All of the current round of letters soliciting support for the Henson defense (“vote for freedom of expression!”) seem locked into a paradigm of the autonomy of the artist, with little concern for the consequences of his/her creative outcomes. In this case the threat of censorship and legal action is countered by the claims to artistic merit (not a universal consensus, I must say) and the judgement of both his peers and the institutions of contemporary art around the country (and overseas). Not only Malcolm Turnbull has an interest in this issue, it would seem.

The debate has hardly begun. Surely the largely unqualified commitments of the art world should be seen in relation to their own vested interests, rather than an interest in the effects and consequences of this particular artistic practice? We could, in the first instance, separate the legal implications of what took place in the context of the production of the image, whether the subjects were beyond the age of consent, or whether their parents or guardians had thought through the implications of their consent. And in the current legal context it is by no means clear whether parents or guardians actually have the unrestricted authority to commit their children to actions which may result in transgressions of the law. Not many of us understand the current state of the law until it is tested, as is happening now.

Or secondly, of greater interest to us is the issue of agency: both the agency of the artist in undertaking his creative processes (whatever judgements we may make of the outcomes), and the agency of the subjects of his art, whether or not such subjects are above or below the age of consent. In this post-internet world does the subject of any photograph have any control over the uses or contexts in which their representation may ultimately be seen? Beyond the age of consent, clearly we may all choose whether or not to give a damn what happens to any image of which we are the subject. Beneath the age of consent, we assume the subject has a limited or unsophisticated understanding of how their representation may be interpreted, whether as a work of art, or a work of pornography, depending who’s looking. Do they look as if they know what’s going on? Henson’s mode of representation of his subjects is loaded with allegorical, metaphorical, and perhaps personal motives for choosing how his subjects are to be seen. And he’s not very good at articulating what these may be. And indeed he accepts that his intentions (however vaguely he may express them) are not the only meaning his work may acquire, as it moves through its different contexts of dissemination and reception.

At stake here is a play of agencies, which is a hot issue in any photography of human subjects these days. Street photography is over despite the ubiquity of people using their phones as cameras. Contradictorily (and despite the ubiquity of CCTV) most people now assume they have some kind of right over their own appearance.

Surely the Henson case brings to the fore the agency of the subject, and the subject’s capacity to participate in an act of self-representation by submitting to the process of being photographed? As we have seen, there are multiple ways in which the outcome may be interpreted, and used, both in the context of the gallery or museum, or on their websites, or let loose on the internet. And the internet is clearly the factor of change since Henson began his practice of working with under-age subjects in the 1980s.

Things have changed, Bill. The law has changed. Ethical considerations have changed. Your audience has changed. The days of hiding problematic art in private galleries, or behind curtains with coy little warnings, as happened to Juan Davila’s Stupid as a Painter, are over.

(The MCA now exercises due caution, and so you won’t find Stupid as a Painter on the MCA website)

(See also the comments in relation to intentionality as a defense on our previous post with references to the Eli Langer case in Canada)

(And what does the PM find “revolting”? It’s easy to find examples using Google Images. Not Rocket Science.)

(Read Roger Benjamin’s “defense” in the Australian: “For a trained art historian, the best Henson compositions have a whiff of the ineffable, of sublime action.” Etc. See also our discussion of his use of the term “gestualism“.)

(Or read Judy Annear, quoted in an article in news.com.au: senior curator of photography at the Art Gallery of NSW, says artists like Henson need to continue to push the boundaries, despite public opinion. “The day art museums and artists decide that the only thing they can do is react to public opinion is the day that we are in the same scenario as people were in the 1930s in Germany,” she said. Really. Just as John McDonald compares the NSW police to the Taliban… Really.)

(Or read Germaine Greer at her best: “through a lens darkly“)

(And see some curly questions for David Marr to answer on The Art Life.)