When Nude Photographs of Children and Young Girls Are Exhibited, Is It Art or Exploitation?
Posted: Monday, May 26, 2008
by Hannah Quinn
Too-Write! Professional Services
World renowned photographic artist, Bill Henson, is once again embroiled in controversy. Australian artist, Bill Henson, has had his share of controversy over the years. His propensity for photographing young people in varying poses has been both enlightening and sometimes disconcerting. His latest exhibition is proving to be the most controversial in his career.
The police have stated they intend laying charges. Due to open on Thursday, 22 nd May, Henson's latest exhibition never got off the ground. Before the doors even opened, police arrived, viewed the exhibits and closed the doors. Art lovers turned up only to be disappointed.
The problem? Naked photos of children, and in particular a series of a girl who was 12 at the time, and is now 13.
The police took a number of exhibits away and stated they would be interviewing Henson, the Gallery owner, the girl and her parents. The controversy has been swift and divided. Many have sided with the artist, but there have been more and louder voices against the artist.
Where does legitimate art end and exploitation begin?
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with nudity. It is the natural state of the body. Children, especially, are beautiful when naked; there is beauty in all bodies, including the elderly. And, the question must be asked, If the children in the photographs were ten years younger, would there be any controversy?'
Probably not. I won't say definitely not, but on the whole, we accept photographs of naked little children, although they rarely show any genitalia. I don't believe any of these photographs show genitalia, but they do show the budding breasts of the girl.
In all fairness to the artist, Henson probably only sees artistic purity in his photographs. He sought and obtained permission from the young models and their parents. Children and adolescents are a primary artistic interest of his work and he has had exhibitions acclaimed worldwide. He has defended his work as seeking to explore "something which is absolutely inviolate and unknowable." He has told The Australian (a national newspaper): "You can't control the way individuals respond to the work."
However, he must have known there might be obstacles ahead. Perhaps, though, not as large as they are currently looming.
So, is the police action prudish, reactionary, Victorian, narrow-minded and uninformed? Many would say so. Does it reflect society's expectations and values? Definitely, in part at least. The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, said it was "revolting." He added, "Kids deserve to have the innocence of their childhood protected. Whatever the artistic view of the merits of that sort of stuff - frankly I don't think there are any - just allow kids to be kids."
There is no simple black and white answer. The question is complex and makes us look at our values as a society. Even if we have an immediate reaction to the idea of naked children, especially prepubescent girls, should we avoid a knee-jerk reaction? And would the same reaction be as intense if the main series was of a 12 year old boy? There are photographs of a boy of similar age, but the focus (no pun intended) has been aimed at the series of the girl.
Children are precious. They must be protected. It is our responsibility as parents, adults, society and government to ensure no-one harms them. Sometimes, parents are not the best people to protect children, even well-meaning ones. In this day and age of 'fame' and 'notoriety' it is easy to see that some loving but naive parents might not make the best or most sound choices. It has been clearly stated that the girl in this series gave her permission. Can a 12 year old girl really be informed enough to make such a decision? The answer to that question is clear. No. Does that make it any the less true art? Again, no. Does it matter? Therein, lies the problem.
I am totally against censorship in art. I deplore 'book burning' and silencing of any artistic endeavor just because it is controversial or difficult. There are some things, however, that make me question that belief. This is one of them. Would reactions be the same if they were paintings or sketches rather than photographs? No, I don't think so provided they were not suggestive or pornographic. I would see nothing wrong with it. The quality of the paintings, and the artistic merit would be the only interest.
The reason for this controversy, of course, is that this exhibition is a photographic one, and the children are, therefore, very real. This adds a degree of explicitness. Several of the photographs have been shown in the media, with black bands providing privacy. They are dark photographs, sombre in tone, and the girl is posed. She is prepubescent, on the verge of developing her womanly body. There is a legitimacy to exploring this stage of life. Other photographs depict boys of a similar age, and both sexes at younger ages, but none of these photographs have been used in the media and I do not know what they depict.
Henson says he was portraying innocence and vulnerability. He has achieved it. I have not seen the photographs themselves, only the published copies, and would like the opportunity to view the art personally before deciding exactly what I think he has achieved or if they are exploitative. Of course, that in itself could be exploitative.
There are many shades of light and dark attached to this sensitive age of burgeoning physical maturity. We've all gone through it, and we can all relate to it. In this sense, Henson has truly achieved art through the primary truth of universality.
It is not possible to see how the girl is feeling or reacting, because the copies in the media have obscured her face to protect her privacy, which is part of the law here where a minor is involved in any legal or potential legal case; and is also the proper choice from a moral standpoint at this time.
There is also the fact that the viewers of this exhibition would, largely, be true art lovers and appreciate the work as it was intended. It is also a fact that there would be some who attend for the voyeuristic opportunity. If these works go back on display, unfortunately, that number will rise, because of the publicity and controversy. The same might happen in future exhibitions of Henson's work now that it is known more widely that his artistic interests tend, not only but mostly, towards children.
As I said before, I don't believe in censorship of art, but I do have deep concerns about this, or similar exhibitions no matter who the artist, how successful, or how widely acclaimed. My reasons? Several.
First, from the point of view of art: the mood of the photographs, the darkness of both content and lighting, concern me. While it reflects stages of development, it seems to carry something heavier about it. Let me just reiterate, I have only seen copies of the work. That something heavier seems to imply a level of sinister; and the poses, although not inherently pornographic, have an air of pain about them. The art lover in me appreciates this deeply. Yet, it also concerns me because it also appears to have an air of inevitability about it; to say that all children are vulnerable and, therefore, are victims. It is probable that some people would view the photographs, or more accurately the children in them, as provocative in terms of this inevitability.
Perhaps that is too much to take away without seeing the actual photographs, I don't know, but there seems to be a 'truth' that I don't believe we can afford to see as a 'truth.' To do so, would be to forsake our children.
Past works, and some of these current works, have an element of the erotic about them. I would not suggest they are pornographic - at least not without seeing the actual photographs. There is the beginnings of sexuality at this age. Ignoring, denying or pretending otherwise makes no sense, is reactionary and heavily overlaid with adult angst. Such things are legitimate subjects for art. However, there must be a sensitive attitude brought by the artist who models real children, in this way in order to depict this subject, especially in photographs.
There are other concerns, though. Although the girl and her parents gave consent, can we rely on the parents' choice? Possibly, but not automatically. As for the girl, a 12 year old cannot fully understand all the possible ramifications that life might bring her way. In the immediate future, there is that time of adolescence when our bodies become excruciatingly embarrassing, and that's fully clothed. Add to that the possibility, even the probability, that her school mates will learn of the photographs, and the amount of teasing could be unbearable, especially if there are boys among her classmates. Even if she goes to an all-girls school, there will be boys in her future on some level.
As an adult, it is possible that her participation in the series will surface at a time when she needs to be taken most seriously, perhaps in her career, but also in her personal life. Let's say she is about to be promoted to a highly responsible position in the corporate world; while she has done nothing wrong, the series could prove to be a stumbling block. Or, if she is the principal of a school, it might be hard to be taken seriously by either the students or some of the parents.
None of these things should matter, obviously, but we all know they sometimes do. I would hope that the parents are wise and capable of giving their daughter all the inner strengths and confidence she needs to tackle all the obstacles life has in store for her, including this current controversy. And that the other parents are likewise capable. But, who can know or decide? We all know the term stage mothers' and having a child pose for a world famous artist is a feather in the hat of that type of parent. In such a case, a child is not only being exploited, but might only agree because she/he wants to please their parent/s.
The question can also be asked, since Henson has done similar work and had it exhibited in the past, without controversy, in fact with acknowledgment, why all the furore now? Well, I would suggest it is because we have a different awareness now and child abuse is more visible and discussed. There are instances of young models, some as young as 14, being taken out of fashion shows which are aimed at women; instances of photographic models being used in magazines and made up to look older causing an uproar. Although a different category altogether, these experiences and discussions have raised consciousness in the general public. It is healthy that there is a debate going on.
As for the defenders, and there are many, and some very high-powered in the art world, much of their argument revolves around the fact that Bill Henson is an established artist, with exhibitions held in some of the largest forums around the world and has been acclaimed at high level. This is true. No-one denies that. Is it enough of a credential to allow him, or any artist, carte blanche, especially with children? Surely, no matter who the artist, every work or project must be measured on its own merits.
For me, the ideal would be to keep the photographs on ice until all the children have grown up, and if they still agree, then open an exhibition. It is the only way to ensure the children are not being exploited, whilst not bowing to the pressure of censorship. Henson might see this as a long and frustrating time to wait, but art can always wait, not the execution, but the display. It seems to be an ideal resolution. If charges are laid, however, the legal debate will be a very interesting one, indeed.
This Article has been viewed 307,897 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
More commentsgirls below 18 are minors and if their nude photos are taken, that's really exploitation.
girl above 18, however, have the intellectual to say "no" to if they are asked to take nude photos of themselves but if they insist, well, some may treat it as a "art" ...
I have an answer to all of your questions and concerns, Hannah Quinn: It is none of your business.Meaning that it is the business of the parents and their children's ( today, not some potential future version of themselves ). No one else's. Parent's took their children to the wild frontier facing likelihood of death .. it is only very recently that one considers such decisions anyone's business but that of the family itself.Often, parents are the worst decision makers when it comes to their children's present and future. If the child is basically healthy and emotionally robust, fine. But you have to question a parent who puts their child into the public arena in a full frontal position, especially at an age where she is going to become especially sensitive about her changing body. Even if this particular girl is robust enough never to have a problem now or later, and hopefully she is, in which case I have no objection, no-one can know until later plus, this isn't true of all children and not necessarily part of the consequential thought patterns of all parents.
Yes, people brought their children out here to Australia before it was so-called 'civilised' but you can be sure that overall, those affiliated within any community setting, whether on the ship, the wagon, the cluster of huts, farms etc., took a degree of responsibility for the children. It is not a knew thing: it is a forgotten thing.
No, you are wrong. It is my business when it is involving children in public. In the public domain, it is everyone's business. And I consider we are all responsible for all children anyway. If more people became responsible, which is not the same as interfering, then fewer children would grow up feeling alienated.
hey guys im jay and im a nudist. i feel its wrong if they ask the child to pose in an indecent way. when an adult is naked in front of an art class full of underage teens...hes not considered a sex offender and the teens arent considered perverts or homosexual for looking at the body of this person. because its art. whether u wanna see it like this or not the guy is "indecently exposing" himself..but its for art. art has no censorship or age requirement...The US is becoming so overly protective that theyre trying to take away basic freedoms and artist design. the girl is standing alone modeling in an unprovacative way. with no nude adults in the shot. according to federal law...this is not illegal...all charges should be dropped and everyone who is antifreedom..get out. thank u. ;)I am not in anyway anti-freedom, in fact quite the opposite. This means I accept there will always be things I consider wrong, poor judgement, poor taste, etc. However, if you read the article attentively, you will see I don't propose that. I have no objection to children attending a free life drawing class either, as long as it is not some 'free lance' thing where a suspect person is just running it for his/her own jollies. What adults do, unless they are infringing on others rights, freedoms or otherwise acting criminally, they should be allowed to do. I'm pro-gay marriage for instance. I'm not gay and could never be even experimentally. That's me and it's my right to express me. But, then, I'm an adult and I can weigh up consequences and accept responsibilities which children are still learning about as part of their maturation process.
I, myself have NO problem what so ever with child nudity, or even sex with pubescent teens. Honestly, we were made to reproduce after that happens. That's why it happens. Our knowledge of the "consequences" has nothing to do with it. What exactly are the consequences? Pregnancy, disease. All the same consequences that we have as adults. And you say perversion. Is torture, bondage, and rape any less painful for an adult than it is a child? No. Yet there are many videos of it and it isn't illegal and is readily accessible. Nothing wrong with that? Therefore, I say let people have their perversions. When I was a teenager, I CRAVED little children sexually. It would drive we nuts! Seriously. So, even at that age we all have our perversions, why don't we leave each other be? If the nude photos of children are out there, why should we be able to use them for sexual satisfaction, if that's what your in to? Little kids still turn me on. I'm not saying that I'm gonna go out and rape the next little girl I see, but little children are one of my perversions and I accept that and am not ashamed. Wouldn't you rather have all the paedophiles of the world pleasure themselves to one picture of an underage girl/boy than have them all take an underage girl into their bedrooms?
And to Anonymous/melv2008, it's not considered porn just because it has nudity. That would make a lot of movies, instructional videos, and documentaries qualify as porn and that just simply isn't true. Heck, that would mean porn on YouTube and that would bad for Google's image.(unfortunately)Trouble is, they don't just pleasure themselves, in private, to the photographs, they take the young girls to their bedrooms, and someone has to take the photos in the first place. The world is about much more than you and what you get pleasure from. And pleasure has a flip side, responsibility. Regardless of whether reproductive ability has occurred or not, it is still wrong for an adult to have sex with a child. The child is not in an equal relationship, and they are not ready mentally for a sexually active life. It is now known that a child's brain doesn't even stop growing until they are 24.5 and they don't finish maturing until several years after that. Once, reproduction was necessary early because we only lived to around 20-25. Now, we live far longer, especially in the western world, and consequently, the human child is taking longer to mature. Reproductive ability is as much about nutrition and weight as it is about maturity or readiness. Reproduction is about survival of the race. Paedophilia is about the pleasure of one individual regardless of the cost to others. You are 100% wrong in every argument you make. I suggest you get outside yourself and learn to view the world with a modicum of empathy - something it is well documented is lacking in paedophiles, as it is in sociopaths. If you truly are a paedophile, I suggest you consider you are more aligned with sociopaths than with the general population and see what you can do about that to improve your selfish views of the world of children and the world in general. It's not all about you.
Ok I've read the page and the comments. I hate what this goverment is going is gonna come the point where if I want pics takin of my newborn son/daughter natural that I will be considered a chomo. Its wrong to act on these emotions and thoughts of corse but I think the goverment is becoming to powerfull. To much so that todays censership is outrages.I'm sorry for this but I don't see anything wrong with being a nudist I am.my kids run aeound the house naked range from the age of 5 ta 11 I do not see how that is wrong. I donot see it or them ina sexual way. Everything that this world is comming to is gonna destroy us. The goverment is winning people our doller is falling goverment is getting more controll wwhere gonna get @#$%&*ed.
I agree with your point of view that there is nothing wrong with nudity or of parents taking nude photos of their children. Nudity was not a problem in our household when my children were young. It was an opportunity for learning to be comfortable with who and what we are and the opportunity for open questions from the children. This has nothing to do with being sexually inappropriate. Sexual contact or exhibition in front of children is. I see nothing about the Government moving to censor this. It is entirely within the realm of putting full frontal photographs of children on public display that is wrong and there needs to be a protection around children when they can be exploited such. It is a sad reality that regardless of the artistic merit, exploitation is a constant lurker in such a situation and it is too late to take back exploitation after the fact.
I must also point out that paedophiles are not homosexuals. Some homosexuals are paedophiles, more heterosexuals are paedophiles, often men with families. Some of them abuse boys, some abuse girls, some abuse both. It is a particular behaviour and has nothing whatsoever to do with sexual orientation and there is no evidence that the government is claiming or disseminating otherwise.
I think you fear a hypothetical rather than a fact based possibility. There is also no evidence of censorship in general about to scatter us all like helpless pebbles down that so-called slippery slope. I also find no connection between the issue of child protection with the falling dollar or the political situation.
You feel angry with the Government, I'm not about to say you shouldn't be, but don't add fuel to your fire just for the sake of adding fuel.
Who out there knows when a child is mature enough? 17 years 364 days, not old enough to consent to sex with an adult. 1 day later she is. Why?? Get a grip people. In most U.S. States, a 16 year old can get an abortion without parents consent. But she is still a child and the parents are responsible to pay the doctors bill. Huh?? Which is it?? Is she responsible enough to make that decision, but not old enough to pose nude for pictures? There is nothing wrong with nude pictures of children if they are just posing. I would much rather see a nude picture of a child, then a picture of a child dolled up with make-up and a skimpy outfit in a beauty pageant.
I too disdain so-called beauty pageants with children dressed up as little dolls, which escalates the sexualisation of girls and children in modern society. I have nothing, per se, against photographs of children in the nude. The photographs of Anne Geddes are delightful. There is everything of the natural and nothing of the sexual in them. This cannot be the foregone conclusion in a photograph, full frontal, of a pre-pubescent child. It is a fact that there is nothing wrong or shameful in the child's body. It is no more nor no less natural and beautiful than any other body. We are overly bound up in body-shame. However, that is not to say that there is no element of risk to the child and her developing psyche. It might be, and I hope it is, that she will always be proud of the photographs. I hope that is the case. I don't believe this is a decision any child can or should make at the age of 12.
As to consensual sex between a child and an adult: well you use the 'one day illegal' 'next day legal' scenario to make the issue black and white when it is far more complex. The societal more is that at a particular age, a child can consent to sex. If that child is say 16, and the 'adult' is 18, there is minor power disparity and consent is reasonable. If that child is 16 and the adult is 28, 38, 48... there is a power disparity and any consent given could be considered suspect. It is a reality that there must be a demarcation age as to the legal giving or legal inability to give consent. Age does not necessarily indicate readiness, and someone who is 20 years old might not be 'old enough'. It is now known that the human brain does not stop developing until the age of 24-25 years and from there matures. Every case needs to be taken on its merits. However, a child who is yet to approach, or to have successfully negotiated puberty is very definitely a child and therefore needs a degree of protection and prohibition as they mature and become ready to make these decisions for themselves - which they (rightly) do progressively.
From the Center for effective parenting page: Treat your children with respect. Parents should treat their children with the same amount of respect that they would show to a friend or a stranger on the street, for that matter. * So would you invade their privacy & take a picture of them naked? Of courese not. It's time to stop taking pics of naked kids once & for all. When they become adults they can make the decision whether or not they want to pose naked. I think parents do this because they know they can get away with it. it's not right. take it from someone whose trust was violated at a young age.
do not see anything wrong with NON SEXULIZED photos of children... Young children (walking to 6 or so) LOVE to run around the house nude! If the model, any age, consents after having all the implications layed out I say go for it! Also what about all the nudist sites that have color photos (I've noticed that most 'artistic' nudes of children are black and white) why are they protected by countless litigation and 1st amendment arguments where as that same prepubescent posing nude is under child porn threats? The child’s body is as some of you have said; is very unique and artistic and is an area of photography that is very rarely explored because of these kind of threats....
More comments
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.