I've written twice previously about the Bill Henson art exhibition that featured photographs of a naked 13 year-old-girl. For overseas readers, this led to much public comment and polarised views on the merits or wrong-doing of his work. Police charges against the artist and gallery followed (Part 1 and Part 2), but recently the charges were droppped. This seems to have encouraged an art magazine to test the boundaries of public acceptability by publishing a photo of a naked 6 year-old on the front cover. The action seems to have been calculated and has sought to promote the view that use of naked photos of children is a legitimate art form.
The picture, taken in 2003 by Melbourne photographer Polixeni Papapetrou of her daughter Olympia appeared on the cover of this month's Art Monthly Australia. The edition also has other photos of naked children. The Age art critic Robert Nelson, reports that "Papapetrou's husband and father of Olympia, now 11, said the family had no regrets and the photograph was a great work of art."
I find it incomprehensible that in a civilised society that there are so many people willing to defend the action of a mother who has photographed her 6 year-old daughter naked in varied unnatural poses and has then shared them with the world. The child's father (an art critic) has supported the publication of the photos in the magazine, and has allowed the girl (now 11 years) to front the media cameras to argue the case for such artistic photos.
While the photos might well be seen by some as art, many see it as a case of child exploitation and perhaps abuse. I am saddened and at the same time outraged by the recent developments and would urge public condemnation and government action to tighten laws in this area.
The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) has pulled together a collection of recent media reports and information without making any comment. These provide further background and viewpoints.
Monday, 7 July 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
I have just removed an anonymous comment from this post. The comment included a YouTube video clip on Henson's work that was a neutral explanation of his work. I have removed it because the clip contained images that were similar to many of the type of images that have been criticized and which I don't believe are in any way edifying. In many ways the video simply illustrated the point that many of Henson's critics have been trying to make. The major concern is not with the art, the concern is with the way he is representing young boys and girls. Art Monthly Australia has also missed this point.
I'd like to present four simple ideas:
1. Photographs of naked children are not always inappropriate. A photo of a naked new born, or a photo of a naked child from an indigenous tribe in the pages of National Geographic, are hardly expected to stir public outrage, whilst other photos, perhaps even more modest in their content, may be considered abhorrent. We need to apply discretion. We need to think carefully about context, intent, and affect, and judge each case according to its merits.
2. Life is complex. It would certainly be easier if we could always embrace a black-and-white perspective on matters of controversy; yet this approach would neither be fair nor helpful, for most topics of debate are considerably more "grey" than we are willing to admit, and a one-size fits all ruling seldom applies. This is in fact a key aim of art; to encourage us to recognise the rich complexity of life. Simple rules like: child nudity == bad, are about as helpful as saying all foreigners == bad, or all women == chatterboxes.
3. We may not all like to look at photos such as those taken by Henson, or the image on the cover of Art Monthly, but to suggest these images are exploitative or abusive is quite another matter. If we are to raise alarms of concern we should be prepared to offer substantive evidence to back up our accusations, for to suggest a photo is indicative of abuse, is to suggest the child has been abused, and the parent (directly on indirectly) has abused the child. To even proffer such ideas without reasonable appeal to evidence is scandalous and defamatory. I suspect few of us know very much at all about the photo of the 6 year old girl on the cover of Art Monthly. I am certain that very few know enough to label the photo as an example of child abuse.
4. We need to be careful not to mistake "what we like" for "what is right", and conversely, "what we don't like" for "what is wrong". It's very easy to hit the off button or to turn the other way when confronted with images we'd prefer not to see. More drastic action is typically not required. There is much to lament in our society, much that we should seek to change, but we should distinguish between seeking change aimed at improving the safety and happiness of others, and seeking change because we like the idea of a world consistent with our own preferences.
Thanks for your comment Hinch. While I don't agree with you I appreciate the way you've argued your 4 points. I have never claimed that all nudity in art is wrong and in fact accept that it has it's place in art and natural history. However, I stand by my view that the way these images of young children have been used is inappropriate. I have been careful not to make judgements about the artists and parents, and have not questioned their artistic ability. As for evidence we don't need to look any further than the images themselves. They are photographs of young children in poses unnatural for their ages.
Hi Trevor. A point of clarification: when you say "they are photographs of young children in poses unnatural for their ages" i am assuming that your contention is not that the poses are unnatural per se, but rather that they are purposely sexual? For what parent isn't guilty of foisting their children into unnatural and often embarrassing poses for the dreaded family photo or early childhood portrait? Photos of young children dressed in their sunday best, complete with big fake smiles, are certainly common, but for kids that just want to fight with their siblings and play in the dirt, such photos are anything but natural. A great deal of what we do, and what parents encourage their children to do, is unnatural, and designed for affect, but this artificiality doesn't automatically make it wrong.
As i indicated in my first comment, a primary motive of art is to encourage us to look at the world through fresh eyes, to ignite discussions such as this, in the hope that in contemplating the richness of life, we may challenge our preconceived notions of the world and our place in it. That is why art is often edgy and confrontational, and why photos such as those by Henson, are so powerful. I respect the right of each person to draw lines in the sand marking boundaries of respectability and decency; however, that respect is lost the moment i seek to enforce my own boundaries on other people. We have an obligation to ensure that the vulnerable in our communities are not abused, but when at least one girl photographed by Henson, and the girl on the cover of Art Monthly, have both come forward, years after the events, and openly stated their approval of the photographs that were taken (and the methods used take them), we have to ask the question: are people speaking out against these photos because they are concerned for the welfare of the children, or are they motivated by the desire to create a world consistent with their own preferences?
Thanks for the exchange. Hinch.
Hi Hinch. Thanks for the additional comments. You seem to accept the argument of relativists that how we interpret anything is very personal and subjective. You also seem to equate the act of taking daggy photos of one's kids in their best clothes, as equally unnatural to the taking of the types of photographs that Henson and others have taken and displayed of naked children. I don't accept this. There is a big difference between the two acts. Nor do I accept that the approval of the children some years later, and their testimonies that the photographers did nothing wrong, overcomes my concerns. Nor do I accept as you suggest, that I am simply seeking to impose my "own preferences". For me, this is not about "respectability and decency" as you put it (although some might argue this point quite legitimately). As a Christian I'm clear that I can't simply impose the morality and values of 5% of the population on the rest. However, neither should the arts community, that has closed ranks around Henson, think that it can do the same. In any civil society we need to debate values in terms of the common good. As a citizen, father, grandfather and academic interested in child development, I find much to concern me in this matter. It is clear that Henson is exploring 'real' issues. There is a blurry line between childhood and adulthood. There is power in the use of one's sexuality, that children often discover as they pass through puberty. Sadly, our society is forcing children to think about their sexuality at a much younger age. Those with some authority for children, such as parents, teachers and police, are vital people who exercise power and control over children as they negotiate this at times difficult period.They help them to make life choices. When children are very young, parents make the choices for them and try to justify these choices in ways that the child can understand. The child of course may choose to rebel against these choices; this is the challenge of parenting. Can a child be left to make a choice about posing naked at age 5? I think not. Should we use a child's testimony at age 11 that it was okay by her, to justify the use of images of her when she was 5? I think not. Should parents be free to do whatever they like? No. That's where the law comes in, and where all citizens including gallery owners, editors, media writers, have personal and shared responsibility. Finally, the use of the latest images by Art Monthly has been quite deliberate. Power has been exercised here over the child through the use of the images. A question to ponder. Whose purposes have been served most by the use of the images? We need also to ask the same question of the original Henson photographs.
Post a Comment