open letter in support of bill henson
from creative australia 2020 summit representatives
AS MEMBERS OF THE CREATIVE STREAM OF THE AUSTRALIA 2020 SUMMIT, WE WISH TO EXPRESS OUR DISMAY AT THE POLICE RAID ON BILL HENSON’S RECENT SYDNEY EXHIBITION, THE ALLEGATIONS THAT HE IS A CHILD PORNOGRAPHER, AND THE SUBSEQUENT REPORTS THAT HE AND OTHERS MAY BE CHARGED WITH OBSCENITY.
The potential prosecution of one of our most respected artists is no way to build a Creative Australia, and does untold damage to our cultural reputation. The public debate prompted by the Henson exhibition is welcome and important. We need to discuss the ethics of art and the issues that it raises. That is one of the things art is for: it is valuable because it gives rise to such debate and difference, because it raises difficult, sometimes unanswerable, questions about who we are, as individuals and as members of society. However, this on-going discussion, which is crucial to the healthy functioning of our democracy, cannot take place in a court of law.
We invite the Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, and the NSW Premier, Mr Iemma, to rethink their public comments about Mr Henson’s work. We understand that they were made in the context of deep community concern about the sexual exploitation of children. We understand and respect also that they have every right to their personal opinions. However, as political leaders they are influential in forming public opinion, and we believe their words should be well considered.
We also call on the Minister for Environment Heritage and the Arts, Mr Garrett, to stand up for artists against a trend of encroaching censorship which has recently resulted in the closure of this and other exhibitions.
We wish to make absolutely clear that none of us endorses, in any way, the abuse of children. Mr Henson’s work has nothing to do with child pornography and, according to the judgment of some of the most respected curators and critics in the world, it is certainly art. We ask for the following points to be fairly considered:
1. Mr Henson is a highly distinguished artist. His work is held in all major Australian collections including the Art Gallery of NSW, Art Gallery of SA, Art Gallery of WA, National Gallery of Victoria and the National Gallery of Australia.
Among international collections, his work is held in the Solomon R Guggenheim Museum, New York; the Victoria and Albert Museum, London; San Francisco Museum of Modern Art; the Los Angeles County Museum of Art; the Denver Art Museum; the Houston Museum of Fine Art; 21C Museum, Louisville; the Montreal Museum of Fine Art; Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris; the DG Bank Collection in Frankfurt and the Sammlung Volpinum and the Museum Moderner Kunst, Vienna.
Major retrospectives of Mr Henson’s work at the Art Galleries of NSW and Victoria attracted more than 115,000 people, and produced not one complaint of obscenity. His work has also been studied widely in schools for many years.
2. Mr Henson has been photographing young models for more than 15 years. Until now, there has been no suggestion by any of his subjects or their families of any abusive practices. On the contrary, his models have strongly defended his practice and the feeling of safety generated in his process, and have expressed pride in his work.
We suggest that the media sensationalism and the criminalisation of laying charges against Mr Henson, his gallery and the parents of the young people depicted in his work, would be far more traumatic for the young people concerned than anything Mr Henson has done.
3. The work itself is not pornographic, even though it includes depictions of naked human beings. It is more justly seen in a tradition of the nude in art that stretches back to the ancient Greeks, and which includes painters such as Caravaggio and Michelangelo. Many of Henson’s controversial images are not in fact sexual at all. Others depict the sexuality of young people, but in ways that are fundamentally different from how naked bodies are depicted in pornography. The intention of the art is not to titillate or to gratify perverse sexual desires, but rather to make the viewer consider the fragility, beauty, mystery and inviolabilty of the human body.
In contrast, the defining essence of pornography is that it endorses, condones or encourages abusive sexual practice. We respectfully suggest that Henson’s work, even when it is disturbing, does nothing of the sort. I would personally argue that, in its respect for the autonomy of its subjects, the work is a counter-argument to the exploitation and commodification of young people in both commercial media and in pornographic images.
Many of us have children of our own. The sexual abuse and exploitation of children fills us all with abhorrence. But it is equally damaging to deny the obvious fact that adolescents are sexual beings. This very denial contributes to abusive behaviour, because it is part of the denial of the personhood of the young. In my opinion, Mr Henson’s work shows the delicacy of the transition from childhood to adulthood, its troubledness and its beauty, in ways which do not violate the essential innocence of his subjects. It can be confronting, but that does not mean that it is pornography.
Legal opinion is that if charges were laid against Mr Henson, he would be unlikely to be found guilty. The seizure of the photographs, and the possible prosecution of Mr Henson, the Rosyln Oxley9 Gallery or the parents of Henson’s subjects, takes up valuable police and court time that would be much better spent pursuing those who actually do abuse children.
4. Perhaps the most distressing aspect of the trial-by-media to which Mr Henson and his work has been subject over the past few days, is how his art has been diminished and corrupted. The allegations that he is making child pornography have done more to promote his work to possible paedophiles than any art gallery, where the work is seen in its proper, contemplative context. It is notable that the attacks on Mr Henson’s work have, almost without exception, come from those who are unfamiliar with the photographs, or who have seen them in mutilated or reduced images on the internet.
If an example is made of Bill Henson, one of Australia’s most prominent artists, it is hard to believe that those who have sought to bring these charges will stop with him. Rather, this action will encourage a repressive climate of hysterical condemnation, backed by the threat of prosecution.
We are already seeing troubling signs in the pre-emptive self-censorship of some galleries. This is not the hallmark of an open democracy nor of a decent and civilised society. We should remember that an important index of social freedom, in earlier times or in repressive regimes elsewhere in the world, is how artists and art are treated by the state.
We urge our political leaders to follow the example of NSW Premier Neville Wran, when in 1982 a similar outcry greeted paintings by Juan Davila. At that time, Mr Wran said: “I do not believe that art has anything to do with the vice squad”. With Mr Wran, we believe the proper place for debate is outside the courts of law.
Alison Croggon, Writer
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
For further information, please contact Alison Croggon
alisoncroggon@aapt.net.au
Signatories: Louise Adler, CEO & Publisher-in-Chief, Melbourne University Publishing, Geoffery Atherden, Writer, Neil Armfield, Artistic Director, Belvoir St Theatre [invited but could not attend the summit], Stephen Armstrong, Executive Producer, Malthouse Theatre, James Baker, tax advisor and accountant, Geraldine Barlow, Curator, Larissa Behrendt, Professor of Law, University of Technology Sydney, Cate Blanchett, actor, Daryl Buckley, musician, Leticia Cacares, theatre director, Karen Casey, visual artist, Kate Champion, choreographer, Artistic Director Force Majeure, Rachel Dixon, new media developer, Phoebe Dunn, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Commercial Galleries Association, Jo Dyer, Executive Producer, Sydney Theatre Company, Kristy Edmunds, Artistic Director, Melbourne International Festival of the Arts, Saul Eslake, economist, Richard Gill, Artistic Director, Victorian Opera, Peter Goldsworthy, writer, Marieke Hardy, writer and broadcaster, Sam Haren, Artistic Director, The Border Project, Frank Howarth, Cathy Hunt, creative consultant, Nicholas Jose, writer, Andrew Kay, producer, Ana Kokkinos, filmmaker, Sandra Levy, Matthew Lutton, theatre director, Nick Marchand, Artistic Director, Griffin Theatre, Sue Maslin, Producer, Film Art Doco Pty Ltd, Elizabeth Ann Macgregor, Director, Museum of Contemporary Art, Callum Morton, visual artist, Rosemary Myers, Artistic Director, Windmill Performing Arts, Rachel Healy, Director Performing Arts, Sydney Opera House, Liza Lim, composer, Jan Minchin, Director, Tolarno Galleries, Helen O’Neil, executive producer, Charles Parkinson, Artistic Director, Tasmanian Theatre Company, David Pledger, theatre director, Marion Potts, theatre director, Katrina Sedgwick, Festival Director, Adelaide Film Festival, Mary Vallentine, arts manager.
Additional signatories: the following support the appeal contained in this letter without necessarily endorsing the detailed argument: John Coetzee, novelist, Ramona Koval, writer and broadcaster, Julianne Schultz, writer.
RealTime issue #85 June-July 2008 pg.
