Bill Henson. Photo courtesy of Adam Hollingworth, Sydney Morning Herald: http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/henson-exhibition-shut-down/2008/
In 2008, Bill Henson, one of Australia’s ‘greatest living artists’, was the subject of nation-wide scrutiny, which threatened him with a charge of child pornography (Marr, 2008, p. 150). New South Wales police seized 21 of Henson’s portraits of naked adolescents from the Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery just hours before the exhibition opened (Arts Hub, 2012). Henson’s works cannot be simply classified as either art or pornography, and for this reason they have since been the cause of much controversial debate amongst art critics, the general public and the media. In order to analyse this major art controversy, it is important to examine the social and historical factors that shaped the reception of Henson’s 2008 exhibition, in conjunction with the possible implications of the works themselves and the seizure of them. Consideration of the public and political climate in Australia at this time is crucial when assessing the artistic merit of this controversial artwork.
The public reception of Henson’s exhibition was fuelled by, and in turn contributed to, a raging nation-wide debate regarding ‘art, children, censorship, paedophilia, the internet, the police and the media’ (Marr, 2008, p. 150). The prevalence of historical, contemporary and social context is highlighted when Henson’s previous work is examined. For years, Henson’s work had explored similar themes, from naked junkies of the 1980s, to ‘gawky adolescents’ of the 1990s (p.4), yet he was met with widespread criticism in response to his 2008 portraits (7.30 Report, 2008). Why did this happen? David Marr partially attributes this sudden moral panic to timing and more specifically, the conviction of New South Wales politician, Milton Orkopoulos, for ‘government protected paedophilia’ (2008, p. 8). The Orkopoulos conviction made headlines just days before the raid of the Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery, and with this in mind, there is no doubt that readers feared that Australia was becoming ‘soft on paedophilia’ (2008, p.3). Moreover, members of the public were left wondering how many individuals within the Labor Party were aware of Mr Orkopoulos’ actions and remained silent (ABC, 2008). It is in this context that Henson’s works were described as ‘strangely obsessive photos of pubescent teens’ by the Telegraph (cited in Marr, 2008, p. 131). Furthermore, as the Oxleys concluded, individuals with a specific political and moral agenda used the NSW police to achieve this and ‘make an example of Bill Henson and his work’ (cited in Marr, 2008, p.49).
Beyond the Orkopoulos case, Henson’s works were widely received by the public as condoning paedophilia and child exploitation. For this reason, it is also important to examine the potential implications of Henson’s work when evaluating the role of censorship. If Henson’s photographs could be analysed as art, separate from this controversy, it could be asserted that the photographs themselves are quite beautiful, almost ethereal, capturing the vulnerability of adolescence. Curator of the Art Gallery NSW, Judy Annear substantiates this, stating that ‘they’re very beautiful…very formal…very classical. They’re a bit like looking an ancient Greek Attic vase’ (cited in Sydney Morning Herald, 2008).
Henson described adolescence as a ‘bridge’ between childhood and adulthood, which represents ‘a certain disposition’ (7.30 Report, 2008). Photography is the medium Henson used to capture this transition but as curator Capon asserts, it is through the manipulation of images that he expresses idea and sentiment (as cited by ABC, 2008). Henson described the challenges that come with choosing photography as his vehicle for expression, saying: ‘people are accustomed to seeing a photograph as authoritative evidence, as proof of something’ (Art Gallery New South Wales, 2005). Furthermore, the use of this medium to explore adolescence, contributes to audiences’ preparedness to analyse Henson’s artistic intentions. In the realm of art making, photography is not commonly awarded the same artistic merit as traditional art forms such as painting or sculpture. Rather, it is seen by some as a vehicle merely capturing a moment, a truth, which does not require the same interpretation of ‘imbued meaning’ as traditional art forms (Moran and Tegano, 2005). This highlights the fact that an understanding of artistic intentions is necessary to differentiate Henson’s photos of naked minors from child pornography.
In defence of Henson’s critics, the artist’s intentions were never clearly defined. Despite having a fascination with adolescence as a transition towards adulthood, Henson has not made many statements about his choice of such young models, nor why they are naked or semi-naked. Henson claims to leave viewers to decide that for themselves. Henson supporter, Edmund Capon, argues that the works are ‘profoundly considered’ depictions of adolescence and the vulnerability of those on the ‘cusp of knowledge’ (Artscape, 2008). However, many of Henson’s critics do not examine or agree with such conceptual elements, instead focussing on the fact that the naked models are minors. As Marr points out, it is the celebration of pubescent breasts exemplified in the use of a full length shot of N, (as she is referred to by Marr), to promote the exhibition, that offends us most because they are considered taboo (2008, p.7). However, the important question to ask in this instance is, does an exploration of taboo itself have to be a taboo?
Henson aims to create works that are ‘intensely intimate, without being familiar’ (ABC, 2008). Perhaps this case of censorship is more a reflection of Australia’s lack of readiness to contemplate controversial ideas. Despite Henson’s reasonably undefined motives, Margetts argues that, in this instance, ‘artistic merit outweighs controversy’ (Lateline, 2008). However, without a statement of Henson’s conceptual interpretation, neither argument can be substantiated. This and more broadly, the value of censorship, can be further examined through the implications of the seizure of Henson’s artworks – for his later work and that of other artists.
Finally, it is important to consider the implications of the seizure of Henson’s work when assessing the value of art censorship. Marr describes this as one of the many consequences of the ‘total, immediate, savage condemnation of the works’ (ABC, 2008). Subsequently, the seized works that had been labelled by Kevin Rudd as ‘revolting and devoid of artistic merit’ (cited in Taylor, 2012) were then ‘returned to the gallery and given a PG [Parental Guidance] rating by the Australian Classification Board’ (Arts Hub, 2012). In response to the controversy surrounding Henson’s photographs the NSW government introduced changes to ‘its child pornography laws in 2010, removing the defence of artistic purposes’ (Taylor, 2012). Subsequently, it became compulsory for artists creating images of nude children to pay for the classification of their works (Taylor, 2012).
Furthermore, The Australian newspaper concluded that ‘the threat of criminal charges’ against Henson had been withdrawn, and the artist was free to display his artworks once again (cited in Marr, 2008, p. 131). This was exemplified by the simultaneous exhibition of Proof of Age at the Albury Art Gallery, a collection of three small black and white Henson nudes, ‘exploring the attitudes, culture and style of 21st century youth’ (Marr, 2008, p.57). Curator Jules Boag commented on the popularity of Henson’s artwork amongst young people (as cited in Marr, 2008). This highlights an important point: the voices of youths – the very group supposedly being ‘protected’ – were excluded from the controversy surrounding Henson’s work. More specifically, Henson’s models were not questioned about their involvement, or the way they felt about the sexualised images. It could be argued that in the moral panic of Henson’s work, his models, especially N, were further harmed and exploited through broad media coverage.
While child exploitation and pornography are not accepted in Australian culture in the 21st century, and the seizure of Henson’s works seemed necessary to some people, it would have been more effective to also ban the reproduction of such images on the internet and for publicity purposes. Today, six years after the Henson case, these images are readily available on the internet. With reference to such outcomes, it could be posited that art censorship is perhaps driven by public response and media, rather than the reverse. In this particular instance, the value of art censorship was intended to ‘protect’ the young models, however, the lack of implications and failure to listen to the young people’s opinions leads to the conclusion that it was in fact a ‘token’ raid – an attempt to be seen as taking a stand on child pornography and exploitation.
In essence, multiple factors contributed to the reception and interpretation of Henson’s artwork. Firstly, the public reception of Henson’s exhibition was shaped by its historical and social context. Secondly, it is difficult to evaluate the implications of Henson’s work without a statement of his artistic intention. Finally, after considering the consequences of the seizure of Henson’s pieces, it could be asserted that this was a ‘token’ act of art censorship. Overall, this examination of the Henson case exemplifies the importance of taking into account a number of perspectives when evaluating the artistic merit of controversial art.
References
Books: Marr, D. (2008) The Henson Case, The Text Publishing Company, Victoria.
Websites:
ABC (2008) Orkopoulos guilty on child sex drugs charges, news online, 14 March, accessed 15/4/13, available: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-03-14/orkopoulos-guilty-on-child-sex-drugs-charges/1072530
Arts Hub (2012) New Bill Henson Show as controversial as ever, accessed 15/4/13, available: http://au.artshub.com/au/news-article/news/arts/new-bill-henson-show-as-controversial-as-ever-191600
Bibby, P. (2008) ‘Henson exhibition shut down’, Sydney Morning Herald Online, May 23, accessed 15/4/13, available: http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/henson-exhibition-shut-down/2008/05/22/1211182997068.html
The Design Files (2012) Interview: Bill Henson, weblog post October 4, accessed 15/4/13, available: http://thedesignfiles.net/2012/10/interview-bill-henson/
Mitchell, T. (n.d.) ‘Unacceptable Censorship, or Confusing Adolescence with Childhood: Another Look at the Henson Case’, Macquarie University, Scan journal of media arts culture, accessed 15/4/13, available: http://scan.net.au/scan/journal/display.php?journal_id=160
Taylor, A. (2012) ‘Henson returns to the most provocative landscape of all’, Sydney Morning Herald: Entertainment Online, September 12, accessed 15/4/13, available: http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/henson-returns-to-the- most-provocative-landscape-of-all-20120912-25rrv.html
Documentaries
Artscape (2008) Obsessions: The art of Bill Henson, broadcast on ABC n.d.
Lateline (2008) Charges likely over Bill Henson exhibition, reported by Jayne Margetts, broadcast on ABC May 23, accessed 16/4/13, available: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s2254086.htm
7.30 Report (2008) Review: Bill Henson’s photographic work seized from galleries by police, broadcast on ABC 27 May, accessed 16/4/13, available: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s2257270.htm
The Vanguard 