I don’t need to fill you in on today’s events involving artist Bill Henson. I have little to add to the debate that hasn’t already been said and Peter Craven, the founding editor of Quarterly Essay, puts it much more eloquently than I ever could anyway.
All I ask is when did nudity automatically become sexual? Isn’t it we as individuals who decide whether we find a naked image sexual, irrespective of whether we find it appealing. Even the OFLC’s classification guidelines stipulate nudity can exist outside of a sexual context, so surely the two don’t go hand in hand.
Police say the artwork was of a sexual context, but for anyone whose seen the photos in today’s major newspapers (which they so eagerly ran), the shots portray little about sex. If you discount everything artistic that Henson brings to the table, the nudity in these photographs is equal to that seen in medical text books. It’s the adult perspective which has sexualised the photographs in this case. Not the photographer or subject.
In other Australian art censorship news (as if one case wasn’t bad enough)…
Melbourne City Council has rejected a painting by Kevin Rudd’s nephew, Van Thanh Rudd, which depicts Ronald McDonald carrying the Olympic torch past a burning monk (Van Thanh and the painting pictured below).
Van Thanh was invited to submit his work for the Council’s Ho Chi Minh City exhibition, but event organisers didn’t approve (Controversial, Oh My!).
Michelle Grattan for The Age writes:
He said the monk in the painting, which is oil and acrylic on canvas, referred to the self-immolation of Buddhist monk Thich Quang Duc in 1963 in Saigon. The McDonald’s image was “commenting on the fact that I believe the global economy is a direct hurdle to a lot of the good peace processes to deal with human rights abuses“, including in Tibet. He said he did not discount China’s obvious atrocities. “But the overwhelming historical thing is going back to American colonialism in Asia and globally.”
Blogger Mark Lawrence adds:
What I can’t help but wonder, though, is how on earth the Council assumed that Van Thanh Rudd’s work would not be political, when his whole reputation as an ‘activist artist’ and his previous works speak for itself.
..
It makes me sick that arts administrators, grant bodies, publishers and others still expect artists and writers of Asian descent to churn out such material for their own cultural expectations and market demands.
A few weeks back Melbourne Council also went nutters over a photograph of a naked man.
So don’t delay. Maybe it’s time you got banned: eHow’s Guide to Creating a Work of Censored Art
9 comments
Ash says:
May 24, 2008
Panicking munchkin: you miss the point.
Photos of those over 18 with the ability to properly consent: Fine. Do as you and they want.
Photos of those UNDER 18 who legally DON’T have the ability to consent: Don’t. Get permission, and don’t take the photos. And think about it. Would you let your child have such photos taken? I wouldn’t.
Wait until you are 18. If they want the photos so bad, they can wait.
Valter says:
May 24, 2008
When I heard about police turning up at this exhibition and the possibility of charges being laid, I thought I had gone too sleep and woken in the 1950′s.
Has our society gone mad with the obsession about censorship, or is it just a big cycle that happens every 50 years or so?
Mike says:
May 24, 2008
@ash: I do believe there should be an investigation by police because of the age of the subjects. I stated that in numerous places yesterday, but didn’t feel it needed to be said in my blog post above (as I was not advocating Henson’s work).
The objective of my post was to point out that Henson’s artwork had been packaged by the media as pornography, when clearly it was not. They were simply images containing nudity, and nudity can exist without being considered sexual, obscene, offensive etc etc.
Even the NSW police are only suggesting an indecent article charge, not one of CP.
Is Bill’s art any different to the nakedness displayed in nappy commercials? After all, a parent consented to that.
@Valter I think it’s just big cases like these get noticed more than the little ones that happen weekly.
hello.com.au » The blogosphere reacts to Bill Henson says:
May 24, 2008
[...] until further notice, More Art Censorship, Bill Henson photography exhibit – a tangent, P.S., When nudity equals sex and art equals pornography, In the name of Art, Another uproar in the art world, But is it art?, Censorship, My 2c on the Bill [...]
Russell Blackford says:
May 26, 2008
A 13-y.o., say, is quite capable of consenting. Indeed, he or she would be able to consent to medical procedures, which are a lot more invasive than photographs. We may not let her consent to actual sex – pregnancy would be disastrous at that age, and so would fatherhood. We may also have very good reasons in public policy not to let young people of that age consent to take part in actual pornography. But there’s a huge difference between consenting to something that puts you at risk of becoming a parent – at one extreme – and consenting to be photographed in a non-pornographic portrait at the other.
Personally, I hope that reason prevails soon.
I don’t think the other case is at all comparable. No artist has any right to expect that work that he submits to an exhibition will be accepted. Being turned down by an exhibition – for good reasons, bad reasons, or even at the curator’s whim – leaves you with your good name and the freedom to market your work elsewhere. It’s very different from being punished and stigmatised as a criminal and having your work impounded by the police.
That’s not to defend the Council’s choice, but it’s a different sort of issue.
Russell Blackfords last blog post..Scandalous mischief
Mike says:
May 28, 2008
@Russell: You’re right, the case involving Rudd’s nephew is very different. Nevertheless, on the same day that Mr Rudd called Henson’s works revolting, it was interesting to see one of his own relations also in the media in regards to what was considered an inappropriate work of art. I don’t believe PM Rudd commented on that?
Melbourne City Council to pre-approve artwork, keep sex mild - Somebody Think Of The Children says:
Aug 27, 2008
[...] a role for itself as a censor, but recent events like the Henson and Olympia Nelson cases, the Van Thanh Rudd rejection and pictures of a naked man near Flinders St Station looks to have them worried. Van Thanh was [...]
Dean says:
Dec 16, 2008
personally i do not see much of anything wrong with children in art, nude or not, people these days are way to private, and no longer close to there children, i belive this is why children are acting out the way they do. if you talk with a nudist family, who have children, i belive you will find that there children are very well behaved, and understanding, and do not find anything wrong, or perverse about nudity, or nudity in art. i belive that we should be more open with are children. if you think i am wrong, then that is your choice. i think what i think, and that is good enough for me.
David says:
Aug 4, 2011
In my view, the Henson case is really a big deal over nothing. I mean, if he were making and wanting to exhibit real child porn (as in sexual acts, lewd postures or the like), yes, bust him like heck. However, I feel that as long as he obtained the parents’ consent and showed proof he was an artist (not a kidnapper or something), there is nothing wrong with him exhibiting art of merely nude children. The naturist/nudist lifestyle includes families with children all the time and many naturist magazines depict whole nude families with kids. Most parents, naturist or not, take pictures of their little kids in the bath. The fact that some people view all nudity, without exception, as sexual or pornographic is sad and I cannot help but feel such people do not have an open, understanding mind. We are the only clothed beings on the planet, after all. The human body is, in itself, a work of art, by God, regardless of age. Why censor God’s art? What’s going to happen next? Are we going to ban ultrasounds because somebody thinks they’re child porn?
One more thought: if he WERE using children for pornography, do you really think he would display his pictures in an art gallery, under his legal name, showing the whole world he was a pedophile? I think not.