Last week artist Bill Henson saw a very heated reaction to his exhibition that was up one day, and gone the next. The exhibition portraying his newest works at Oxley9 gallery was dramatically shut down by police visiting the gallery to claims of child pornography. [1]I believe Bill Henson's art has been wrongly censored: and that the basic right to freedom of speech in this country is being eroded. What is most worrying about this particular 'dispute' is that judgements aren't being made on consensus, but instead angry and uninformed reactions that are undermining Henson's portrayal of adolescent hardship and the journey of the innocent. This portrayal (of adolescent experience) is something universal - his portraits aren't sexualised or sensationalised, and speak of the fragility of human experience.
Sectors of the arts community protested on grounds of censorship. John McDonald (art critic for the Sydney Morning Herald) states he feels there is nothing sexual about the photos. In his article Triumph of the Philistines (SMH 24th May 2008) he talks about pornography as being "a form that revels in its own sordidness. It is a commercial product made for the sole purpose of titillation. Yet even Henson's detractors must admit that his photographs are ineffably beautiful. They portray the human figure as fragile and mysterious - in the same way that he transforms the twilight world of the suburbs. His subjects are no longer children, but not yet adults. They are caught between night and day, between freedom and responsibility. Why are they naked? Well, Truth is naked..." [2]
Judy Annear, senior photography curator of the Art Gallery of New South Wales, says of his portraits... "They're beautiful. They're very, very still. They're very formal, they're very classical. They're a bit like looking at an Ancient Greek Attic vase." [3]
So why the big uproar? Apparently it's not OK to show naked adolescents in any form whatsoever in this country, even though Bill Henson's treatment of his models isn't in any way seductive or titillating. Art market analyst Michael Reid, says..."the question is: 'Was there consent?' which I can't answer, and 'Has the image been sexualized?' Michael Reid was able to have a special viewing of the exhibition before it opened, and says that the images were certainly not sexualised ones. [4]Consent is definately an issue to consider and I found Zahava Elenberg's comments an important contribution to the debate. Zahava was 12 when she posed for a series of photographs taken by Bill Henson. More than 20 years later she still has vivid memories of working with the artist, but "absolutely no regrets". She says ... "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." [5]
It's a shame (as John McDonald states) "... the only time that we start looking at art and talking about art in the mainstream media is when it's banned, when it's supposedly pornographic, when it's doing something that's taboo." [6]
The reality that adolescence for many children is fraught with difficulty, drama, questions and insecurities makes for a subject that might not necessarily be 'nice viewing'. This becomes all the more real when a society turns its back on hearing these stories, and sets up avenues for denial that whitewash the harshness that many young adolescents face in Sydney.
What is most apparent in this debate is the fact of conservative and unskilled commentary being allowed to govern and quench the underlying truths that Bill Hensen refers to in his work: the real dramas of adolescence in it's fragility, it's rawness, and the transition from innocence which is never easy or mapped out for anyone.I sincerely hope that our society is mature enough to always acknowledge the difficulty of adolescence, and that artists like Bill Henson will be allowed to remind us of this. The tribulations of adolescence will never be truly heard while society chooses to manipulate the way our children's stories are shared amongst us.
_______________________________________________
Footnotes:
1, "Gallery under angry seige" Sydney Morning Herald, 24th May 2008. Retrieved 5th June 2008 from http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/05/24/1211183177189.html
2. "It's a triumph of the philistines", Sydney Morning Herald, May 23, 2008. Retrieved 5th June 2008 from http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/its-a-triumph-of-the-philistines/2008/05/23/1211183097200.html
3. "Police seize 'child porn' art from Sydney gallery", The Independant, May 24 2008. Retrieved 5th June 2008 from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/police-seize-child-porn-art-from-sydney-gallery-833592.html
4. "Indecency charges expected over Australian photo exhibit", CBC News, May 23, 2008. Retrieved 5th June 2008 from http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/05/23/australia-photo-henson.html
5. "This is not porn, say Henson's models", Sydney Morning herald, 26th May 2008. Retrieved 5th June 2008 from http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/ive-no-regrets-about-posing-for-picture/2008/05/25/1211653846181.html
6. "Art or child pornography" ABC AM radio interview with Michael Edwards and John McDonald. Retrieved 5th June 2008 from http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2253356.htm