See newest post on Bill Henson here
I, like other Australians, PM included, can be somewhat prudish. When talking about Henson, i usually end up tongue tied because I do admire many of his photographs; his Paris Opera series, his crowds, even the portraits, I think they are magnificent. But his nude children are, well, nude children.
So, either he’s the pervert, an issues the art world have been tippy-toeing around for years, or he’s just using children for its very effective, media grabbing “shock value”.
Take away the chiaroscuro back lighting with it’s enigmatic night scene backgrounds, photoshoppers can easily compare his images with those found on porn-site (see my Photoshop example above).
Contemporary art tries furiously to push limits, create taboos—aiming for shocking, wrong, or ugly. Using girls on the brink of puberty was OK in the sixteenth century, but today it’s obscene,in legal terms, at least. Henson’s photographs have been pushing the limits of Australia’s taste for obscenity — and its child pornography laws — for years— While at the same time, he’s represented Australia at the 46th Venice Biennale, our National galleries, publish three photographic books… putting Australian art on the map.
So why now?
You suggest portrayal of girls on the brink of puberty, as a subject in Art, was only okay in the sixteenth century . . . . If you cared to do your homework, it was also okay in the seventeenth, and eighteenth, and nineteenth, and twentieth centuries.
The new wowserism is a very recent development that has resulted from media hysteria and the confusion between two entirely different things.
The models of Bill Henson were not abused, harmed or mistreated in any way, and likewise neither were those of Piloxi Papapetrou, Lisa Thomasetti, Sally Mann or so many other artists targetted by this campaign of ignorance.
The models and artists have every right to sue these fools for such blatant false accusation and innuendo.
Anyone anywhere can see, ogle, take pictures of nude children at any naturist camp so why go nuts over artistic pics like these? David Hamilton’s books were sold in every bookstore in Toronto back in the 70s and 80s. Have we moved backwards here? Art is art and I think anyone who is familiar with art can pretty much spot the difference between art and smut. I guess it depends on the colour of your neck and how far right of center you are.
Just because he takes photos of nude children doesn’t make him a pervert. I find his work to be very artistic.
I find it offensive that you suggest he’s just trying to be controversial. He’s not just trying to get publicity.
Here’s a third option for you: maybe it’s just nude art. I believe nude art should be allowed to portray models of any age. It’s not like he’s trying to get Playboy to publish his pictures.
People don’t care when babies are naked (or at least shirtless) in public; why is teenage nudity in art such a big deal?
Another thing – it’s ridiculous that the prime minister called the pictures “absolutely revolting.” He’s just another immature politician who can’t appreciate art, and takes everything at first glance.
no mate, your effort does not compare…could everyone stop focussing on the controversy, and just recognise the beauty of his work?
Hi Matt,
Thanks for your comment. I agree… his work is often deeply beautiful. I feel however that this does not retract the serious issues regarding his use of young, naked, and highly sexualised models.
Best,
Ilana
noveu sur la toille