I am flabagasted by the furore over the Bill Henson exhibition. At first I was stunned that the exhibition had been raided, although there is a long history of censorship in Australian art (and at the risk of boring you, the publisher of the Ern Malley poems was prosecuted for obscenity).
Then I was stunned that Kevin Rudd weighed in with his ill informed opinion. I think a lot less of Kevin now. I still have enough respect for him to believe that he wouldn't comment on the exhibition without at least viewing Henson's work, which just makes me believe that he has no idea about art. Or worse, that he simply is a populist and believes nothing.
Finally I was stunned to read in this morning's paper that the Roslyn Oxley gallery hanging the exhibition was threatened with fire bombing. I have absolutely no doubt that the hysterical mob baying for Oxley and Henson's blood have never seen a Henson photograph in their lives.
I first saw a Henson exhibition in 1996. I admit that I found the images rather confronting. There were lots of naked people who seemed (to me at the time) to have drowned or be unconscious. I remember the images brought to mind the very violent illustrations I had seen in a Children's Bible I had when I was a kid. I was obsessed with that book and the images of naked drowning people stayed with me. I knew that whatever disturbing feelings I had about the images, they were as a result of ideas I brought to the images, not the images themselves.
What makes Henson's work so powerful is the ambiguity and mystery in the images - they hint at a range of narratives and are disturbing because it's difficult to make out exactly what might be happening. They are also exquisitely beautiful. I think I found it difficult to look at some of them because I felt something violent was happening but the beauty of the images was just overwhelming.
Those personal reactions are what makes art so important. And those same personal reactions are what is driving the fury of the mob to have the images removed from public view. I haven't seen the latest exhibition, it having been raided before it opened, but from the few images published in the media, it seems to me that any pornographic intentions would have to come from the viewer because they are not present in the art.
Henson is a working project, he is the subject of a teleconference next week re: VGT issues, legislative disparity, what do we do next, that kind of thing.
He was also an inspiration for the SOA 2003 in Britain. What he does is a crime in the United Kingdom. We made it so, because of 'his art'.
There you have it.
Gregory
Posted by: Gregory Carlin | June 07, 2008 at 03:52 AM
Gregory,you seem to be very passionate about Bill Henson and that's a good thing - discussion is important. I think perhaps that your animosity is directed at the wrong person - there are plenty of pedophiles in the world (some of whom were arrested yesterday) so maybe you should bend your efforts towards them. But please don't try to post any more press releases on this site. This is my personal blog, not a media outlet.
Posted by: elissa | June 06, 2008 at 01:18 PM
If he tries to bring the same material into Britain, USA, or Canada. I will get the police to deal with him.
His geography will be more limited from now on. It is not over yet.
Gregory
Posted by: Gregory Carlin | June 06, 2008 at 01:12 PM
Henson's work was restricted in other countries, I helped to draft the SOA 2003 for British legislators.
In Britain, art, hobby, research, that doesn't work, Gary Glitter, Pete Townshend, no exceptions.
Henson was the prototypical personality contemplated. We knew that somebody would claim to be a 'talented' photographer.
We were not legislating for a freebie based on alleged artifice, Henson's material was criminalized with the same pen.
The comparison, if there is one, is with Japan, Henson's geography was being slowly restricted and he is now being attacked on his own turf.
Posted by: Gregory CArlin | June 04, 2008 at 07:25 AM
When I was in high school, I was part of an artistic production that depicted a 13-year-old girl's sexual awakening and included kissing, plenty of sexually charged language, and a "bedroom scene".
For some reason, though, we haven't yet banned Shakespeare, and for exactly the same reasons, we should value Henson's artistic work, not persecute him for it.
Posted by: ozartist | May 28, 2008 at 12:38 PM
The next step of course is figleaves on Michaelangelo's David. Anecdotes suggest the artist used at least one adolescent boy as his model.
Not to mention the same artist's parade of unclothed cherubim and seraphim housed in the Vatican itself.
What was far more disturbing than any Henson photographs was an article juxtaposed next to one of the Henson pieces in one of the dailies dealing with so-called "Abstinence Balls" featuring a middle-aged Dad gloating over his presumably unsullied Barbified teenage daughter. Now that is creepy.
Posted by: not_bovvered | May 28, 2008 at 08:30 AM
The next step of course is figleaves on Michaelangelo's David. Anecdotes suggest the artist used at least one adolescent boy as his model.
Not to mention the same artist's parade of unclothed cherubim and seraphim housed in the Vatican itself.
What was far more disturbing than any Henson photographs was an article juxtaposed next to one of the Henson pieces in one of the dailies dealing with so-called "Abstinence Balls" featuring a middle-aged Dad gloating over his presumably unsullied Barbified teenage daughter. Now that is creepy.
Posted by: not_bovvered | May 28, 2008 at 08:28 AM
I agree as well, but I can't help feeling like emitting a big "I told you so!" about Rudd. Not that I specifically told YOU so, but I certainly expressed reservations about him to anyone who'd listen during the Messianic fervour about him last year.
Yes, I voted for him too; yes, he's probably an improvement on his predecessor. But we knew long before this that he's a deeply conservative, moralistic ... er, individual; he's someone whom you wouldn't want in power if you could possibly help it. Before this latest debacle, he'd already shown his true colours quite vividly in the debate about therapeutic cloning.
Rudd is not a friend of science and art, and is certainly not the progressive, liberal-minded prime minister that a lot of people thought they were getting.
Posted by: Russell Blackford | May 28, 2008 at 12:45 AM
That's a good point Claire. At least art is making the front page of the newspaper (in Sydney if not elsewhere). What worries me is that an artist like Bill Henson, or others who perhaps aren't as well known, will shy away from making ground breaking art as a result of this. I hope that doesn't happen but I fear that Bill Henson might give up his figurative photography and we will be a poorer culture for it.
Posted by: elissa | May 26, 2008 at 12:32 PM
I am so in agreement with you Elissa. I keep finding myself shouting about it! You know, the one thing I do appreciate about all of this is that people are arguing about art and not football! I love that at dinner people are shouting about the difference between pornography and expression, and about the viewer's gaze and the responsibility of society etc etc. ...
Posted by: Claire | May 26, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Me too (couldn't agree more). I hadn't read the Rudd comments. V. disappointing.
Not that I actually saw the photos, but from the descriptions - what is the problem we have in this society of assuming any sort of nudity is sexual? That bodies must be hidden?
Posted by: Kirsten | May 26, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Couldn't agree more with you, especially about Rudd.
Posted by: susos | May 25, 2008 at 09:38 PM