I came across an interesting
article today about controversial Australian photographer Bill Henson, who was charged with art obscenity over a gallery series of nude children. Apparently Henson's gallery was seized for evidence, and the artist is hiding out somewhere.
I discussed the event
in detail on my web forum, and I wanted to share some of those thoughts. We talked about the eroticism of the images, the legalities of the case, and whether or not Henson should be considered a shock artist.
Personally, I think that the images
are intended to be semi-erotic. They draw a large part of their artistic merit through that eroticism. While I personally don't see the problem with putting them on display, I could understand a legal objection due to this concern. And Henson is clearly conscious of the uncertain nature of his work. He purposefully strides the line between innocence and sexuality:
quote:
'The object in my photographs is not always the subject,' Henson says and he challenges the audience to engage with the work in order to understand its true nature. He has said that he feels that he has succeeded if more questions are generated than answered, and believes the strongest criticism comes from those who are uncomfortable with not knowing the answers to the questions posed.
Pavement Magazine
quote:
Although Henson could not be reached for comment yesterday, he told the Herald this week he had chosen to work with children at the beginning of puberty because they were "half in childhood, half in the adult world" and this "creates a floating world of expectation and uncertainty". He told the Herald in 2006: "It's an impossibly oversimplified notion, this 'loss of innocence'. It's not like you cross a painted line on the floor; it's a progression."
Sydney Morning Herald
It is clear that he understands that his art as intentionally provocative, and he is primarily concerned with the audience reaction compared with the subject of his photograph. As any good artist, he attempts to elicit a response. He does so by bringing the low life to the high life, by romanticizing squalor. He keeps himself to the grey area, to the edges, in order to bring about the greatest response.
I don't think that this series is particularly egregious in this respect, but it is silly to ignore his connection to shock art. Henson is not as gruesome or extreme as the bloody anti-abortion shock art trotted out by some pro-lifers, but the power of his work stems from a similar source.
As per the legalities, it is hard to say. I am not familiar with Australian law, though it shares a common history with American and British law, but in a US court, I would wager the photographer would win out in summary judgment, mainly due to way his art was being displayed. If the images were on an anonymous website without the gallery context, he could easily be looking at jail time.
The Law Society of New South Wales has come out in support of Henson, and they defend him by saying that he only intended to create art, and that the state will have to prove intent before convicting him. I'm sure they'll file an amicus curiae, but I rather doubt that this is the extent of it. In US law, at least, an action's intent is only a small part of a case, regardless of how it is depicted in television dramas.
As in similar US cases, these proceedings will probably be heavily based on common law, and hence subject to interpretation. I'm not sure if Australia has an equivalent to the Roth or Miller tests. It is also important to note that child pornography statutes tend to be much more arbitrary than general pornography statutes.
For example, a strict minded US judge would be supported in the law for jailing Henson for depicting youngsters in lewd poses/conduct (even if they were fully clothed) - as well as every journalist that printed or possessed the images. This is regardless of the "serious value" of the image, or the work as a whole.
Of course, the judge would have to be pretty fire and brimstone to lay down that much smack down for images that are only semi-erotic. Still, I'll admit to some consternation prior to uploading the image at the head of this post, and I shied away from his more contentious photos.
But I wanted to applaud the courage of Fairfax's
The Age, which is the only newspaper I know of that has published uncensored versions of Henson's photos. Bloggers are already speaking of the journalistic coverage of this event in terms of Denmark's cartoon parodies of Islamic figures, and I think that it may become another marker stone in the debate over the freedom of the press.
