Art, Nudity, Censorship and Children
Posted: Saturday, June 14, 2008
by Hannah Quinn
Too-Write! Professional Services
The recent furore over the latest Bill Henson exhibition has, largely, died down. To recap: Henson was due to open his latest photographic exhibition at Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery in Sydney on 22nd May, 2008. A few hours before the due opening, the police arrived, closed the doors and confiscated 20 of the works. Art lovers arrived only to be turned away.
The photographs have since been returned to the gallery, although they are not currently on display. They might go on display in the future. Henson is free to choose.
Do I consider the works are art? Yes. I do.
Do I consider art should be censored? No, not in any form.
Do I think these photographs should go on display? No - not at this time.
It is never easy to resolve issues such as this one. I abhor censorship in art and literature.
Some things which are called art, aren't - but they all go the way of the dodo, so no censorship is required. Natural attrition will see their demise even if there is an initial 'voyeuristic' or 'shock' quality to them. I remember when there was a play on at a small, fringe theatre here in Melbourne in the 1970s and the single character did the entire piece naked on a toilet - which he actually used. The season was relatively successful but, thankfully, short. I fail to see what edification was inherent in the piece. It wasn't art, it was 'shock and awe' and is now (hopefully) permanently flushed.
When it comes to censorship, some marvellous artefacts have been lost to history, as evidenced by the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamyan by the Taliban; or the destruction of murals and stained glass windows in English churches during the Reformation; or the book burnings that occurred in Nazi Germany under Hitler. History is replete with such instances.
Far more serious, however, is the loss of free speech which rigid censorship brings. That, to us in the free world, is anathema: as it should be. The current sedition laws in the like countries of Britain, the US and Australia are deplorable, and a far greater risk to freedom than terrorists. But, that is slightly off the point of this article.
The real issue I want to discuss here is the exhibition of children au naturel in an era when children, especially girls, and especially prepubescent girls, are often and highly sexualised.
One of the first concepts of true art is to reflect, discuss, expose, explore, develop, interpret and/or portray the culture in which it occurs. Of course, this is not meant to be done in a documentary way, although it can be; and it is always an expression of the artist rather than the people.
It cannot exist without influence, however. And that influence is personal, intrapersonal, interpersonal and cultural. Art does not happen in a vacuum and its intricacies, and its vagaries, are always pertinent to the times in which it occurs.
That sets some (loose) parameters for my views on Henson's latest works, and his overall focus for his art. Let me also add that I don't believe artists 'choose' their focus; I believe it 'chooses' them. Not, of course, in some magical way, but it develops from all the above parameters and the innate senses and individualism of the artist.
The focus of Henson's work, not all by any means, but a substantial number of his works, is on children, especially prepubescent and adolescent children. Most of his works are dark - in both context and physicality. There is a strong physicality in his works, and a profound mood. The subject of his works are legitimate. They are not pornographic. Some have strong elements of eroticism about them. They reflect an age of development we all go through; and they do so with our vulnerability on full display.
My concern is not the art itself, but the real life of the subjects. It's one thing to model for art; I modelled for a sculpture class when I was 16 - only for a bust (I wouldn't have done a naked modelling, but that is a personal choice not an arbitrary one). It's flattering, it's fun, its fascinating, it's hard work. None of the students went on to become well-known, but the teacher, Phil Dunn, was an acclaimed sculptor and potter during his lifetime. I enjoyed the experience and it was both funny and embarrassing to see my 'head' on display in various places.
No matter where we live, we all have a relative small circle of life and most of what we do is known within this circle. This is our real life. The main subject of this latest work by Henson is a teenage girl, now 13. Her family have known Henson for a long time so they are associated with the art world. I think this does make a difference - but not enough.
Let's return to the focus of Henson's works. He wants to explore the vulnerability, the angst, the juxtaposition of child and adult we experience at that age of transition - and he does it well. Those who experienced darkness at this age - and we all experience some - find it especially compelling. The eroticism of some of the photos is intentional, also a legitimate exploration of art, and some of it is natural to the age. None of this is reason to call the works anything less than art or to ban their display.
All that said, my concerns, and the widespread opposition and calls for Henson to be charged are also a reflection of the age and culture we live in. As I stated above, children in general and young girls in particular are highly sexualised in this time. This is a concern for all areas of life, art included. Another problem with these works is the intimacy of photography, especially with such a proficient exponent as Henson. And, obviously, the prime concern is whether children can give informed consent. The parents all gave consent.
I can't see that any but a few would say children of this age can give informed consent. Of those who say they can, many are not saying so for the sake of art, or the children. Even the parents, who might be well informed and well meaning, cannot know what is in their child's future or how their child will handle issues that arise in an adult world. We all know how formative the teenage years are, and how different most children want to be to their parents - even though they probably will become their parents to some degree later on.
However, one of the prime tenets of a free society is the freedom and the right to choose. And the choices we make bring responsibility with them as well as freedom. Within that responsibility is the acknowledgement of cause and effect, in other words, of consequence. As adults, we know those consequences can be intense, long lasting, profound. We accept that our choices can affect, long term, our entire lives and might have unforeseeable consequences. Children cannot know this. Their development in awareness and understanding of cause and effect, consequence, is a slow and ongoing one. Even as young adults, the long term consequences of some choices are beyond us. As more is discovered about the brain, the more we realise how long it takes to fully develop understanding of consequences. The current literature poses that 25 is the 'mean' age for full brain development - that's more than double the age of the subject in the main series of work under discussion.
In other words, the fact of our incomplete development means we cannot be informed about longterm cause and effect or consequences. A child is incapable of knowing or anticipating what might arise from a decision made at the age of 12. They should not be put in the position of having to make a decision which could affect their entire lives. To do so is to force them into an adult position for which they are not ready.
Look at the consequences of this exhibition. I'm sure even the adults involved could not foresee what lay ahead. The children definitely could not. The cause and effect of the circumstances that have arisen from one person contacting the police after seeing the brochure for the exhibition could have profound and long term consequences for these children and their families.
An adult must accept these consequences as part of the responsibility for freedom of choice. Children are not able to, which is why adults, and the law, are charged with their care.
In my original article on this subject, I suggested the only way to marry the need for protection of children and the need for free expression without censorship was to hold these works behind closed doors until each subject is an adult and can choose for themselves. Although other subjects, now adults, have come out and said they have no regrets, the focus of concern and awareness of the exploitation of children is far more intense now than it was 20 years ago, as is the media on which it can be widely distributed and is available to people with nefarious intent. Whilst it is reassuring that these previous subjects are content, it should not, however, be used as a justification or a licence to ignore the potential for harm to these children as they continue to grow and develop into adulthood.
There is no place for censorship in art and literature in a free world; but there is also no place for failing to take great care when it comes to the wellbeing of our children as they grow and develop. For their sakes, and the sake of society at large, we should always err on the side of caution when it comes to the lives and wellbeing of our children.
Art can always wait; children, and their protection, however, cannot.
(Please note, all spellings are Australian and might appear incorrect to a US reader.)
This Article has been viewed 3,177 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (2 total)This was such a well-written, educated, informative and interesting piece, that I don't see how I can justify giving anything less than a "5" rating all the way around.
When I was about 10, we lived in Los Angeles County, home of Hollywood. A television scout came to our house, and was very interested in my potential as an actor (after all, I'm handsome, charming and debonair...). My parents asked me if I would be interested, and I refused. The basis of my refusal was that I was afraid of TV commercials making me look like an idiot. You know, wiener dog commercials, shampoo commercials of a guy scratching his head, underwear commercials, who knows?
What you are right about—dead right about—is that the child is too immature to make decisions that look very far ahead, weighing the complexity of pros and cons in relation to their future.
I'm wistful, though, because in retrospect I believe I made the wrong decision for my future. That's right, I should have said, "yes, I'm interested."
And you know what? I look back and see that it was A) My parents trusting my 10-year old judgment was commendable on their part; but B) I had no good guidance by which to make an informed decision.
Something to think about. Child exploitation - bad! But, in most cases parents are not thinking in dirty terms, or their own greed, but in terms of how to jump-start their child's successful career. It is a tough decision, to be sure. I'm reminded of Brooke Shields, when her mother had her pose at the ages of 12-13 in some risque glamor catalogs. Her mother's behavior was self-motivated and reprehensible, I thought, even then (Brooke is my own age). Yet, on the other hand, Brooke Shields' career took off, and who today really remembers those borderline kiddy porn magazines she was in? We see her entirely differently, more respectably. Would we know her were it not for her mother's selfish interest? I don't think so.
Hi Gregory,Thank you for taking the time to read and rate my article. It is always a difficult choice for parents when what might be a golden opportunity comes knocking. The decision can (should) only be weighed up with what the circumstances are surrounding the person offering the opportunity and how well a child might respond to it. I think that often, child actors, especially in situations such as Brooke Shields, often go through a lot of difficulty, self-doubt and potential failure if unable to make the transition to adult actor. Not only actors, for that matter. Child models, athletes, performers of all types are often crushed by the stresses of living and working in an abnormal environment and miss out on a lot of really healthy and necessary developmental and social stages. I don't think I would want it for my child - or, more accurately now, my grandchild, unless it was limited and relatively short-term at best. Performance of all sorts is littered with broken people; some who have bounced back, Andre Agassi is one case in point, and Drew Barrymore another; but when it comes to nudity, I think extra thought and consideration needs to be given.Thanks for your thoughtful comments.Cheers, Hannah
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.