Bill Henson 'controversy' - uninformed loudmouths!
Censorship! Restrictions on the arts! Some misguided and ill-informed people are making a lot of noise that could have long term consequences for the arts and artistic freedom in Australia, and I am not happy about it.
In this era of pedophiliac church leaders and hypocritical politicians some of our society has become just a little too zealous in their fear of anything outside their own beliefs!
You probably know that Australian photographic artist Bill Henson has been very prominent in national news in this country, for the confiscation by New South Wales Police of several of his photographs from Sydney fine art gallery Roslyn Oxley 9, in Paddington.
I haven't seen the photographs. And I suspect that most people complaining about them haven't seen the photos either and that's a problem.
Henson is an internationally famous artist. He is not a pornographer.
Someone called the police to complain that a photograph (perhaps the one on the exhibition invitation) was pornographic as it showed a nude child. The police investigated and confiscated several photographs, causing the gallery to cancel the exhibition that was to open on May 23rd.
I am not surprised, however I am very disappointed, with what are demonstrably uninformed comments by many people calling the artworks 'pornographic' and that they should be banned, and that the gallery owners and the artist should be punished. I'm not even surprised to read that Roslyn Oxley's husband said they had received several death threats because of the photos.
Have these people seen the photos? Do they know what pornography is? Do they know the difference between nudity and pornography? Most likely no in all cases.
Kevin Rudd, our newly elected Prime Minister, the great new hope for this country, called the photographs 'absolutely revolting.' His personal opinion.
A photo from the exhibition has been published in a newspaper, with the girl's eyes covered for anonymity, and her bare breasts covered for decency (nudity has its place - child nudity is not frequently shown in the national press).
The girl's pose is not different from the poses of paintings, photographs, and sculptures by the world's greatest artists. It is not pornographic.
I have been to Roslyn Oxley 9 gallery in Sydney. It is not some seedy backlane 'adult' bookshop. Roslyn Oxley 9 gallery shows fine art by Australia's most respected artists.
Just to check my facts, I queried the Merriam-Webster online dictionary for a definition of 'pornography':
"...Etymology: Greek pornographos adjective, writing about prostitutes...
1: the depiction of erotic behaviour (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2: material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behaviour and is intended to cause sexual excitement
3: the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction the pornography of violence"
From what I saw in that photo, by the above definition there is nothing pornographic about it. It is just nudity.
Perhaps the person complaining confused nudity with pornography? But they are such very different things.
On the positive, the public support of Bill Henson and the gallery has been widespread - Malcolm Turnbull, the Shadow Treasurer, has spoken in support of him and Mr Turnbull apparently owns two photographs by Henson. Prominent artists, and writers are speaking out in support of Henson and the gallery and condemning the police for their action. In this weekend's The Weekend Australian Financial Review, on page 27, there is a full page article about this issue, quoting playwright David Williamson:
'No one in their right senses would condone child pornography or the exploitation of underaged people. But there has to be a descrimination beween sordid child pornography and the sort of art that Henson creates. The two are poles apart. Anyone who can't see that is a big worry, especially if they're the leader of the country.'
To call these works pornographic is incorrect and very misleading. Those who are doing so should be ashamed.
If you feel like I do that Kevin Rudd's comments about the Bill Henson photographs are inappropriate you can write to him at: The Hon Kevin Rudd MP, Prime Minister, PO Box 6022, House of Representatives, Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600.
Old Midnight Oil rocker; now Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Peter Garrett, might be interested in how we feel as well: The Hon Peter Garrett AM, MP, at the same address.
I write this as a parent of two teenaged daughters, as a former board member of an all girls school, and as an artist. The wellbeing of children is forefront in my mind. Henson's work is not pornography.
In this era of pedophiliac church leaders and hypocritical politicians some of our society has become just a little too zealous in their fear of anything outside their own beliefs!
You probably know that Australian photographic artist Bill Henson has been very prominent in national news in this country, for the confiscation by New South Wales Police of several of his photographs from Sydney fine art gallery Roslyn Oxley 9, in Paddington.
I haven't seen the photographs. And I suspect that most people complaining about them haven't seen the photos either and that's a problem.
Henson is an internationally famous artist. He is not a pornographer.
Someone called the police to complain that a photograph (perhaps the one on the exhibition invitation) was pornographic as it showed a nude child. The police investigated and confiscated several photographs, causing the gallery to cancel the exhibition that was to open on May 23rd.
I am not surprised, however I am very disappointed, with what are demonstrably uninformed comments by many people calling the artworks 'pornographic' and that they should be banned, and that the gallery owners and the artist should be punished. I'm not even surprised to read that Roslyn Oxley's husband said they had received several death threats because of the photos.
Have these people seen the photos? Do they know what pornography is? Do they know the difference between nudity and pornography? Most likely no in all cases.
Kevin Rudd, our newly elected Prime Minister, the great new hope for this country, called the photographs 'absolutely revolting.' His personal opinion.
A photo from the exhibition has been published in a newspaper, with the girl's eyes covered for anonymity, and her bare breasts covered for decency (nudity has its place - child nudity is not frequently shown in the national press).
The girl's pose is not different from the poses of paintings, photographs, and sculptures by the world's greatest artists. It is not pornographic.
I have been to Roslyn Oxley 9 gallery in Sydney. It is not some seedy backlane 'adult' bookshop. Roslyn Oxley 9 gallery shows fine art by Australia's most respected artists.
Just to check my facts, I queried the Merriam-Webster online dictionary for a definition of 'pornography':
"...Etymology: Greek pornographos adjective, writing about prostitutes...
1: the depiction of erotic behaviour (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2: material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behaviour and is intended to cause sexual excitement
3: the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction the pornography of violence"
From what I saw in that photo, by the above definition there is nothing pornographic about it. It is just nudity.
Perhaps the person complaining confused nudity with pornography? But they are such very different things.
On the positive, the public support of Bill Henson and the gallery has been widespread - Malcolm Turnbull, the Shadow Treasurer, has spoken in support of him and Mr Turnbull apparently owns two photographs by Henson. Prominent artists, and writers are speaking out in support of Henson and the gallery and condemning the police for their action. In this weekend's The Weekend Australian Financial Review, on page 27, there is a full page article about this issue, quoting playwright David Williamson:
'No one in their right senses would condone child pornography or the exploitation of underaged people. But there has to be a descrimination beween sordid child pornography and the sort of art that Henson creates. The two are poles apart. Anyone who can't see that is a big worry, especially if they're the leader of the country.'
To call these works pornographic is incorrect and very misleading. Those who are doing so should be ashamed.
If you feel like I do that Kevin Rudd's comments about the Bill Henson photographs are inappropriate you can write to him at: The Hon Kevin Rudd MP, Prime Minister, PO Box 6022, House of Representatives, Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600.
Old Midnight Oil rocker; now Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Peter Garrett, might be interested in how we feel as well: The Hon Peter Garrett AM, MP, at the same address.
I write this as a parent of two teenaged daughters, as a former board member of an all girls school, and as an artist. The wellbeing of children is forefront in my mind. Henson's work is not pornography.
Labels: Henson art censorship
posted by Rick's Rambles at 9:02 am
1 Comments:
very true,
I'm a current year 12 student in Sydney who is studying art and i was given a research (case study) task about artists who use the human form as subject matter. I have decided to use Henson as one of those studied and totally agree with your opinions on the matter. I'm also quite sure Henson doesnt create images for personal pleasure or to condone child pornography as art and porn are completly opposite.
Post a Comment
<< Home