( A still from Paris Opera Project 1991 by Bill Henson
from the website of the Art Gallery of New South Wales)
The recent attack on the work of Australian photographer Bill Henson – including police seizure of many of the photographs from his new show at the Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery in Sydney – needs to be condemned.
Henson’s work has been on display in Australian and international galleries for decades. He is one of the most respected photographers in the world. His 2005 retrospective at the Art Gallery of New South Wales was an enormous critical triumph attended by thousands including many groups of high school children. The gallery did not receive a single complaint. See the Art Gallery’s Bill Henson website here while it is still online.
Henson is best known for his highly formal studies of adolescents in urban and industrial environments. Yes, his subjects are sometimes nude. There is no indication that his new exhibition is markedly different in tone or subject matter than numerous others, yet these photographs have been targeted as “child pornography” by a media obsessed with sex and the issue of child abuse. There has never been a accusation of abuse by Henson’s models or the parents of these models. In fact several former models, now adults, have spoken out this week in Henson’s defense. The photographs are not intended to titillate. This is a simple witchhunt stirred in part by Sydney Morning Herald columnist Miranda Devine, that reliable enemy of nuanced thought. And it does nothing to confront the deplorable widespread sexualisation of adolescents in, for example, advertising.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, after a brief romance with the arts community at the 2020 summit, has settled into the reliable philistinism that helped sustain John Howard in office for so many years. He immediately deemed Henson’s art “revolting” and devoid of artistic merit. This is an omen of dark times ahead for freedom of expression in Australia, a country with a depressing history of censorship. Free thinking people need to speak up in defense of the photographer.
[Links. Many of the representative of the 'Creative Australia' delegation of the 2020 Summit have signed an Open Letter in Support of Bill Henson. Shane Danielsen at the Guardian.co.uk writes
Well said. I wonder how much of this is due to Iamma’s desire to push the electricity asset sale off the front pages.
Henson is making a noke out of the VGT. It is not going to be possible to eliminate child pornography unles he learns to behave himself.
In the UK, the offending material is child pornography, it is that simple, there were no exceptions for artifice, which in any case is a bit thinner these days as he moved to commercial mailings of topless 13 year old girls.
When we worked to get the SOA 2003 in place in Great Britain, Henson was one of the artistic problems discussed, and so his ‘difficult’ material is CP here.
That last comment lost me: what do noke, VGT, SOA and CP mean?
Try ‘J’ for the typo,
Virtual Global Taskforce, that is Oz, UK, USA, RCMP in Canada.
Sexual Offences Act 2003 , that means Henson can’t do his naked little girls in London. We had him in mind as we drafted the legislation,
He was kind of becoming a prob. You may note his EU, UK, and USA supporters are a bit quiet. One can get banned from being in schools or working with U18 ( in Britain) if one endorses material prohibited by the SOA 2003. In fact, that’s kind of my job.
and CP is indecent images of children (re: SOA 2003). So VGT members may as well pack it in if X. Y, Z, get to exclude their fetishes or their ‘kiddie art’.
If it is CP in London, it is easier if it is CP in Australia.
Similarly, no London paper will publish the images published in Australia, one of the reasons for that, is that it is anathema to our culture to publish images relating to victims connected to police sex crime investigations.
(even if they have their clothes on. That’s also a UNCRC and CEDAW treaty issue.)
Australia is a rogue element in the treaty violation dept. and a bit of a slow-learner generally in relation to child rights obligations.
And do I note a touch of the Nazi here? You can be banned for disagreeing with the official line? How is it possible to change this law if it proves to be too draconian? Next it will become illegal to campaign against a sitting government.
btw, I just love the emotive language you use.
One can be banned from working with kids if one is a pro-pedophile. If one endorses CP, one might also assume a person is pro-something. Henson’s bizarre photos are good for a listing on the British sex offenders register.
.
The relevant section of Convention on the Human Rights of the Child would appear to be Article 34:
While I am not sure of the status of Australia’s ratification of this treaty (anyone?), the treaty itself does not appear to specify a definition of “pornographic materials”.
So, Mr Carlin, is suggestive imagery of youngsters in catalogues subject to this SOA too? Or is it kosher to sexualise kiddies if you’re engaged in the unimpeachable act of fueling the Economy? What a load of philistine nonsense.
I bet you like televised sport.
So an image of a baby, child or adult, is pornographic if they are nude, alone and doing nothing suggestive or sexual. Parents who take photographs of their children naked are pornographers. It is the nudity which is the give away.
Who actually determines which image is pornographic and which is acceptable? Is it simply a matter of opinion or is there any scientific way of determining pornography? Or is it decided by the modern Puritans in their sad little enclaves where Thomas Macaulay’s quote is so apposite”
“The Puritans hated bear-baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators.”
Henson’s material is child pornography in Britain. I’m sure his people have letters from one gallery or another telling him he had to keep his little girl stuff out of Britain.
I’ve worked on a range of cases, I’ve tackled reality tv etc. I’ve not lost a case yet.
“So an image of a baby, child or adult, is pornographic if they are nude, alone and doing nothing suggestive or sexual. Parents who take photographs of their children naked are pornographers. It is the nudity which is the give away.”
Henson’s material was known to be child pornography in other jurisdictions, and is different to what you illustrate. His material is sexual, even his defenders have conceded that.
‘Take The Age’s Robert Nelson. Three years ago, when Henson was known only to the arts cognoscenti, Nelson criticised his “vulgar relish in depicting naked, pouting teenagers”, and called his “juvenile erotica” a “lubricous display” of a “teasing sexual spectacle” that indicated he was “morbid”, “perverse” and “pornographic”, presenting young girls as a “passive target for the viewer’s lust”. ‘
I helped re-vamp the child pornography laws in Britain with Bill Henson in mind. I knew what he was doing and it wasn’t a secret in Australia either.
“the treaty itself does not appear to specify a definition of “pornographic materials”.”
Joe Arpaio, his CCTV jailcam, I initiated that campaign, dealt with the AG of Arizona and FBI, Donna Hamm took it to the Supreme Court of the USA, that was UN treaty related.
Whether a country has ratified something or not, is not always the issue, it is about UN protected rights.
In Arpaio’s case his material was put to the same use as Henson’s. In other words, extensively used by pedophiles and by pornography users.
Henson was on the ‘to do’ list in much the same way as Joe Arpaio. I don’t draw a distinction between a wild sheriff in Arizona and Bill Henson.
If they’re doing the same type of thing, that’s a human rights issue.
Ahhh, So you are THAT George Carlin. The one who argued in favour of schoolgirls continuing to wear skirts. Fuelling the sick paedophilic fantasies of the dirty old men who are attracted to school girls in pleated school skirts! So, in your own hypocritical way, working both for human rights and against CP, you have assisted in the promotion of CP!
(use of inflammatory language deliberate as you yourself have been using inflammatory language in this discussion.)
My apologies – GREGORY Carlin – there must have been a Freudian slippage in my mind for a moment.
“The one who argued in favour of schoolgirls continuing to wear skirts. ”
They were banning skirts in Britain to protect schoolteachers from ‘false allegations’. You can use you own head on that score. The EOC published advice that it would prevent the sexual abuse of schoolgirls.
How up are you on feminism relating to that kind of victim dress code scenario? The UN has an opinion.
The Australians are copying the Japanese. It really is just appalling, they just don’t get it. Material classified as child pornography in Britain is child friendly viewing in Oz!
Do not expect Bill Henson to get away with it in my jurisdiction. We are now targeting galleries in compliant EU territories. He will not be allowed to exhibit here.
PRESS RELEASE
NO EMBARGO
05 June 2008
CLASSIFICATION BOARD CLEARS FOR PUBLICATION UNCENSORED NUDE PHOTOGRAPH OF 13 YEAR OLD CHILD
BEGIN///
The Irish Anti-Trafficking Coalitions is dismayed that the Australian authorities have cleared for publication an uncensored nude photograph of a 13 year old girl. This closely follows the Classification Board’s green light for photographers to take pictures of naked under-age models after backing down on an investigation into a fashion magazine. Australia is closely emulating Japan in its failure to regulate indecent images of children.
The decision by the Classification Board is in violation of Australia’s obligations under the UNCRC, CEDAW and ICCPR. This is the first occasion anywhere in the world that a nude photograph of a female child who was subject to a police investigation relating to a sexually motivated crime has been cleared for publication anywhere in the world. This decision is also a fundamental breach of Australia’s reponsibilities as partner nation of the Virtual Global Taskforce.
/// END
Gregory Carlin
Director
Irish Anti-Trafficking Coalition
4 Downfine Walk
Belfast
Northern Ireland
UK
(UK) 44 (0) 2890 963164
Note:
U18 topless photographs are classified as child pornography in the United Kingdom.
The IATC was a consulting partner with the UK govt. in relation to the SOA 2003
The classification letter to complainants was leaked to journalists before we had a chance to read it ourselves. I was able to read about mine in the Australian media.
Could it be that you (and your organisation) is just a little TOO politically correct? That your views may be a little too rigid? That perhaps it is possible that a photograph of a naked child may not actually be pornographic? Oh, and just for your information; Britain is no longer the ruler of the world. It is not expected that Laws in Britain MUST automatically be followed by every other country. Here in Australia we have pretty rigid laws on pornography, both child and adult. Those laws are being adhered to. Should there be a public debate, then those laws may be changed in Parliament. Until then Bill Henson will continue to be exhibited.
Like Henson’s naked 12 year old pubescent girl with legs spread and smeared with blood? What rating does that get in Australia, a PG or a G?
Gregory
Fortunately the classification board has not joined in on the hysteria exhibited by lobbyists, sections of the media and politicians:
‘Henson photo not porn, says censor’ – David Marr at the Sydney Morning Herald:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/henson-photo-not-porn/2008/06/05/1212259014096.html
Mr Carlin’s organisation complains:
“This is the first occasion anywhere in the world that a nude photograph of a female child who was subject to a police investigation relating to a sexually motivated crime has been cleared for publication anywhere in the world.”
Obviously the protection of a child in that situation is important. But in this case no charges have been laid against Henson, and it now appears none will be. Again, there have been no complaints from Henson’s models or the families of his models. In fact, these people have come out in support of Henson. The investigation was initiated by lobbyists and right-wing elements of the news media.
David Marr writes:
“Yesterday the Herald also learned that the Director of Public Prosecutions was on the verge of advising NSW police that any prosecution of Henson was unlikely to succeed. In Canberra, Federal Police also announced that no charges would be laid over photographs in the Australian National Gallery.
The Henson affair appears close to collapse.”
Draconian censorship like that targeting Bill Henson achieves nothing except the persecution of artists, the curtailing of freedom of artistic expression. It constitutes a refusal on the part of the authorities to acknowledge the complexity of the issue.
“Obviously the protection of a child in that situation is important. But in this case no charges have been laid against Henson, and it now appears none will be”
Not important enough for Australia or your atrists, or your newspapers, and nobody waited until the decision was in so that aspect didn’t matter, it is the first time, ever, in the entire world, a very black mark.
Nobody much was helping Henson in the USA, EU or Britain, they are going to help us. We have the white hats.
We also have an American President to get elected. These issues, the flooding of the net with extreme images, that’s politics.
Australia did something that nobody has ever done before, and nobody was human rights literate enough to notice.
The USA, Canada, Britain, that’s our turf. We’re a bit tougher than Braveheart, we’ve more money as well.
I can stop a major film in Hollywood if I try hard enough.
If the issue is right. That’s all so very far away from folks isn’t it?
Gregory
“Like Henson’s naked 12 year old pubescent girl with legs spread and smeared with blood? What rating does that get in Australia, a PG or a G? ”
If you can certificate that one for me, that’d be nice. because we intend to find out. It was on the web.
Harmless, well, is it a PG then? We never give up, it goes on forever.
Gregory
“I can stop a major film in Hollywood if I try hard enough.”
Pure McCarthyism.
I understand Mr. Carlin’s motivation is protecting children – I applaud that cause – but this is not a simple black and white issue.
The Sydney Morning Herald reports: ‘No charges for Henson’
http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/no-charges-for-bill-henson/2008/06/06/1212259050571.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
“Photographer Bill Henson and the Sydney gallery which displayed his controversial pictures of naked children last month will not be prosecuted after police accepted there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.
“Police today said they made the decision following advice from NSW Director of Public Prosecutions Nicholas Cowdery.”
On the matter of the Classification Board’s decision on the gallery invitation photograph:
“The Classification Board has ruled that a photograph of a naked girl, which Henson included on an invitation to his exhibition at the Roslyn Oxley9 gallery in Sydney, was “mild” and safe for many children to view.
“The picture, which kicked off the controversy surrounding the well-known artist’s work, was deemed to be “not sexualised to any degree” and the “image of breast nudity … creates a viewing impact that is mild and justified by context”.”
This decision affirms the simple fact that nudity does not automatically equate with pornography.
“This decision affirms the simple fact that nudity does not automatically equate with pornography.”
In their heads, he can’t do it in London, a photo of a naked 13 year old girl is always, with no exceptions, a delight to pedophiles when it is posted to the internet, which they did.
I do concede the full frontal photos of naked little boys were kept in a basement of the gallery for ‘private’ buyers.
Pedophiles like that kind of photography as well in my opinion.
It is about sex, the identified pedophile component of this, that is unquestionably about sex, for sure.
I do ‘black and white’ because I need people to go to jail, that’s the only way I know to measure progress.
Bill won’t get away with it in London.
I promise you that.
Gregory
Now that the hew and cry has died down a little, it is time to begin a campaign against foot-fetishists! Have you ever added up the number of images of feet on the internet? Those “footies” getting their jollies over the images of innocent feet? As for Monty Python! They will be our first target. That foot is disgusting and looks to have dirty toenails. Obscenity needs to be stamped out!
“Obviously the protection of a child in that situation is important. But in this case no charges have been laid against Henson, and it now appears none will be. Again, there have been no complaints from Henson’s models or the families of his models. In fact, these people have come out in support of Henson. The investigation was initiated by lobbyists and right-wing elements of the news media.”
It was a global first. I am not aware of any third world county which has allowed the same abuse. You are makng it clear in the paragraph I’ve quoted that you just don’t get it. It’s whoosh over the hair gel.
I noticed the same thing from Alison Croggon about dog-art, on a poetry list.
On that other issue. The World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) investigated the exhibit. The Humane Society of the United States categorically condemned the use of live animals in exhibits such as had taken place.
It wasn’t until then, that I worked out that Alison, genuinely didn’t have a set of ethics, that would pass inspection in London.
At least Japanese Schoolgirl Monthly has pitched the argument back to its original moral ambit, which was child pornography.
Which is what Bill Henson does.
Gregory Carlin
Back again? Mr Carlin has been commenting on every Henson-related blog post across the web and yet has contributed nothing that is very coherent. It would be nice if he could put his accusations and references in context, with supporting evidence, so readers of this blog can understand what he is talking about.
His affiliations and qualifications have not been substantiated and he refuses to discuss them.
See, for example, the string of comments here:
http://www.libdemvoice.org/steven-bayes-1764.html
The Lib Dems authored the commercial child porn policy for the Dutch pedophiles. They are old enemies. They voted (at conference) to repeal our ‘Henson’ style child pornography laws. It won’t happen.
We can’t have censorship and Bill ain’t heading to any of my favourite airports and so blogdom it is for now. That’s what they’re there for.
I always win my campaigns, look at Canada, I was told there was no hope whatsoever, of getting the exotic dancer pernit scheme deep-sixed, even ministers got death threats on that account.
It’s about wnning, there is no point, having a campaign, if you don’t work, months, years, it is important to win. Henson is a hi-priority, it has to be sorted out, in London, NYC, I don’t care where, but sorted out, it wil be.
From a different angle:
- The women who blew the whistle on Henson’s exhibition was a vocal advocate for the catholic church.
- The exhibition was launched only days before World Youth Week
- The series of images in this particular exhibition portrayed young boys and girls next to images of the church, including priests, the Vatican, tombs and shadows> The tone of the exhibition was obviously a response to the sexual abuse suffered by youth in the catholic church.
- This information was silenced in the lead up to Youth Week by the church and the general mass media.
- What was intended to be an artistic expression of opinion towards the issues of abuse in the church was overlooked, as one women directed the attention of the exhibition towards the supposed exploitation of young people and their bodies in art.
If it wasn’t for that one women this entire conversation would be about something more significant.
Henson’s work is emotionally enlightening. His images transcend the visual and seep colourfully into your soul, leaving his exhibitions you feel warm and full of light. I find few artists affect me the way his work does.
The fact is that these photos are just art, the photos are of about the transition from the innocence of child hood (which way back when was represented in the naked form) to adult hood. The fact that people look at these fhotos and take them for child pornography means that either they are so obbsessed with sex that they miss the true meaning or that we as a scociety have lost the capacity to look past the surface. for scocieties sake i hope it is the first one.
What if Henson was a woman? Would it have been different?
To me he is one of the best photographer’s in the world.
Excuse my fingers *photographers