Was it inevitable that the flurry of controversy over the internet promotion of the Bill Henson exhibition at Roslyn Oxley Gallery should end with the whole matter being cleared by the Classification Board? Presumably the CB made a judgement on the material then placed before it, taking into account the ways in which that material was presented to its audience(s). At the time ArtWranglers argued that the debate has taken insufficient notice of the ways the world has changed since Henson established the parameters of his practice. In the eighties there was no internet: in the current debate there has been little recognition of the changing relationship between photographer and subject in almost every dimension of photographic practice. However it was inevitable that the defence of Henson’s “rights” would be based on a limited understanding of his oeuvre – limited that is to what had appeared on the internet or in hard copy publications until that point in time. Witness the haste with which art institutions and the press took down potentially problematic images from their websites. Recently, however, more explicit material has begun to appear in the secondary market: a matter now beyond Henson’s or his agent’s control. A week ago an article by Corrie Perkins in The Australian referring to the online promotion of a Henson image of a quite different order has caused barely a ripple. It will require a defense of a different order this time around. Hands up, anyone?
Recent advice to the NSW Parliament on Child Pornography Law by Gareth Griffith and Kathryn Simon is relevant to this ongoing debate
5 responses so far ↓
1 meg mcmahon // Sep 16, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Good question. Last week’s flurried attempts to submerge this latest whiffy item border on the ludicrous: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24316284-16947,00.html .
The barely audible backstage scuffling around the Lawson-Menzies catalogue item #214 (#213 is arguably more iffy than whiffy) would be mere vaudeville if it weren’t so clumsily sleight-of-hand of Tamara Winikoff (NAVA) to assert that the Classification Board’s ‘PG’ classification of the RoslynOxley9 image back in June magically generalises to the artist’s entire oeuvre.
Perhaps Mr Tim “I have no qualms” Abdallah (Lawson-Menzies auction house) is just demonstrating admirable business sense with his single-minded pragmatism and acumen in assuming the “position of the law” in publishing the photograph in the catalogue and on the internet, but Winikoff’s assertion that “Henson’s work has been assessed by the Classification Board…and it didn’t break the law” merely demonstrates once more the breathtaking disingenuousness of certain quarters of the Sydney arts and letters community demonstrated throughout the Henson debate .
The Classification Board’s ‘PG’-rating of the RoslyOxley9 internet image was a cynical coup that eliminated from its purview the original exploitative conditions of its making, thereby excising the child protection issue at the heart of the debate, and precluding any chance of a prosecution. This classification does not by any stretch of the imagination extend automatically to Lawson-Menzies Cat #214 , no matter hard one may wish this of the tooth fairy (or whatever metaphysical entity the art world currently appeals to).
Headmistress Winikoff’s pronouncement, “That should be the end of it (any further debate)” sadly reveals the hypocritical, self-interested underside of the art world as it finds itself once more in damage control.
One wonders what the Classification Board would actually make of this image.
So I guess I’m putting up my hand. Perhaps a complaint to ACMA may be a good start.
2 Surferchick // Oct 3, 2008 at 5:21 am
Hi there
Im not an artist, nor am i a politician, but i am human, democratic and believe in freedom. Unfortunately we dont live in a perfect world anymore where we can prounce around freely. Australia has one of the highest rape, sexual assault and child porn statistics in the world.. NOTHING to be too proud of. Australia is a growing country which needs to be careful, its no longer as safe as we all think it is and trust me we have to be ashamed of the recent spate of attempted child abductions, rapes, murders and priests having fun with school kids… I know Bill Henson is an artist, but he cant control some sicko walking into the gallery, getting off on his pics and then heading out to harm some kid… none of us can.. but we can work together to minimise it… no one , no one can point fingers at the government, our next door neighbours, the law because we need to protect the kids of this country ourselves. If we dont, WHO will. Bill i respect your love of the human body,, but take some pics of grown women and men.. please dont apetise these sickos more than they need to be.. Each day we are shocked at the violence towards children.. small hands make one big hand, we need to help these kids together.. I am ashamed to be Australian because of the amount of child violence that exists, i live in Europe part of the year and i have tears in my eyes when i read the headlines each day. PLEASE and i mean PLEASE… think of the sick people that are walking down the street, this is not ART to them, they GET OFF on it… And they arent the bums on the side of the road, they are doctors, lawyers, teachers, fathers, priests… the people we LEAST expect.. In a perfect world we can think perfectly free… BUT in a world that aint no longer perfect, we need to be cautious… I DONT wanna be a kid right now, nor in the future, THEY arent enjoying the freedom we had as kids. PROTECT them and DONT TAKE YOUR EYES OFF them. Hope this makes sense and bless the safety of every kid you know. Thanks
3 mugsey // Oct 3, 2008 at 10:10 am
Well, Surferchick’s moving plea kinda says it all, doesn’t it?
She is absolutely on the button about the alarming Oz stats, on the button about relative freedoms, (’freedom from’ necessarily precedes ‘freedom to’), on the button about child abusers and predators at the highest levels.
Not to mention that child protection law in Oz cannot be relied on to do the job for parents – it’s as full of holes as a Disney cheese.
But if anyone would make a great parent it would be Surferchick – if she could just work out a way to surf with a papoose!
4 Surferchick // Oct 4, 2008 at 12:10 am
Hi there Mugsey, lets say i already can…My 2 nieces can vouch for it… Its better to be real, adapt and walk down the road with all eyes open.. than live in fairlyland… those times are over.
5 Welsh Dog // Oct 7, 2008 at 6:53 am
The ’sister site’ to my blog is an open forum(http://australianopinion.com) and on that I’m currently fighting a rearguard action against someone who feels that a girl who is ’sexually mature’ is old enough to make her own decisions regarding her body despite being under the legal age to be able to make those decisions.
They have begun doing the classic confusion technique of widening the discussion to dilute the original essential points by linking the ‘right’ to free expression to other ‘freedoms. I feel as though I’m losing the battle!
If anyone would care to visit and add their comments to the thread I’d appreciate it.
Leave a Comment