A NYT editorial has slammed Goldman Sachs for its role in the financial crisis, Ten must work out what to do with Australian Idol in 2010, how the media downturn will affect higher education, newsreaders get emo, and more.
Bringing down Henson: Police, politicians and pester power join forces
|
The past week’s attack on photographer Bill Henson has featured a cynical alliance of three potent forces: politicians (notably Labor), the mass media and the police. It is a campaign that thus far has seen the closure of Henson’s photographic exhibition in Sydney, the seizure of his works by police at the National Gallery in Canberra and regional galleries in Newcastle and Albury, visits by police to both the National Gallery of Victoria and the Art Gallery of NSW, interrogations of former models and their families and the lingering possibility of obscenity prosecutions. The country is divided: on one side, those who see cherished artistic freedoms at risk, on the other, vociferous supporters of what they see as “the rights of the child”. It’s nothing if not a flammable mix. This is how it all came together. On 22 May, columnist and ongoing Howard propagandist Miranda Devine triggered the witchhunt in The Sydney Morning Herald :
Her article and the ensuing shock-jock outrage on Sydney commercial radio caught the attention of the media spivs in the Iemma Government. For them, the Henson furore was a godsend. Just 24 hours earlier, former Cabinet minister Milton Orkopoulos had been sentenced to 13 years’ jail for depraved s-x and drug offences involving minors. There were mounting questions about a political cover-up and the savage treatment of the whistleblower Gillian Sneddon. Iemma, traveling in China, was informed of the Henson “angle”. Staff asked the premier to sign off on a Sydney-prepared rapid response note (RRN) describing the photographs as “offensive and disgusting”. Iemma authorised its immediate release. Meanwhile, in the Brisbane headquarters of Bravehearts, the child assault action group, an email arrived at 12.46pm from “a member of the public” calling for action over the Henson exhibition. Bravehearts founder and executive director Hetty Johnston told Crikey that the email and “a couple more concerned phone calls” prompted her to co-write and co-sign a letter to NSW Police Commissioner Andrew Scippione and Arts Minister Frank Sartor and fax them off. (Yes, she had their numbers). Her faxes had a galvanising impact on the police and the Iemma Government which, incidentally, partially funds Bravehearts in NSW. Rose Bay police commander Allan Siccard said that at 3.30pm the station received a report “from a concerned member of the public” about the Henson exhibition. The cops arrived just over an hour later, threatened the gallery owners and the opening was postponed. (How different was the treatment given to Gillian Sneddon, Orkopoulos’s electorate secretary who phoned parliament in 2006 to tell them the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs was under police investigation for pedophilia. Their response was to sack her!) Next morning, 23 May, Johnston appeared on Channel Nine’s Today show to give an early morning start to her campaign against Henson and the gallery owners. Her views were already sensationalising the morning media:
And for good measure, she later added: “I asked them (the police) to prosecute, both the gallery and the photographer, but I’d like to see the parents as well looked in to.” By happenstance, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was also at Nine’s Brisbane studios and she showed him emails of Henson’s work. When he appeared in front of the cameras to talk about petrol and other matters, he was also asked about the photographs. Adopting the tone of Iemma, Rudd said they were “absolutely revolting”. The Australian Federal Police opened a nationwide inquiry and the sleepy hollow known as the Australian Communications and Media Authority declared that it was holding an investigation “following a formal complaint”. Predictably, federal Arts Minister Peter Garrett and the NSW Arts Minister Frank Sartor, Labor politicians supposedly chosen to support, defend and enhance artistic communities and cultural values, fell into line. This week Rudd and Iemma were both given the opportunity to reflect on their knee-jerk responses. “I stand by that reaction and I don’t apologise for it,” said Rudd while Iemma said: “Yes I do (stand by my original statement). It’s offensive and disgusting.” Both resolutely staying on message. The minders win. Johnston has clamped onto the Henson affair like a limpet mine. She won’t let go. Avid fans of SMH writer Alan Ramsey will recall his coverage of the downfall of the former Governor-General Peter Hollingworth and the terrier-like role played by Johnston as she played the media like an accomplished conductor. Her national management committee includes Queensland ALP general secretary Milton Dick; her NSW management committee includes Labor MP Virginia Judge, Liberal MP Anthony Roberts, recently promoted to shadow juvenile justice minister, and federal MP Bronwyn Bishop; and one of her ambassadors-at-large is broadcaster Ray Hadley who has been a pack leader in witch-hunting Henson on 2GB, part-owned by Alan Jones. The episode is a demonstration of the networking of media reactionaries like Devine, Hadley, Piers Akerman et al, the fear they strike into the hearts of Rudd, Iemma, arts ministers and supine attorneys-general who are in office but don’t have a clue about how to govern or lead, and the authoritarian law enforcement agencies which, as always and ever, will seize the opportunity to smash down doors and push back the boundaries of high culture which they instinctively regard as subversive and dangerous. Distinguished art critic John McDonald told Radio National this morning the affair made Australia look like “a nation of clowns”. If only it was that funny. |
|
|
33 Comments
It is perhaps a truism to say that if it were not for the internet this controversy would not have blown up. Just as many careers have no doubt been blighted by improvident facebook or blog entries, the rather bigger facebook that is the internet may, sadly, be about to claim, or to go close to claiming, some big scalps - just because the (Commonwealth) law of internet publication is so much stricter than the (NSW) law applicable to physical dissemination.
Against this background, does it strike anyone else as a bit off that the kind of ‘model release’ the young model would normally be expected to sign would cover all media throughout the world at the photographer’s (or his representatives’) absolute discretion - including republication on The Age website in the context of a news story (that publication in itself presents a question: was it considered by The Age to be covered by the fair dealing copyright exception for news? or licensed by Henson himself?) - far beyond the original context of an exhibition or a book? Perhaps cases such as these will give a spur to the law of invasion of privacy; they might even lead to the granting to that pretty largely put-upon class, models, of an inalienable moral right to prevent their own images from being used in highly embarassing or inappropriate contexts. Call it Paris’ law, if you must.
Doesn’t the art / porn debate miss the point? I don’t think Henson is porn but I don’t think that matters. The real issue is whether or not he can be convicted of producing child porn. As the law currently stands I believe he can be.
The criminal law is not here to help. It exists to convicted people of criminal offences. The conviction rate is generally 90% (or higher if my memory serves me right). Admittedly this includes pleas of guilty but it demonstrates the criminal law is not about the rights of the defendant. It is about how the law defines certain actions or behaviour.
The disturbing ingredient is government activity in the area of sex offences. Laws targeting sex offences are popular. Everybody hates sex offender particularly evil peadophiles. If a government expands powers to deal with sex offending it is generally seen as a good thing. Hence governments have introduced a whole range of laws to deal with sex offences in recent years.
The problem is the thinking that underlies the popularity of these laws. We sexually normal Australians would never be guilty of the kind of behaviour these aberrant types engage in. Putting aside the question of what is sexually “normal”, as a result the laws in Victoria and NSW have now become so broad that it was only a matter of time before people well outside of the usual target demograhic of the criminal law were hit.
We have allowed our law to develop to this point. The fault Brutus is not in the stars but in ourselves.
Oh goodness gracious me !
In India, with the oldest religion on earth, children have been running around naked in villages for thousands of years.. the young body is revered in all forms in art, literature and on temple walls. In Africa, young children live and play naked in most villages, there are so many pictures of nude young African girls in tribal dance, in documentaries and in our museums and galleries. In Australia, indigenous children and teenagers frolic around naked in their communities, and the white man has photographed them without their consent on countless occasions.
Ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, Persia & medieval Europe idolized, glorified, gave artistic merit to the young body, the youth. The ancient emergent adolescent and can be seen in all major world Art Galleries and Institutions. The young body has always been admired, respected and abstracted to reveal its inner beauty, its strange precocious innocence , the twilight of childhood and dawn of adulthood… yet in ‘modern’ Australia, the prudes have taken control and white man is vilifying one of his own kind for phographing white youth nude in artistic poses. Young white flesh is thus sacrosant. The paedophile lurks in every corner, lying latent within each man, ready to spring up at the mere sight of a nude white youth.
Beware ! lbeware ! Lock up your children, cover your women… Islam has been warning the West for so long. Yet the West mocked them, how dare they let women cover up behind a burqa ? What religious zealots they are. What prudes. Oh, did you forget about the terrible, ‘disgusting’ cartoons drawn by that horrific Danish artist, depicting the Prophet Muhammed ! How dare he. He must be killed. An instant Fatwah is declared. Yes, Australians totally agreed with their Muslim brothers, never laughed or called them Religious Fanatics, did we ?
Oops, hold on, isn’t someone’s foot in their mouth now ? Or shoe in the wrong foot ?
Oh, we also forgot about our basic constitutional rights, of the right to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, of the rights to practice one’s profession, and of an assumption of innocence until proven guilty. Of the application of a due legal process, of all facts and evidence to be considered before someone is prosecuted. I thought we used to have Trial by Jury.. but it’s become Trial by Media and now, Trial by Prime Minister .
Well written, Alex Mitchell, and well exposed !
The pictures were of unclothed or provocatively clothed 12 and 13 year old girls (don’t live in Australia, so haven’t had a chance to see for myself)? No argument. Shouldn’t have happened and shouldn’t have been exhibited. Even if the artist had no overtly unsavory intentions, you have to wonder at a middle aged man posing a pubescent girl like this. Unless he is completely degenerate he should have realized that these images would have/could have been inflammatory to people with intentions far from benign. Surely, too, an adult male of a certain age should have recognized that, intrinsically, this sort of thing is degrading to all women? Remember the old feminist argument that this sort of thing is exploitative? What’s changed?
Still more does one wonder at the girl’s parents allowing it; indeed, what sort of parents would encourage a child to believe that posing like this is acceptable and even desirable? How is this not exploitative? And exploitation of children by adults in any way is disgusting, even more so if the adults in question are the parents.
Any defence of these photos claiming ‘artistic merit’ or ‘artistic freedom’ is spurious and anyone trotting these out would do well to crawl out of low ground and at least think about aspiring to something approaching a moral rather than a fashionable standpoint.
Alex Mitchell argues, with good circumstantial evidence (RRNs, timing etc—and really, could one hope for anything better than circumstantial evidence?) that the outrage over Henson is feigned and has been consciously provoked to distract the public from the sleaze surrounding Milton Orkopoulos.
And what sort of response has he garnered?
|***|***|***|***|***|***|***|***|***|***|***|***|***|***|***|***|***|***|***|***|***|***|***|***|***|***|
Comments, categorized and broken down:
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°HIGH SCHOOL SPORTS COACHES°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
{favourite phrase: “End of Story”. Full of exhortations and appeals to “common sense”. Rhetorical questions always answered. All issues black and white. “I’m not here to debate this point with you”. Nothing in particular wrong with these people as sports coaches, but their tendency to talk through megaphones and inability to reflect on their own judgments makes them terrible cultural commentators}
Examples:
steve martin
Frankly I am getting a little pissed off about the Henson affair both pro and anti, and Alex Mitchell’s piece is the last straw for me…
I might haste to say that I have not seen any of Henson’s work, indeed I had never heard of him prior to the furore that has been created by this exhibition…
Michael
you are not allowed to photograph a naked child. End of story… Debate the law if you think photographing pubescent children is something that should be generally allowed.
Hugh
Groan. How much more of this tripe do we have to put up with? It’s not a left v right issue, nor an issue of artists v philistines. The only questions involved are whether a 12 or 13 year old child can consent to having his or her nude body exploited for profit by an artist, and whether the community has a duty to protect its most vulnerable members from such exploitation. End of story.
Nev Parker
If Michaelangelo [this is a hypothetical argument] were to ask me, could he paint my 13 year old daughter ‘au naturel’ — he’d soon be wearing a canvas and paint brush hat which would be a lot less painful than a Canon shoved up his ‘you know what’ today
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°HYSTERICS°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
{Characteristics: Pure vitriol. Indignation starts with an implicit claim to to the moral high ground, continue on with sarcasm, degenerate into direct abuse and end in incoherent rage. These people are unbearable and best avoided}
Examples:
JamesK
So……I take it Alex Mitchell thinks everybody who believes that these images are concerning should simply forget their concerns or reflect again until they see the light (probably the same luminescence that he assumes shines from his gargantuan hindquarters). What an arrogant tosser! Note that he has not even deigned to provided one single argument to support this arrogance……probably because that would be unnecessary?
Libby Arnold
Photographing naked 13 year olds sounds like pedophilia to me. And manipulative. How will these young people feel in 10 years time when their photos are still floating around on the internet? Shame on Bill Henson!
pattie tancred
The pictures were of unclothed or provocatively clothed 12 and 13 year old girls (don’t live in Australia, so haven’t had a chance to see for myself)? No argument. Shouldn’t have happened and shouldn’t have been exhibited…crawl out of low ground and at least think about aspiring to something approaching a moral rather than a fashionable standpoint.
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°PONCES°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
{Characteristics: Love looking like connoisseurs. Gratuitous gushing public expressions of aesthetic appreciation that are somewhat creepy. Contributions tend to be counterproductive (John McDonald is also an example of this)}
Examples:
gurugee
Oh goodness gracious me ! In India, with the oldest religion on earth, children have been running around naked in villages for thousands of years.. the young body is revered in all forms in art, literature and on temple walls. In Africa, young children live and play naked in most villages, there are so many pictures of nude young African girls in tribal dance, in documentaries and in our museums and galleries. In Australia, indigenous children and teenagers frolic around naked in their communities, and the white man has photographed them without their consent on countless occasions. Ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, Persia & medieval Europe idolized, glorified, gave artistic merit to the young body, the youth. The ancient emergent adolescent and can be seen in all major world Art Galleries and Institutions. The young body has always been admired, respected and abstracted to reveal its inner beauty, its strange precocious innocence , the twilight of childhood and dawn of adulthood…
<
I think this is similar to the ivory trade.
whether or not the elephant died of natural causes or was killed, the trade is banned to help stop people killing elephants.
whether or not the photos of naked kids are art or porn, the trade should be banned to help stop people making porn with kids.
Hey, while there’s nothing that wrong with this lot, there are no guarantees about the next, nor any subsequent which is the risk faced by allowing Bill Henson’s work to go unchallenged.
Last night the ABC showed photos of Statues and Pictrures by Normal Lindsay They were all of nude females. Feel sure the prudes would object so maybe the Police should seize them and proscecute the ABC for displaying them. What a bloody farce but one cannot expect anything more from these damned ‘do gooders’
Some of Henson’s work is brilliant, he must also have an absurd sense of humor, slipping in a bit of ‘porn’ and having it accepted as art must greatly amuse him and has certainly perplexed many of his supporters.
The parents should be under investigation, If Michaelangelo [this is a hypothetical argument] were to ask me, could he paint my 13 year old daughter ‘au naturel’ — he’d soon be wearing a canvas and paint brush hat which would be a lot less painful than a Canon shoved up his ‘you know what’ today
If photographs of naked young teenagers are exhibited the subjects may, in our society, come to regret and resent what in time will seem to have been exploitation. So neither artists nor parents should be party to it. The solution to the problem of striking a balance is simple. Do not forbid the taking of such photographs if there is nothing of paedophilia or porography to make that objectionable but do not exhibit the photographs until, if ever, the subject is adult and consents. A middle aged woman on the ABC in Melbourne this week related how she modelled for her apprentice photographer sister when she was 14. How ridiculous it would be to forbid the exhibition of those photographs with her consent when she was of an age capable (or, in an imperfect world, when she would be deemed capable) of valid consent.
I like to sidestep the merits and morality of the narrow sample of Henson work, mainly because I really do believe that the audience is being manipulated, and that the outcry is mostly a proxy for Orkopoulos getting 9 years +, and anger over that state of affairs sublimating into a witch hunt against Henson with collateral damage to artists more generally. I will feel alot better when it comes back to Ork and the inquiry Paul OGrady as a former MP and former member of the NSW ALP administerative Committee, said on NSW Stateline last week, he was happy to participate in any upper house Inquiry about who knew what back in 2005. OGrady is out and proud, and knew Ork was gay man in a fake marriage and that it was a situation bound to end in “self-destruct”. That’s the real public policy business the ALP should addres, not Henson.
Secondly, last Friday morning I noticed similar rumblings, not quite the detail or the same as Alex here, in a piece I called ‘Perfect political storm over Sydney in sexualised child/art controversy’. About time to return to the disaster that was Orkopoulos as Aboriginal Affairs Minister.
Australian history is full of these censorship issues. Prior to the late 1960s and Don Chipp, Australia was a cultural desert with a banned book list that would have made Hitler proud. Personally I am disgusted by paedophiles and appreciate the concerns of those such as Bravehearts. However, Bill Henson is not a paedophile and his photography is not only about naked models. As with many of these morality issues relating to artistic works (e.g. the recent carry on over the raunchy caberet show in Gippsland), it is more about the mindset of the audience. I am old enough to remember going along to see the musical “Hair” when it first appeared. It caused an outrage over its nudity scene. When the moment came the actors stripped and simply stood motionless in front of the audience essentially saying, “OK now you’ve come along to see men and women naked, here it is so what?” It was a very powerful statement that did not need those words, but few could have found the actors “erotic”. In fact as Groucho Marx said at the time “you might just as well gone home and stood naked in front of your bathroom mirror”. We should all calm down, get the politics out of the process, and start showing some maturity as a nation.
Women, including Hetty and Miranda, should cover themselves from head to toe. Otherwise they are just tempting men to sin.
Groan. How much more of this tripe do we have to put up with? It’s not a left v right issue, nor an issue of artists v philistines. The only questions involved are whether a 12 or 13 year old child can consent to having his or her nude body exploited for profit by an artist, and whether the community has a duty to protect its most vulnerable members from such exploitation. End of story.
I was in the wonderful Louvre last week. It was so breathtaking, I went back for a second day. I’m afraid I may now be depraved beyond salvation.
Thank you Adam. I see my (and other dissenting commentators’) error.
I was expecting a journalist, of any reasonable calibre, especially one suggesting a wild conspiracy to provide some evidence to support his extraordinary contention. However, in fact, as you so eloquently point out, he did apparently….well he…… “argues, with good circumstantial evidence (RRNs, timing etc—and really, could one hope for anything better than circumstantial evidence?)”
I suppose there is another way of seeing this: Alex Mitchell does not, in fact, produce an iota of evidence (circumstantial or not) and……Adam is a twit.
Or is that just a tad hysterical?
Where does it all end? If a parent takes a photo of their naked toddler is the child deemed to have given informed consent? Should the parent be prosecuted? When the parents show everyone the photo at the child’s 18th birthday party and the child is acutely embarassed will they be psychologically damaged for life? Just because “dirty uncle Harry” uses the photograph for unseemly purposes does that mean such pictures should never be taken? Luckily Hensen and the parents will not be tried by the media and in fact are unlikely to be tried at all, because the case against them is a joke.
..more than pleased to be a “clown”.. leave our children alone.
If Hensen wants to photograph nude females, why doesnt he choose 80 year old grannies?
The anwer is obvious, no matter which way one looks at it.
McDonald et al are the clowns, dangerous ones at that.
Frankly I am getting a little pissed off about the Henson affair both pro and anti, and Alex Mitchell’s piece is the last straw for me. I read both Miranda Devines article and also Clive Hamilton’s earlier piece in Crickey. I happen to agree with them. Obviously I am being manipulated by a bunch of right wing fanatics if Mitchell is to be believed.
I don’t consider myself as some kind of Philistine because I happen to believe that there are limitations on what is art and what is unacceptable voyerism.
I might haste to say that I have not seen any of Henson’s work, indeed I had never heard of him prior to the furore that has been created by this exhibition, and have never seen any of this work and am relying on what has been printed to arrive at my view of this particular exhibition. I am quite prepared to accept that the majority of his work has great merit, but not this particular example of it.
My main objection relates not to nudity per se, or even pornography ( I have looked at the odd Playboy in my time). I just don’t happen to think that naked young pubescent girls should be portrayed in this manner. I don’t believe that they can give informed consent, nor do I believe their parents have the right to consent on their behalf.
Not so long ago one of the pop stars was complaining about naked photos of her appearing without her consent in the media;if I remember correctly they had been taken some years ago when she was a teenager.
It is no argument to me that quattrocento artists produced similar portraits, times have moved,we have different values these days. We don’t have the Inquisition, we don’t have child labor.
Condition of employment for children in NSW say that you are not allowed to photograph a naked child. End of story.
For anyone interested, it is Clause 3.5.2 in the Child Employment Requirements (including the Code of Practice) issued by the NSW Office of the Children’s Guardian. Whether they were paid or not is irrelevant as it is being done for the profit of Bill Henson and others. It is clearly stated (in bold) in Clause 6.2 that “A parent’s consent does not give de-facto approval to work outside the Code of Practice”
These are the rules that govern the welfare of children for those of us who work in Entertainment, Still Photography and (somewhat strangely) door-to-door sales.
Alex Mitchell or John McDonald or Hetty Johnston or Miranda Devine can blow their various trumpets all they like.
Bill Henson is not allowed to take these photographs for any reason. The argument has not got anything to do with prudishness or liberty or artistic expression.
Debate the law if you think photographing pubescent children is something that should be generally allowed.
She just had to be a Queenslander, didn’t she? Brisbane, Queensland, the deep north and the dunny of the land of Oz.
All Ms Lonelyheart has to do is to tacle the REAL villian of the piece, the ADVERTISING INDUSTRY. It was this industry which was responsible for the sexualization of our kids. Only a sleeze industry like this can make it smart to dress 5YO nuggins as sluts. Only the ADVERTISING INDUSTRY could have been responsible for harried mothers allowing their kiddie widdies to wear lipstick and makeup. Only the ADVERTISING INDUSTRY could have played on peoples’ imagination to the extent that almost every mother in Australia supinely and slavishly follows the fashion ads in the women’s mags. These ads say to anyone with half a brain. “Look, ain’t it great to be a trollop. All I have next to my skin is a tampon!
My tits are in torpedo tubes, slung up around my neck . My fa*ny hair has been obliterated, my dress goes all the way down to my navel and I am so ready for you. Also I have two daughters, both of whom follow your advice. Come and get it.”
Win an all day shopping voucher at the nearest slutarium, AND a special petrol discount card. SPECIAL gift voucher entitles you to a free Brazil wax and a pair of squeaky new plastic shoes-slashed down from $50.00. We’ll do your kids as well.
Did Hetty Johnston have the courage to tackle the ADVERTISING INDUSTRY? Ah ha, ah ha! Not a bit of it. Oh no, there’s just so much more milage to be had out of attacking a lone artist. Esppecially in the deep north, where Oz bigotry was born.
She just had to be a Queenslander, didn’t she? Brisbane, Queensland, the deep north and the dunny of the land of Oz.
All Ms Lonelyheart has to do is to tacle the REAL villian of the piece, the ADVERTISING INDUSTRY. It was this industry which was responsible for the sexualization of our kids. Only a sleeze industry like this can make it smart to dress 5YO nuggins as sluts. Only the ADVERTISING INDUSTRY could have been responsible for harried mothers allowing their kiddie widdies to wear lipstick and makeup. Only the ADVERTISING INDUSTRY could have played on peoples’ imagination to the extent that almost every mother in Australia supinely and slavishly follows the fashion ads in the women’s mags. These ads say to anyone with half a brain. “Look, ain’t it great to be a trollop. All I have next to my skin is a tampon!
My tits are in torpedo tubes, slung up around my neck . My fa*ny hair has been obliterated, my dress goes all the way down to my navel and I am so ready for you. Also I have two daughters, both of whom follow your advice. Come and get it.”
Win an all day shopping voucher at the nearest slutarium, AND a special petrol discount card. SPECIAL gift voucher entitles you to a free Brazil wax and a pair of squeaky new plastic shoes-slashed down from $50.00. We’ll do your kids as well.
Did Hetty Johnston have the courage to tackle the ADVERTISING INDUSTRY? Ah ha, ah ha! Not a bit of it. Oh no, there’s just so much more milage to be had out of attacking a lone artist. Esppecially in the deep north, where Oz bigotry was born.
People photograph their children in the bath all the time. Medical textbooks show photographs of naked children.These images of naked children are not considered problematic in any way because the purposes and context render the images legitimate. What the black and white thinkers have to show that photographing naked children for artistic purposes in the art context is not legitimate. Simply restating the ‘never ever’ mantra may make you feel better but it is just a lazy argument.
Personally I would be very proud to have had my photo taken by Henson as a 13 year old. To look back at myself at that cross over point in my life, to see the transition from childhood to adulthood would be fantastic.
We should be proud of our bodies, no matter at what age, they are a thing of beauty, not shame. We should not live in a world where the expectation is that it an image will be sexualised, that is outside the norm, we should vilify those who see the image that way, especially those who have no wish to understand the concept and the meaning behind the work.
Hensons images are beautiful and evocative, look at the discussion they have provoked, and after all isnt that what art should do?
The comments here have been interesting although few have pertained to the article by Alex Mitchell. The essential points he makes, without any support, are that 1. there is a conspiracy between police , politicians such as Rudd and Iemma and Braveheart’s Hetty Johnston to destroy Henson and 2. and that all the above and anybody voicing concern here about such images are somehow ‘prima facie’ guilty of ignorance and are thus anti-“high culture”. Put aside the issues upon which the article is based (athough worthy of debate) and consider this article on its own merits or indeed lack thereof. It contributes nothing helpful. It demonstrates extraordinary arrogance which is all too clearly without any foundation.
Blowing up Iraq made us look like a nation of clowns, locking up children in concentration camps and torturing them made us look like a nation of clowns. Racist thugs wrapped in the flag screaming “kill the f…….g lebs” made us look like clowns, deporting Australian’s and locking them in Baxter made us look like clowns.
The morons in Camden made us look like clowns, whining about 5 cents a litre on petrol makes us look like clowns while 15 million Chinese have just been made homeless.
Will you imbeciles get a grip on reality, something that is of a bit more substance than this?
Hetty is not crazy, Hollingworth should have been sacked and he still doesn’t get the child sexual abuse issue, he still does not understand the horror that pervades every corner of this nation.
Having said that I think Scipione sending in the storm troopers because of Miranda Devine who loved locking up kids and bombing them to bits is a bit mindless.
Couldn’t the moron simply have had a look himself.
And the matter of consent is pretty strange and it is pretty strange that the “artists” claim they can do what they want because it is “art” yet all of those same people were utterly silent over locking up kids in Woomera.
Not a word from any of them. Hardly a world when children die at the rate of 29,000 per day or 9 million per year because they can’t get a bowl of rice.
It’s pathetic - grown men shouldn’t be photographing naked little girls who cannot give consent in any legal way and that is the fact of life we are all ignoring as we pretend that Henson is a victim.
So sad this Henson stuff - poor fella my country.
“This week Rudd and Iemma were both given the opportunity to reflect on their knee-jerk responses……….Both resolutely staying on message. The minders win.” So……I take it Alex Mitchell thinks everybody who believes that these images are concerning should simply forget their concerns or reflect again until they see the light (probably the same luminescence that he assumes shines from his gargantuan hindquarters). What an arrogant tosser! Note that he has not even deigned to provided one single argument to support this arrogance……probably because that would be unnecessary?
In case readers are interested in the relevant law, here are a few ‘legal facts’ that might help inform this debate, Interestingly, the consent of the model is not relevant (more on that in another comment).
According to newspaper reports the police have put their case to the NSW DPP against Henson on the basis of Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s. 91H (enacted in 2004) as well as the older offence of publishing an ‘indecent article’ contrary to s. 578C of the same Act. I have already seen mention of Commonwealth legislation. At time of writing the DPP was to decide what, if any, charges to lay and against whom.
Under the newer NSW legislation, which apparently is untested in the courts, but which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment, the threshold issue, even before the question of a defence is reached, is whether the images constitute child pornography - for that purpose, the term ‘in a sexual context’ is crucial. It would, I think, be a bold judge who would hold that a child’s nudity itself necessarily created a sexual context, but it is by no means unimaginable. S. 91H has a defence of artistic purpose - but only where the defendant’s conduct is reasonable for that purpose. None of these crucial terms appear to be defined in this legislation.
Under the older legislation, which carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 12 months, opinion as to artistic merit is admissible in evidence. Prior learning as to the meaning of ‘indecency’ would be relevant.
The meaning of “indecent” was considered in R v Graham-Kerr [1988] 1 WLR 1098, 153 JP 171, 88 Cr App Rep 302. The English Court of Appeal pronounced on the issue of “indecency” as follows -
“On the question of whether the photograph was or was not indecent, the jury
had to apply the test as stated by the judge, or as stated in Reg v Stamford, by
applying the recognised standards of propriety. In other words the question
of whether or not the photograph was indecent or not is a matter for the
appraisal of the jury applying those standards.”
Helpful, huh?
It’s worth noting that no-one can be convicted under both provisions for the same conduct.
As for the Commonwealth legislation, this is obscurely drafted as only the Commonwealth legislation can be, but does quite clearly contain rather more strict provisions (when compared with the NSW legislation). The relevant offences are against section 474.20 of the Criminal Code , i.e. Possessing, controlling, producing, supplying or obtaining child pornography material for use through a [telecoms] carriage service. This could potentially apply to the publication by the gallery of the invitation image, if the tests in the legislation were met.
“Child pornography material” for these purposes is very broadly defined in section 473.1, and nudity per se appears to be sufficient, although crucially “reasonable persons” must additionally regard the manner of depiction, “in all the circumstances, offensive”.
If this perhaps quite low threshold is met, and the fault elements are present as to intent to disseminate and recklessness as to the material being child pornography material, the only remaining defence is the public interest. But this is narrowly defined in the legislation in terms of official interests or officially sanctioned research. Artistic merit per se is not relevant.
Links to the legislation courtesy of the excellent Australian Legal Information Institute.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s91h.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s578c.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cca1995115/sch1.html
A point to note - Michael, NSW employment law is not relevant if the employment contract was governed by Victorian law, as would appear to be the case here.
She just had to be a Queenslander, didn’t she? Brisbane, Queensland, the deep north and the dunny of the land of Oz.
All Ms Lonelyheart has to do is to tacle the REAL villian of the piece, the ADVERTISING INDUSTRY. It was this industry which was responsible for the sexualization of our kids. Only a sleeze industry like this can make it smart to dress 5YO nuggins as sluts. Only the ADVERTISING INDUSTRY could have been responsible for harried mothers allowing their kiddie widdies to wear lipstick and makeup. Only the ADVERTISING INDUSTRY could have played on peoples’ imagination to the extent that almost every mother in Australia supinely and slavishly follows the fashion ads in the women’s mags. These ads say to anyone with half a brain. “Look, ain’t it great to be a trollop. All I have next to my skin is a tampon!
My tits are in torpedo tubes, slung up around my neck . My fa*ny hair has been obliterated, my dress goes all the way down to my navel and I am so ready for you. Also I have two daughters, both of whom follow your advice. Come and get it.”
Win an all day shopping voucher at the nearest slutarium, AND a special petrol discount card. SPECIAL gift voucher entitles you to a free Brazil wax and a pair of squeaky new plastic shoes-slashed down from $50.00. We’ll do your kids as well.
Did Hetty Johnston have the courage to tackle the ADVERTISING INDUSTRY? Ah ha, ah ha! Not a bit of it. Oh no, there’s just so much more milage to be had out of attacking a lone artist. Esppecially in the deep north, where Oz bigotry was born.
Didn’t the Henson saga really start when whoever decided to put the particular photo on the invitation? This is what needs to be explored. From what I’ve heard on the radio today the number of ‘controversial’ works in the exhibition was minimal and the rest involved landsscapes and inaminate objects. There is a distinction to be made between nude images in art and then nude images in promotional material - particularly if the image chosen is overall not representative of the exhibition. So who decided on the invite image and what was their motivation?
(And who sent one to Miranda Devine?????)
If 9,999 people had viewed Bill Henson’s photographs of a naked young girl and admired them for their portrayal of the innocence of youth, by the use of shadow, compassionate use of balance, texture and sensitive pose, that would not be a problem. Many other cultures and artists have done similar over the centuries.
However, if one person who viewed those same photographs became aroused, filled with sexual desire and uncontrollable urges, then the “problem” is surely with that person, not the photographs, the camera or the photographer.
Considering a similar situation:
If 9,999 people who own firearms treat them with care, as a piece of metal and wood, used as a tool of trade, or a piece of sporting equipment, that is not a problem. However, if one person takes the same firearm and it arouses in him so much hatred and anger that it causes him to take it and shoot someone, surely that one person is mentally disturbed and has the problem.
But our government introduced gun bans, rather than tackle the one person in one thousand who may have a deep seated psychological problem. So now we are witnessing the knee-jerk reaction of zealots, forcing through extreme censorship.
It’s really very simple;
Thought Control, brought to us by the same people who brought us Gun Control.
What’s next? A Cameras buy back and crushing program?
Photographing naked 13 year olds sounds like pedophilia to me. And manipulative. How will these young people feel in 10 years time when their photos are still floating around on the internet? Shame on Bill Henson!
It was the wrong photo they put on the advertising flyer for Henson’s exhibition.
Simple as that.
They could have been influenced by Vanity Fair photo of 15 year old Miley who
looked to be wrapped up in a sheet but was actually clothed from the waist down. Check out
VF’s website they have a set of photos, showing the father there at the shoot too.
The Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery and Henson just went one step further.
Rewind back through time and if it was one of those big face photos of Henson’s on the flyer,
noone would have worried. We would have gone along to the exhibition and oh-ah-ed over
the pics we liked, and perhaps got a little horrified and affronted at the openness of his young teen ones, whilst still admiring the art of it all. There might have even been an unidentified pediphile in our midst.
Yes it is rather shocking that young girls are growing up so young, and pedophilia is the pits. And it has all crept up on us rather slowly but insidiously.
Am pretty sure Kevin, Pete etc. are okay guys. I gave Bill Henson’s book Memnosyne to my daughter having seen the exhibiton in 2005, saying I love his landscapes, crowds, industrial suburbia scapes etc. but not too fussed on his young teen stuff, although I see the artistic merit in it. It was no big opinion of mine at the time, just a feeling of why did he bother, as his other stuff was so brilliant. And I dont even know if my photographer daughter liked the book. I did recently get an excited phone call to say that she had found out what the book was now worth at the auctions.
I think our new PM did well with his 2020 gathering, and am appalled that the artworld is getting so anti it all, and nasty about Pete Garratt too. Crikey! it’s so boring…and why cant I help thinking about all those little kids being sexually abused, and the endless boring porn on the web. And horrors! I have even seen one of those guys playing with the baby pics jump up. It’s rife out there, so look after the children everybody.