Police remove Bill Henson’s nude photographs from gallery
The roslyn oxley9 gallery sent out a media release on the 23 May, 2008 saying the following:
Statement on behalf of Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery and Bill Henson
After much consideration we have decided to withdraw a number of works from the current Bill Henson exhibition that have attracted controversy. The current show, without the said works, will be re-opened for viewing in coming days.
Bill Henson is one of Australia’s leading contemporary artists and is internationally respected. His works are held in every leading art institution in Australia and are included in the collections of a number of the world’s most prestigious art museums. The Art Gallery of New South Wales and the National Gallery of Victoria have both recently held a retrospective of 30 years of the artist’s work.
Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery will remain closed while the current exhibition is re-hung.
Someone had complained to the police and the Vice Squad removed the photographs on the grounds that the photos were pornographic.
Since then, controversy has raged on TV, in newspapers and on radio in Australia.
I must stress here that I have not seen these photos before they were removed. I have only seen what Google, TV and newspapers have shown.
What are the photos? They are nude photos of 12 to 13 girls and boys. The photography is, in my opinion, very artistic. Shadows are used to show what the artist says he intends. To evoke the vulnerability and fragility of that stage of adolescence. Coming from the light to the dark or vice versa. The shadows also act to cover most of the sexual parts of the bodies, although not all. I don’t know if that was the photographer’s intention. Also, the pose often hides breasts and pubic areas with the use of limbs. Bill Henson has been showing such photos around the world and in Australia for many years. He says this stage of life fascinates him. He also takes many other photos of subjects not so controversial.
Recently, the Australian Government held a Twenty 20 summit including the experts in all fields of life’s endeavours. Many ideas were floated and presented. It was seen to be a success. But the Creative stream of the conference, headed by Cate Blanchette, released their statement saying that this was censorship of art.
Now, I don’t think it is censorship of art until the matter has been through the courts. If the works are said to be pornographic (which I don’t think) then the gallery and the artist has committed a crime and the works should not be shown. It has not been the Censorship Board which has made these decisions.
What bothers me most is that a girl or boy of that age is not in a psychological or emotional state to be able to give informed consent to being models for the photographer. Of course their parents gave consent. But is that right? I don’t think I would.
The photographer is now 52 and therefore in a position of power during photo shootings. I’m not at all suggesting that the young people were not safe in this environment. The photos portray the youths as almost asexual really. Now I don’t know what control the parents or youths have after giving consent to the photo shoot. Do they have control of the finished shot? Presumably this would have to be the photographer’s decision.
I know nudes of all ages have been portrayed in art. But in photos? And in these times of hypersensitivity to pedophiles and child sexual abuse and exploitation? Of course there are the really sexualized images of young girls in advertisements but these girls are clothed. I hate it, but I wouldn’t censor it.
I don’t think these Henson photos are sexualized. But it still disturbs me.
Well, the matter is in the hands of the police now, so I guess not much more can be said, except that Henson so far will not talk to police on his lawyer’s advice and he will not name the model or her parents and he will not say when the photos were taken.
But I’m interested in your view. I cannot show any images here. They are copyrighted. But you can do a google search for them. Many galleries do not allow viewing of larger images however.
As of June 6 2008, no charges are being brought. The Classification Board also classified the works as PG.
May 30th, 2008 at 12:05 am
So you are quite happy to have your 12 year old daughter pose naked? With lighting to evoke her vulnerability and fragility? Bill has a bit of an obsession with pre-teens doesn’t he .. and those photos are all over the net now, hope her Mum is getting paid well
May 30th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
No, I think you will see in my post that I wouldn’t consent to my 12 year old girl being photographed nude.
June 5th, 2008 at 10:46 am
I think the photographer should not have been allowed to photo these images, it is explotation of children full stop. especially in nude. The parents should have known that the artist had interests in these children for more than art wise.
I am totally against such artistic movement at any time.
Emma
June 12th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
If he does it in England, we can hopefully put him in prison, which is where he belongs, there’s not much one can do about Oz, Henson was the precursor for heroin chic for kids. he has been on a child pornography fetish for years, it is what he does, it is illegal in London, we can be thankful for that.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Well, I say I’m glad we live in Australia. As I have added, no charges were brought against Bill Henson. Enough said. There was no evidence whatsoever of child pornography. I didn’t like the photos of the girls on heroin, but they were not illegal either. There has never been any suggestion that the photographer was or is a pedophile either. I assume a parent was there during the photography shoot anyway.
If you don’t like the images, you don’t have to look at them.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
That’s a parochial take, there were child pornography referrals from other agencies, what kind of art is it if you can’t sell it in London? That doesn’t sound like much of a gold standard artistic investment.
“I assume a parent was there during the photography shoot anyway.”
Assumptions are the small change of circumstance. Do you think the police actually checked up on his parental signings for all his U18 kids?
I know they didn’t. Oz is a hick country, the police bottled it. Your classification board free passes child pornography all the time. That leaves children in danger all over the world. Did you know that?
Gregory
June 16th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
“I didn’t like the photos of the girls on heroin, but they were not illegal either.”
Where were their parents? Do you have a date rape or drugged rape mindset, well if you do, define consent to Bill if you’re smacked out of your head.
That’s the problem, I only ask, can a person give consent, I don’t ask who drugged who, in my head it is as wrong to have sex with a self-iadministered state of comatoseness as it is if it was engineered etc.
One needs to focus on ‘consent’ as a real thing. As it happens it was illegal (in Oz) to publish the photo during the police investigation. It really was. When we queried that, we were told (by the police) it was a fairly reckless country.
However they agreed it was illegal.
Gregory
June 18th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
I don’t like Henson’s art very much, which puts me at odds with ‘the art community’ whatever that might be. This is not because I’m a philistine, but because I don’t find his work interesting. I think his subject matter is sensationalist and that this accounts for much of his notoriety.
That said, I don’t think the works are pornographic. The subjects may be nude but they are not depicted in any sexual content. The classification board has rated them PG. I can’t believe the police didn’t consult with the board before raiding the gallery.
Without the scandal, the exhibition would have been viewed by a few hundred people at most. Now the images have been viewed by thousands and are all over the net. As is usually the case, the attempt to ban this work has resulted in increased publicity and has in my opinion done more harm than good.
Bad art is best ignored, otherwise all you’ll be doing is promoting it.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:36 am
Bill Henson is good to go in the UK for child pornography.
It doesn’t have to be pornogrphic or obscene for a conviction in the United Kingdom, indecent images of children are legislatively defined as ‘child pornography’ here. He can’t do it here. Henson’s stuff is far over the line,
We’ve had convictions for David Hamilton’s photos in Great Britain. Henson was one of the reasons we had to toss the idea of an artistic exception. It was obvious he would never stop and he would only get worse
51 Sections 48 to 50: interpretation (1) For the purposes of sections 48 to 50, a person is involved in pornography if an indecent image of that person is recorded; and similar expressions, and “pornography”, are to be interpreted accordingly
The test (Protection of Children Act) is
In Regina v. Graham-Kerr, Stocker L.J. said that the appropriate test in the case of the Protection of Children Act was that as stated in R. v. Stamford [1972] 2 QB 391, which uses the formula ‘recognised standards of propriety.’
This, and the use of the word ‘impropriety’ by Lord Parker, point to the essential elements of indecency being offence caused, and inappropriateness, rather than that any amount of shock or disgust be caused in those forced to see it.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
It has been noted in the Australian media that the Classification board here was set up to deal with film and television content, and that its standards are not set up to deal with internet media which is of course a completely different balll game. Some here have people here have also commented that common sense and a sense of propriety’should have prevented Henson from making the images in question and I agree.
While Henson’s work might well be deemed legally improper in the UK and other countries, it has been legally vindicated here. The Roslyn Oxley9 website is hosted in the U.S. as far as I know. How does one county’s legistlation apply to media hosted in another country? The global accessibility of the internet makes the whole issue much more complex and I don’t pretend to know the answer.
As I have already said, I object to Henson’s work not only on artistic grounds but on moral grounds. I think the whole debate raises the fact that legislation dealing with such content needs to be clarified.
June 26th, 2008 at 5:23 am
20 million Australians do not have the right to flood the internet with child pornography by other people’s definition. It is pissing in the pool because you just can. We have a million pedophiles in Great Britain, we can’t just PG them out of the way. We can’t hang a dead horse from a gallery ceiling and recite a spell.
‘Some here have people here have also commented that common sense and a sense of propriety’should have prevented Henson from making the images in question and I agree.’
It is an Oz thing, he pretends to be a good boy when he is overseas, he also drops the claim to be a neo-Caravaggio, he has to do that because he is already a joke, the only clue we see of him is his ‘Silence of the Laqmbs’ paperback. It is fairly obvious where he gets his trashy corpse gothic thing from.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Did I really say “Some here have people here have also…”? Where was my brain that day? I don’t disagree with what some have said here in that I dislike Henson’s work (as I have already said). Whether people have the right to do something or not is neither here nor there; they will do it if they can.
I think the fact that Henson’s work was displayed on the internet has in part caused the entire controversy. He has, after all, been doing the same kind of thing for years with little fuss.
I’m not sure what is meant by ‘It is an Oz thing’. I think Australians are actually morally conservative in general. Would you suggest that the British government starts censoring the internet at ISP level as they do in China or Iran? The Australian government has already suggested this idea. I think the implications are disturbing.
March 11th, 2009 at 1:59 am
Such a useful blog… wow !!!!