When in Reader’s Feast a few weeks back, I noticed that the second best selling non-fiction book was David Marr’s “The Henson Case”. It looked a short read, and even had some photos within (something I hadn’t seen properly in the papers), so I was interested.
The book is about an event that occurred earlier this year, where an Australian photographer became the focus of a barrage of hate / criticism by the press, the Prime Minister, and many concerned parents over his public exhibition of photos of nude children aged 12 and 13.
Because of the heated emotions flying around, I was loath to publically voice my opinion at the time, and to be honest I don’t think I had properly formed one anyway. Everytime I took one angle on it, I could see the opposing argument. A guy at work literally said to me that he wanted to blow up the guy’s studio, so it wasn’t a time to be spouting off things when what was needed was some time and distance.
I appreciated the fact the Marr, whilst clearly supporting Henson in this book, didn’t take any cheap shots and tried to present some balenced arguments. I seem to have it in my mind that he hasn’t always been that way.
My main thought from the very start was something that Marr wrote about: A nude body (at any age) is not pornographic. I don’t know why this is so hard for people to accept.
Marr made very interesting comments about the guidelines that Classification Boards use to determine ratings for explicit material (they rated these pictures a “G” for general audiences) – apparently it’s about the context of the nakedness and the style of pose that can make a difference here. Because all the Henson shots were solitary figures in modest, dignified positions, no one in the art or censorship fields batted an eyelid.
Kim and I have talked about the pictures. She finds them a bit creepy, but I don’t see that so much. For me they are beautifully lit and a gorgeous celebration of a child becoming an adult.
What’s so interesting about this issue is that it doesn’t split people down the normal “liberal vs. conservative” lines. Plenty of open minded folk think Henson has gone too far, and don’t see why an artist (even one as apparently world famous as Henson is) shouldn’t be subject to the same laws as Joe Blow – who if caught at work with photos like this on his hard drive, might even lose his job over it.
Others wondered what parents in their right mind would consent to having their wards publically displayed like this, even if the children were made aware of the possible consquences. Some people thought the parents should be charged for such gross neglect of their responsibilities.
Lastly, and something that surprised me, was the argument that condoning the artwork encouraged and pandered to paedophiles. Counter arguments here suggested that this sort of material is very different from the kind found to be of interest to real-life paedophiles, and that this argument, taken to its logical conclusion would ban photography of clothed kids in all public places.
I really enjoyed the book and some of the discussions within. Lots of things to think about. 4 stars.
I completely missed this entire thing so your post is news to me.
Doesn’t the fact that the public reaction is so varied lend credence to the idea that it is art since the appreciation of art is subjective?
I hadn’t thought of it like that, but you could say that the appreciation of porn is also subjective so it doesn’t help you determine one from the other. But yeah, the often heard “Art is meant to provoke” line was also used, but it didn’t seem to satisfy the agrieved party this time around.
Another point made was that we humans (being higher creatures!) are capable of fetishising just about anything. Because someone gets a creepy thrill out of a child’s foot for example, are we to legislate against public photos of them?
I would have to agree with the parent neglegent thing. One could argue that the body of a child and that same body as an adult will look totally different nude, so it isn’t like they will be humiliated later on in life. But I think the implications of publically showing your body is something that no child can fully understand or make a rational decision on. And the decision should be their own, not their parents.
I wouldn’t get raging mad about it, but I wouldn’t support it. I appreciate art, but if there is exploitation, it ceases to be art in my eyes.
I prefer the idea that it is we who sexualise various things and that these things in and of themselves are not sexual at all. Which is what Darren said… I just like saying it again.
I love your responses guys. I would like to send you copies of the (thin) book. If you email me privately your addresses, I’ll ship something soon. A Christmas present of sorts.
There is a huge difference between sexuality and humility. Both of which are completely foreign to a young child.
I would love the book, Darren. Kim should have my address in her PMs still. If not, I can resend.
I’ve sent you both copies for Christmas. Enjoy!