they would see that these photographs aren’t pornography, but simply beautiful interpretations of young figures, vulnerable, yet strong, coming into their own. And for those who believe that a nude image of any person, that’s intentionally to unfold the beauty of the human form, and not to exploit the figure, perhaps should question where their views about this world are coming from, and not be so quick to judge that every person thinks of sex when they see a nude body. I know I don’t.
Please respond, whether you agree or disagree, for that is the benefit of living in a free, democratic society, we can have our opinions, discuss, and then agree to disagree. And I also believe that it is debate that keeps the world moving forward.
:-)