Thursday, September 18th, 2008...1:20 pm
Bill Henson is making my head asplode
I was very disappointed with some of the discussion around the Bill Henson furore, particularly those people who couldn’t distinguish nude from rude.
Given the intensity of that discussion, I’m surprised that the recent article in The Australian seems to have been overlooked, apart from in this interesting post – and comment – at my friend’s blog ArtWranglers.
I agree with the point that the Classification Board’s decision can’t be understood to extend to every work made by Henson, even those not considered as part of the decision.
On one hand, is every image he makes to be dragged through that process? On the other, I’ve had a look at the image in the Menzies Art Brands Catalogue and I Know What I Don’t Like. To me it seems of a different order than the newer work that the Board OKed. And I signed the petition drafted by Alison Croggan last time around.
14 Comments
September 18th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
I found the image, and I Know What I Don’t Like too. If the subject is as young as she looks, I’m finding it hard to imagine the justifications.
September 19th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Yep, not even vaguely cool.
September 20th, 2008 at 9:55 am
I would like to introduce myself, having been directed to your site by ArtWranglers. For some time (as a Sydney psychologist with an abiding interest in art and aesthetics) I have been severely exercised, not merely by aspects of Henson’s photography, but certain undemocratic and hypocritical aspects of the debate that unfolded following the publication of the internet image and the closure of Henson’s show. My main focus of concern has been the precipitous hijacking of the core issue of child protection to that of art censorship by certain sections of the arts and letters community. This was achieved more often than not by derisive, contemptuous ad hominum attacks upon those advocating the rights of children as “philistines”, “wowsers” and “witchhunters”, as if (Clive Hamilton put it well) “moral sensibility is always rooted in aesthetic ignorance”.
While personal circumstances and need for privacy do not permit me to furnish you with all the information at my disposal, I am convinced that the censorship issue emerged from two distinct sets of conditions: firstly, from the fact that at least one initial complaint to the Police about the Roslyn Oxley internet invitation followed prior consultation with DoCS regarding the complainant’s concerns that an actual child was at risk (the RoslynOxley9 image was entitled “Untitled 2007/08″), thus precipitating the Police intervention in accordance with mandated procedures (whose investigation became hamfisted without adequately defined, uniform legislation under which charges could be properly laid – for example, given the requirement of ‘sexual context’, and the availability of the defense of ‘artistic context’ under ss. 578C and 91H of the NSW Crimes Act 1900 respectively and the vagaries of s. 474.20 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code) ; and secondly, from an organised and sophisticated civil-libertarian campaign by the powerful Watch on Censorship (NSW) and Liberty Victoria (the Victorian Council for Civil Liberties), aided and abetted by the closing of ranks by a highly invested art world ostensibly outraged by a perceived threat to artistic freedom of speech and praxis.
In contrast to the relentless rubbishing of child-protection advocates as reactionaries and moral panickers (most notably in the left-oriented internet media), any palpable ‘panic’ or ‘hysteria’ emanated most volubly, in fact, from the arts and letters community, who vilified child protectionists as causing unnecessary suffering to the child model in visiting such moral attention upon the image (which the media and the internet sites fell over each other in their obscene haste to publish), and for daring to question the ethics of an artist of such enduring international repute and standing, the meaning of whose work was beyond the ordinary, ignorant punter to even begin to grasp, and whose interpretation remained the sole, exclusive province of curators and critics.
Never for one moment was it considered that Henson and Roslyn Oxley may have had some explaining to do of their own. Never for one second was it considered that a child’s rights to be protected from exploitation and abuse by an adult might take precedence over some inalienable right of an artist to freedom of speech – embedded, as it seems to be, within some absolute right to ‘transgress’ as an aesthetic and cultural necessity.
Nor was it acknowledged that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (among other enshrined protections) precludes the right of parents to consent on behalf of their children to exploitation and abuse, and that Australia is a signatory to this Convention.
The ‘PG’ classification of the image by the Classification Board was, in my view, a legal ruse whose absurdity would have remained a joke if it weren’t closely associated at the time with flagrantly orchestrated preemptive tactics to emasculate the debate and any likelihood that it might uncover the truth (as exemplified by the ‘Art Censorship – The Bigger Picture’ forum organised by Watch on Censorship and Liberty Victoria: (http://fora.tv/2008/06/12/Art_Censorship_The_Bigger_Picture).
It goes without saying that, with the failure of the prosecution to proceed, no test case was possible and our inadequate, vague child protection laws remain full of loopholes.
Over recent months, in the process of researching a critique of Henson’s oeuvre in the context of the debate, I have encountered various explicit early career images and an opaquely symbolic fetishistic pattern in his work that, rather than allaying my growing suspicions about his oeuvre and its vaguely formulated aesthetic rationale, has merely confirmed them.
Aside from issues of internet dissemination of ‘indecent articles’, ‘child pornography’ and so on, the early Hensons up for auction at Lawson-Menzies (September 25th) are of singular importance for several reasons, but primarily as evidence of longstanding proclivities and their being in contradistinction to the putative innocuousness of ‘Untitled 2007/08″ classified as ‘PG’ by the Classification Board (I refer specifically to Lot # 214). I believe this image must somehow be brought before the Classification Board for the above reasons, and that the image must in some way – perhaps through republication or a request for permission to publish – be brought to the attention of the public who have been patronised and duped by the arts community in an orgy of self-interest and cover-up.
There are appropriate obstacles associated with disseminating these images online. But the url to the Lawson-Menzies Henson photographs are, in the spirit of transgressive impunity, eminently transmissible to the universe and beyond.
Several days ago I lodged a formal online complaint to ACMA (who refer to the Classification Board and who have a very user-friendly site), but I fear its little fate is to remain buried under a pile of more pressing matters without complaints in numbers.
A complaint to the Police would no doubt be counter-productive – aside from the fact of the LM internet publication of what I believe to be child pornography – given that there is no actual child at risk in this situation by virtue of being the nude model/paedophilic subject. Although I am speaking to certain people through my own personal and professional network, the potential value for the public to be apprised at this time of this image by voices from the art world or by voices not previously heard during the debate cannot be underestimated.
David Marr is launching “The Henson Case: Art and Panic” on October 13th (Gleebooks and Sydney Ideas: http://WWW.gleebooks.com.au/default.asp?p=events/welcome4_htm). He has, consistent with his unbounded arrogance and contempt for child advocacy, chosen a cropped version of the RoslyOxley girl for his cover.
David Marr is a pal of Julian Burnside, and Burnside claims, reassuringly, to know the model and her family. Both Roslyn Oxley and Anna Schwartz have proclaimed their pride in having their daughters photographed by Bill Henson.
(There were moments, I am almost loath to say, when the collective behaviours of the Melbourne and Sydney art worlds, civil-libertarians, and their apologists and marketeers began to look rather like a cult!!).
What I would like to propose as being at the heart of the issue here is the almost profane ignorance of the depth and dynamic complexity of child abuse in our community – a situation aggravated by an instinctive defensive tendency to deny its hybrid manifestations and to retreat inadvertently to complicity in it as it moves beyond its institutional, subterranean, crepuscular habitats.
Contrary to the rules of the game as dictated by David Marr, Julian Burnside and Tamara Winikoff, this debate – at least as far as I’m concerned – is far from over.
September 21st, 2008 at 6:31 pm
I can confirm that the Melb-Syd art world, civil libertarianism, and their various apologists and marketeers are, in fact, a cult. Once you join you have to give all your cash and personal possessions to David Marr and he makes you sell boxes of candy on street corners, to raise money for aesthetic re-education.
September 21st, 2008 at 10:45 pm
I was right about this one the first time, sorry. Go with your instincts, move away from the man in the raincoat.
October 6th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Much of Henson’s work is brilliantly conceived and executed, there is no doubt about it and I would never argue the opposite viewpoint.
However I find many of the images he produces that ‘explore adolescent vulnerability’ quite offensive. One in particular stands out, i.e. ‘Untitled 1985/86′ alluded to above.
I see *no* artistic justification to either create the image nor to profit from it.
Had I as an ordinary man persuaded a young girl to strip naked, and adopt this pose to enable me to photograph her, I would at best be called a pervert. Had I done it in order to sell the image for profit I’d be labelled a pornographer!!
What is it about this one man that makes *his* images sacrosanct and above the normal legal processes the rest of us are subject to? Or are we suggesting giving carte blanch to *anyone* who has the persuasive power the right to entice young girls to strip for our cameras and then be allowed sell photographs such as this, of naked underage girls with their legs spread wide??
The law needs to be applied fairly across the board and taking just this specific image there is no doubt whatsoever that the line has been crossed by a wide margin!!
(Feel free to visit the ongoing thread on the subject at my blog http://www.opinionaustralia.com/wordpress/2008/05/23/bill-henson-artist-or-pervert/)
October 10th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
I was captured by FARC, forced to eat the rich, I mean rice, it was difficult for me, I just think Henson could do with a few years chained to a tree, as a sort of art exhibit.
Full Leather Jacket
October 10th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Grade A nongery.
October 12th, 2008 at 11:39 am
David Marr’ s book is out and his uniquely sycophantic and autocratic style has reached new heights in a collaboration with his publisher, Michael Heyward (who has kids at St Kilda Primary, by the way), in the reproduction of a previously unseen or published photograph (except at the Roslyn Oxley rehung exhibition and on their website) of ‘N’ completely nude.
What a gross, abusive provocation.
‘The Henson Case: Art and Panic” is a peculiar mix of dopey inclusions and selective omissions. There is no specific reference to this image (in keeping with the history of this child’s dehumanising objectification, remains untitled), and we are left to assume that the DPP saw no case to answer on this one either, among the array of Henson images amassed hurriedly by the feds (what a shermozzle!).
This is what happens when your child protection laws are fish and chip wrappings.
The barely suppressed tone of the book is triumphant. Marr is virtually insightless in this recounting of what can now confidently be said to have been the only panic in town, a massive cover-up in the guise of defending free speech. What a nasty bunch of characters he parades before us, huddled together in a strategic grand silence imposed by Mark O’Brien and Sue Cato, who controlled and crafted every insincere word to the media (and who also oversaw the 2020 creatives Open Letter via hook-up with Jan Minchin from Tolarno Galleries, with the final draft read by Henson himself).
Did not Alison Croggin see anything problematic in snuggling up to such a gross manipulation of opinion?
Does David Marr, author of ‘The Corruption of Debate Under Howard’, see anything even slightly hypocritical in his own initial role in the trivialising and distortion of the debate, and now in volunteering himself as an apologist for Henson and his cronies?
So much for freedom of speech. It is as I suspected – the direction of public debate was essentially commandeered and controlled by the Oxleys, Mark O’Brien and Charles Waterstreet (“the first thing you do in these cases is to get a ruling from the board (CB) to cover your arse”), and the “strategic cunning” of Sue Cato (Henson and the family’s one-woman PR team: “I’ve thrown them a bit of meat and they are going to back off”, gives some indication of her style).
And when it was all over, what a howl it must have been to view Assistant Commissioner Catherine Burn “eat a shit sandwich” on national television.
But, for some obscure reason, the debate requires having the final kybosh put on it by this pseudo-impartial account, according to whose spin the silly fuss was all about nudity and the prurient fixation that certain doddery old-fashioned sections of the community have with it.
Henson says people will wank over anything anyway, so why the concern? The failure of the prosecution was a triumph of commonsense, he reckons. Despite barely a squeak from feminists throughout the debate (except for Germain Greer’s unintelligible comment, “Through a Lens Darkly”, earlier on), Henson, according to Marr, welcomes “the fading of a particular brand of feminism that both deplored the ‘male gaze’ and spoke of the woman’s body as a ‘site of violation’”.
Does Marr seriously think community objections to the massive exploitation and violation of this girl was just coming from misplaced vapours about nudity?
Marr and Heyward have sought fit to publish a previously unseen (but now all over Oz) full frontal, even more explicit nude of the child.
What a triumph to have slipped a picture of a naked twelve year-old past the censors and the DPP!
How they all must be crowing, but particularly Henson!!
Bollie all round!!
Arses saved!!!
Except for the child’s, of course, newly minted and launched into the stratosphere.
This is some lousy ‘two-fingered salute’. Is it really okay to use this child’s photographs all over again simply to score points (a la the merely farcical efforts of Maurice O’Riordan in July)?
Whose brilliant idea was it? Cato’s? Heyward’s? How was the appalling idea to publish this particular photograph (facing p 57) put to the child?
And why was it consistently referred to as ‘Untitled # 30′ in the text when it was originally catalogued in the Roslyn Oxley show as ‘Untitled 2007/08′, in accordance with Henson’s unwavering titling custom? Why are the colour plates not identified in accordance with publishing convention? Is this another clever trick to prevent the reader from connecting the dots to the fact that the child is still under age?
Too many questions remain unanswered.
The launch is Monday. With Marr needing to maintain the advantage, you can bet time allocated to Q&A will be very short.
October 13th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Dear Mugsey. While I appreciate your impassioned blurts (both here, on The Art Life, and on ArtWranglers – which is attracting a lot of traffic – and which is one voice breaking the silence of the art world) I would appreciate a greater degree of linking and referencing your quotes and assertions, so that others may investigate (support or challenge) the substantiation of your comments and observations. With the benefit that your pointed questions and claims would be more difficult to ignore…
October 14th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Dear Nigel,
I guess “impassioned blurter’ must be getting pretty close to “moral panicker”, “hysteric” and “wowser” so I take your point and apologise to your readers for making any assertions they cannot determine the truth of for themselves.
I do take responsibility, and apologise, for wrongly accusing David Marr and his publisher for omitting the titles to the colour plates. They are in the frontispiece. I think I was so outraged by the blatant objectification of the child in the republishing of one and the first ever publishing of another nude photograph of her, that I didn’t examine the frontispiece properly. I understand now how easy it is to slip into carelessness when one is upset, and I understand that it undermines my credibility.
I stand by every other assertion I have made, despite my lapse of due care in the heat of the moment and hope that some credibility remains.
Paradoxically or perhaps unsurprisingly, the source of all disturbing facts contained in my last post – especially around the final overseeing of the CreativeStream’s Open Letter – was David Marr’s “The Henson Case”.
October 14th, 2008 at 10:58 am
It’d have to be unique; those two things are pretty much mutually exclusive. Make up ya mind, mugsey.
Personally, I’m outraged by your blatant exploitation of this young woman and her photograph, not to mention of the inestimable Zoe’s blog, in order to indulge what is obviously your real obsession, viz trashing David Marr.
October 14th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Of course it’s far easier to make fun of someone trying to protect young girls from exploitation than standing behind their ‘obsession’ with keeping perverts from making a living off their backs!
Mugsey is doing a damn fine job articulating what us lesser mortals find hard to put into words.
People seem to forget in the nature of the debate that the images of Henson’s work with adolescents that we’ve been shown is the tiny tip of an iceberg.
These kids would hardly front up to his studio… strip, allow him to take just the one gynaecological shot, then get dressed and go home. He’ll have taken dozens if not hundreds more of each child. Regardless of Henson’s own sexual tastes, the archives of his ‘collections’ would surely keep the average paedophile weak at the knees for years!
Do I have accurate references for making this assertion? Of course not… it’s simple common sense, as are many of Mugsey’s earlier comments.
The *fact* the art world seems to feel it is above the law when it comes to the commercial exploitation of children’s bodies is neither here nor there. The *fact* is that child protection laws have grey areas that are out of step with those seeking to halt the premature sexualisation of our children!
To put it more simply… go Mugsey!!
October 14th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
No, I don’t think Mugsey’s target is David Marr. I agree that it’s not an accurate reflection of what’s happened to date that the entirety of Henson’s work has been given given the big tick of approval, but I’m increasingly troubled at the tone of recent opposition to his practice. As I am a huge David Marr fan, have not yet read his book, and am off camping for a few days I’ll think I’ll close comments on this thread.