Bill Henson Controversy: Art will no longer be an excuse for child exploitation.

Bill Henson Controversy Fuels Legal Action

Australia-- In the wake of the Bill Henson controversy laws regulating child nudity and art will be overhauled in New South Wales. If passed the new laws will prevent photographers and filmmakers from using “artistic purpose” as a legal defense for working with nude underage models. For those who don’t know, Bill Henson has been under media fire in Australia due to a controversial exhibit involving photographs of nude models as young as 12. The outrage was fueled further when it was revealed that a principal had given Henson an unauthorized tour of a school-- the artist visited the school in order to scout for potential models. Henson recently censored his own exhibit at a New York gallery in a step to keep the controversy from following him overseas.

The new legislation will include a new offence involving voyeurism and tougher laws that target teachers and other adults who abuse their position of authority over children. The legislation will also include a new offence to address the practice of meeting a child after exposing the child to indecent material for sexual purposes. That offense alone will carry a maximum sentence of ten years.

The swift change in rules regarding underage nude models and the breakdown of the “artistic purpose” defense was fueled due to public outcry over an exhibit of Henson’s work earlier this year. Law enforcement had been informed of the exhibit from upset individuals who received an invite by email from the gallery. The invite included a nude image of a 12 year old girl. Thirty-two images were seized from the gallery after police shut the exhibition down.

Bill Henson was not charged with any violations. In fact, the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions, Nicholas Cowdery, refused to prosecute the artist. The 32 seized images were declared non-pornographic. However, the ruling on Henson’s photographs opened the floodgates for the new laws and the termination of the “artistic purpose” defense due to concern that individuals with ill intentions would exploit the ruling in order to justify their otherwise illegal photographs and films. Under the proposed laws adults in a position of authority who are found guilty of indecent offences against children will be liable to a maximum sentence of 25 years in jail.

Links of Interest:

The Bill Henson Controversy: Art or Child Porn?

www.myartspace.com/blog/2008/10/bill-henson-controversy-art-or-child.html

Art Critic Benjamin Genocchio Makes Poor Choices About Controversial Photographer
www.myartspace.com/blog/2008/10/art-critic-benjamin-genocchio-makes.html

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Senior Editor

www.myartspace.com

Art Critic Benjamin Genocchio Makes Poor Choices About Controversial Photographer

Untitled #8 by Bill Henson

I have to disagree with the art critic Benjamin Genocchio concerning the Bill Henson controversy in Australia. In my opinion, Genocchio made some poor choices in his recent article about the steps that the photographer has taken in order to avoid a similar controversy at the Robert Miller Gallery in New York. The exhibit is Henson’s first exhibit since his troubles in Sydney. Apparently the artist has decided against showing some of his more graphic nude images of young teens. Instead, the Bill Henson exhibit at Robert Miller Gallery is set up more like a mini-retrospective displaying examples of his work from the last decade.

Benjamin Genocchio is apparently disappointed by Henson’s decision to censor himself. In the article he stated that Henson’s work exploring early teenage sexuality is not “all that controversial”. The art critic went on to say that teenage sexuality, “exists, get over it, let’s move on”. Apparently Mr. Genocchio is not aware that part of the Bill Henson controversy in Australia is connected to the fact that the photographer had toured, some have described it as “prowled”, a school in order to find potential models for his future work. The news of Henson’s visit to the school-- which was supervised by the former principal of the school-- outraged some parents and alarmed the Australian academic community. Not mentioning that aspect of the controversy was the first poor choice that Genocchio made in reporting about Henson.

In his article Genocchio mentioned a recent exhibit of Andres Serrano’s work at the gallery involving feces . I can only assume that the art critic mentioned Serrano’s work in order to defend the validity of Bill Henson’s practice and to project the idea that people should have been more outraged at the Serrano exhibit than Henson‘s current exhibit at the gallery. There is a difference that the art critic is missing that is at the root of this controversy. To put it bluntly, Serrano used his own feces-- he did not visit a school in order to observe fecal matter in student restrooms.

Genocchio then compared the recent Bill Henson controversy to the controversy that involved the late Robert Mapplethorpe’s photographs of graphic homosexual sex that had been exhibited at the Cincinnati Contemporary Arts Center in 1990, which resulted in an obscenity trial. Again, there is a difference that the art critic is missing. Mapplethorpe’s photographs did not involve touring schools without the knowledge of parents in order to discover potential models amongst children.

Henson has stated that if he observes a child of interest he will contact the parents of the child in order to ask permission to photograph the child nude. The artist has went on to say that some parents refuse while others are thrilled to see their children involved with his work. Perhaps Bill Henson should allow parents to contact him instead of visiting schools in search of potential models? Perhaps Bill Henson should reveal documentation that proves that he has had parental permission for every young nude model that he has photographed due to the information that has been exposed in Australia? Is it wrong for parents to allow their children to be photographed in the nude? Maybe. I’m sure these questions will continue to be debated as they should be.

I suppose the choice of being photographed by Henson is up to the children and their parents to decide. That is the key issue over this controversy-- choice. The parents who have children at that school should have been aware of Henson’s visit. They should have been allowed to make a choice about the issue. Bill Henson is a world renowned photographer, but that does not mean his practice is above concern nor does it mean that his practice is above the choice of parents in issues involving their children. Especially when one considers the times in which we live. In my opinion, Benjamin Genocchio made some bad choices in his article by not mentioning these issues.

For those who don’t know, Benjamin Genocchio is a former chief art critic for The Australian and is currently an art critic for the New York Times.

Benjamin Genocchio's article about Bill Henson:
Artist tries to avoid Big Apple controversy
[The Australian]

Links of Interest:
Henson publisher linked to school [The Australian]

Inquiry launched into Bill Henson school shock [Adelaide Now]

Ministers slam Henson [The Age]

Henson 'scouted school for child models' [The West Australian]

Anger at Henson's school patrols [The Australian]

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Senior Editor

www.myartspace.com

The Bill Henson Controversy: Art or Child Porn?

Untitled #8 by Bill Henson

Photographer Bill Henson has been criticized for his practice as of late. In May of this year his exhibition at the Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery in Sydney was closed after several individuals filed complaints with law enforcement due to the questionable nature of Henson's photographs depicting naked children. The complaints were filed due to an email the gallery had sent concerning an invite to a private viewing of Bill Henson's photographs at the gallery. The email contained a photographic image of a nude 12 year old girl which sparked the controversy. The gallery, with Henson’s approval, decided to cancel the opening of the exhibit due to being the focus of negative media attention and law enforcement involvement. During the process of the investigation a number of images from the exhibit were seized by police as potential examples of child pornography. The police also forced the gallery to remove specific graphic images of Henson’s work from their website.

Local authorities and child protection advocates had strived to charge the Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery and Bill Henson with ‘publishing an indecent article’ under the New South Wales Crimes Act and child protection legislation. However, in June of 2008 New South Wales and the Department of Public Prosecutions declined to file charges against the gallery or the artist. In fact, it was declared that the photographs of naked teenagers were “mild and justified” and were given a PG rating. It seemed the controversy was settled-- until now.

After months of shying away from publicity Bill Henson has decided to be vocal in defending his work and to speak out against accusations that his photographs are nothing more than child pornography since his work involves photographing naked children. Henson claims that the girl depicted in the Roslyn Oxley9 email invite supports the image along with her family. The mother of the 12-year-old girl at the center of the controversy has stated that the photographs had captured a "beautiful" moment. Henson went on to say that people can discover that he is a legitimate photographer by doing a Google search of his name and that he only regrets the public controversy that the image has caused. In a statement to Fairfax he stated that he has been doing similar work for over 30 years and made it clear that he was often in a position of asking parents whether they would allow their children to be photographed nude or not.

It has been suggested that Henson’s vocal defense of his work was spurred by recent information involving the investigation of his practice. Late last month it was revealed that Henson had visited a primary school in order to scout for models in 2007. Apparently the principle of the school had escorted Henson around the playground of the Melbourne school so that Henson could observe potential models in order to photograph them naked with parent consent. It has been suggested that it would be wise for Henson to allow parents to contact him directly about photographing their children nude instead of 'prowling' for talent at primary school playgrounds. Needless to say, this new information has angered parents who have since demanded action from their government.

The outraged parents have stated that Henson’s visit to the school was a betrayal of trust. The fury of anger has provoked a response from authorities against Henson and the principal. The principal of the school in question has since been reprimanded by officials for allowing Henson into the school and is now working at another location. Education Minister Julia Gillard stated that nobody should be allowed into schools without a legitimate purpose upon learning of Henson’s visit. Victorian Premier John Brumby announced an investigation into the fresh controversy and told Melbourne reporters that an individual walking through the school grounds in order to view children as potential nude models is “inappropriate”. Needless to say, the situation does not look good for Bill Henson and the validity of his work.

In recent years the charges against world renowned photographers who photograph nude children has reached a boiling point. In the eyes of child advocates the fact that an artist has exhibited in prestigious galleries and museums does not make photographs involving nude children anymore legitimate than child pornography. You may recall that in 2007 an exhibit of Nan Goldin’s photographs were seized from the collection of Sir Elton John due to similar charges that Bill Henson is now facing. Do these works walk a fine line between artistic freedom and exploitation?

What are your thoughts concerning photographs of nude children for the purpose of art? Are these works legitimate or should artists like Bill Henson be charged with crimes? Do parents, by giving consent for these images, violate the rights of their own children? Should the ability for parents to give consent in this manner be terminated? Should laws and penalties be in place in order to halt works of this nature from being exhibited in galleries and museums? Should museums lose government funding for supporting artists like Bill Henson? Should Henson have to provide information that proves parental consent for all of his known works involving nude children? Or is this controversy nothing more than censorship? What say you?

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
www.myartspace.com