SBS Insight: The Naked Eye review
June 24, 2008 – 10:58 pm
When Bob Bain posted to the No Censorship mailing list that SBS would be airing a debate on the Bill Henson saga, I questioned whether their was anything left to add that print media hadn’t already covered. Bob reassured me that the people on the guest list could add more.
I feared it might turn out to be an hour of Hetty Johnston’s one trick pony objection to the Henson photographs, but put my trust in Jenny Brockie’s ability to never hold a one sided debate. I’m glad I tuned in.
The Guests
Hetty remained firmly grounded and didn’t sway from her previous criticisms of Bill Henson’s work. She called for the art industry to take responsibility and for a formal review system to be implemented to review and decide on artist’s intentions before they photograph children.
But like so many others who have called for censorship of a piece of artwork or film, Hetty too admitted she had not seen the Henson exhibit, nor did she have any desire to see it. As pointed out later in the show by another guest, not seeing the photographs in the exhibit means she cannot fully recognize or appreciate the context the photos were taken in.
Sandy Edwards spoke passionately about her experiences as an artist, as did Connie Petrillo, a Perth artist who faced charges in 1995 for taking naked photographs of her sons for coursework. She was found not guilty in two court battles. The relentless and unwarranted attack by authorities was evidently traumatising on her life and work.
Sandy found it unbelievable that a person could not take naked photographs in the right context.
Two former models also spoke of their experiences, neither regretting their decision. A number of other teenagers commented that they didn’t find the Henson images, or other images shown offensive. One (not a model) also commented that being the same age as the Henson model, she felt she would quite capable of making an informed decision and would say no.
David Marr believes many opponents of Henson’s work are trying to create a new taboo, which they believe is useful in fight against those who commit crimes against children.
Stephen Smallbone, a criminologist from Griffith University pointed out their was some belief that photographs like Henson’s may cause people to abuse children, but said that the assumption is not borne out by the evidence.
Adam Leek, a former police officer and now a gallery owner said the police failed to use discretion when dealing with the Henson case. He said the action taken was not needed.
Michael Bianchino got a laugh from the crowd when he explained his experience photographing his daughters netball team. He says the Henson incident has made sports clubs paranoid about photography at events.
Lindy Allan, Director of Regional Arts in Victoria, wasn’t opposed to the work of artists like Connie Petrillo, but found Henson’s ‘constructed vision’ disturbing. Vivian Gaston expressed concern over the model’s ability to give consent.
As per usual (and I’m not trying to be humorous or nasty),? Angela Conway from the Australian Family Association added nothing of value to the debate. She only further verified that her organisation gets way too much undeserved recognition.
The Internet did get a cop a minor flogging (it declined to appear on the show), but David Marr spoke in its defense. He pointed out we can’t limit what we do in the real world because of fears it will be misused in the cyber world.
The Result
All in all it was a decent episode, with a few top class moments. Such as the Unidentified woman yelling at Hetty - ‘You act as a moral guardian for the whole community!’
I wonder what value Hetty’s checks and balances plan offers artists and children. If the aim is stop a crime being committed, it’s a bit like asking a bank robber to get permission before he commits a robbery. Real artists are the only ones who are penalised with this sort of scheme, as real child abusers go on as normal. That doesn’t protect children, nor will it protect unwarranted public crucifixions of other artists in the future.
If one things for sure, Hetty remains firm and will continue to fight. She admitted if she was writing legislation, she’d make what Henson did illegal.
You can now watch the episode online at the SBS website. My recap was based on the old pen and paper method while watching the tele so I apologise for any errors. Update: Transcript here.


6 Responses to “SBS Insight: The Naked Eye review”
David Marr made a really good point about people like Hetty having “paedophile glasses” on. It’s really true. They’re actively looking for stuff which paedophiles may get off on. Anything. Where as any normal person would see a child with no clothes on, these people see paedophile wank fodder, and says a lot more about them and their mindset than the photographers. It’s kind of creepy that they see this stuff in these photographs. I dunno, maybe I’m a bit naive or innocent, but I can’t see what they see.
Hetty did try to explain what she actually wanted in terms of children and photographers, but it was really garbled and made little sense to me. I really didn’t know what she wanted, except to ban those photos. And that’s not going to happen because they’ve been rated G and PG. She was blabbing on out about the other photos weren’t rated, but I thought that the topless girl was the “worst” of them and was rated PG in it’s uncensored form. She seemed to be saying it was the censored photo that appeared in papers that was rated by the OFLC.
By Matthew on Jun 25, 2008
Hey Matthew.
Yeah, and as I think Marr also pointed out… these types of criminals can find anything desirable. Feet for example. Where do you stop banning.
If I recall correctly, Hetty said she believed the OFLC had only classified 6 images. That included some of the photographs the media used and also the one that appeared on the invite (which was the main concern).
I believe Hetty wants the law changed so those photos would be banned.
- Mike
By Mike on Jun 25, 2008
From the discussion:-
” I’ve got photos of my children naked too ”
Hetty Johnston
a few questions
Who took these photographs?
Why were photographs of the naked children of Hetty Johnston taken?
Who said it was morally correct for a person to take photographs of Hetty’s naked children?
( This was Hetty’s response to a person in Perth who was prosecuted for simply pressing the button to take photographs of her naked children - which weren’t intended for display. The police were alerted because instead of chosing to process the images herself the photographer outsourced the processing to someone else - who it seems dobbed her in )
Why hasn’t the person who took the photographs of Hetty Johnston’s naked children been prosecuted in a similar manner ?
It must be admitted that it was not deemed a criminal offence in Western Australia but I believe Queensland is morally upright in matters such as this.
Following her admisssion that she has photographs of naked children alleged to be hers are there grounds for a police investigation into the behaviour of those associated with the taking of those photographs ?
BTW: I was informed yesterday that this isn’t the first time the oxley9 gallery has been raided by the police. I don’t have details of these alleged police raids ( assuming my source is correct ) but I might get some insight over the weekend.
Bob
By Bob Bain on Jun 25, 2008
Henson has a ‘Silence of the Lambs’ thing going, pedophiles generally get off to that kind of gothic corpse photography, everybody needs an artist.
The objective of the pedophile movement is that we all become pro-pedophiles,
In Britain, in just three years detectives have identified almost 14 millions child pornography downloads across a small range of images.
Since October 2004, in just one peer-to-peer network, undercover officers have been offered child pornography at least 1.2 million times in the UK.
For Glasgow, the three-year figure was 10,991 and for Edinburgh the figure was 9875.
Between 2005-7 officers detected 97,900 offenders in the UK using unique serial numbers.
For Glasgow, the figure was 1056 and for Edinburgh, it was 707.
So 300,000 would be a ball-park figure for Australia, assuming of coure that you simply don’t rate the problem PG.
By Tazia on Jun 26, 2008
And censorship of artists or the Internet will help us protect those children how, Tazia?
By Mike on Jun 26, 2008
Since when were paedophiles into “gothic corpse photography” Tazia? Are you getting paedophilia mixed up with necrophilia? Also I don’t know what the facts and figures you’ve brought up have anything to do with Henson’s work or other artists who use children in their work.
Personally I don’t think Henson’s stuff all that great artistically, and I must admit the image of the girl was a little confronting by itself, but put in to context with the other photographs in the series, it does give it a different, maybe darker meaning (maybe I’m reading too much into the shots of the Vatican and the catacombs in the series), but it has nothing to do with paedophilia. It’s not sexual at all to me, but rather the pictures feel dark and brooding.
By Matthew on Jun 27, 2008