facebook | twitter
|
« Jaime Pitarch | Main | Michael Scoggins »
 Over the last fortnight Sydney's Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery was scheduled to host an exhibition showcasing the work of acclaimed Australian photographer, Bill Henson. However, just hours prior to its programmed debut, the gallery was stormed by police confiscating 12 works on display and another 20 from the storeroom, while the gallery website was also forced to remove the offending imagery from its server. Such censorship was in play due to the depiction of naked adolescents within many of Henson's prints. This story has dominated Australian tabloids and news broadcasts since its occurrence, with sensationalist headlines such as "Gallery raided as Bill Henson child porn art removed" appearing in leading newspapers, while news bulletins slander Henson a pedophile. The artist and gallery owners are now facing possible child pornography charges, causing debate to erupt over the distinction between art and pornography. With Australia's own prime minister, Kevin Rudd declaring the images as "absolutely revolting," it's no wonder so many people have such an ignorant and philistine view on the topic. Boorish online groups entitled "Bill Henson is disgusting, perverted and a creator of child pornography," are being created while gallery owners Roslyn and Tony Oxley have even received anonymous phone messages from people threatening to burn down the gallery.  Yet much vocal support is also being shown in favour of the artist, aided with the defense of former child models who appear in Henson's earlier works, declaring they never felt violated when posing for the artist. Numerous high profile people have also voiced their support for Henson, including fellow artist Callum Morton, playwright Michael Gow and acclaimed actress Cate Blanchett. Part of the current mass hysteria can be attributed to the way these images are being shown cropped, censored or out of context within the media. Close ups of adolescent girls' breasts or figures with blurred genitalia certainly demean the artist's broader body of work and have absolutely nothing to do with the way these images were intended to appear within a gallery environment. One of the most shocking elements regarding the incident is Henson's global reputation as a respected artist. His work has been displayed within many major institutions around the world including the Guggenheim, New York, the Museum Moderner Kunst, Vienna and the Victoria and Albert Museum, London- all without vilification. Within Australia his photographs are even studied as part of high school visual arts curriculum.  The current controversy in accordance with the Australian police force has required several other galleries, who have been displaying Henson's prints for years to also remove his photographs from their walls. In 2005 the Art Gallery of New South Wales (a somewhat "conservative" art institution), hosted a large scale retrospective of Henson's photography, which received no public objection whatsoever. Images within the exhibition contained the same form of adolescent nudity as present within the artworks at Roslyn Oxley9. The retrospective contained hundreds, possibly close to a thousand of Henson's prints and nobody seemed to say a word. So why now? As a fellow Sydney-sider and art lover, my deepest condolences are with Henson and those affiliated with Roslyn Oxley9. These are certainly very dark days for the Australian art world. Posted by Annette Michalski at June 4, 2008 12:00 AM | Permalink | E-mail This | |||
Join the discussion:I have seen this on the BBC. It is crazy how the ---------------------------------------------------------- Posted by: Sam | June 4, 2008 10:45 AM I cannot say that Bill Henson's work is pornographic any more than the work of Sally Mann, Jock Sturges or Irina Ionesco. But like all of these artists his work is obviously sexually suggestive and intentionally provocative. Anyone who creates images of naked children in erotic poses who claims to be an innocent victim of puritanical fanaticism when their works are challenged and condemned are playing the fool, plain and simple. I am aware of the fact that children are sexual creatures and I do not personally have a problem with child nudity, but as sexual animals living in a domesticated world there simply is no way in which one can seriously expect universal positivity when utilizing such aspects artistically. Nor should one view themselves as enlightened among sheep either. There is nothing ignorant in finding public provocation offensive and those who believe that using children in such a manner is socially unhealthy are far from delusional. As an artist myself I find great hypocrisy in much of how children are viewed and used artistically and I also recognize that central to the argument of why such works are important is artistic ego, not the weak reasoning which centers on the opinions of biased groups and gallery owners. Sorry to be so contrary but I feel my opinion to be valid on this matter. ---------------------------------------------------------- Posted by: christopher | July 28, 2008 04:36 AM They have laws for everyone. Just because they're famous, or just to say " it's art " does not excuse them. It's paedophilic, it's disgusting. It should not be allowed. Pornography and art are two seperate things. This is not art. This is illegal child nudity. It is not right and anyone who thinks that child nudity should be allowed or that child pornography is right, then they're just showing themselves to be paedophiles, aren't they, and should be burning in Hell because they're not Human. They're not worthy of life. Laws are laws and they're there to stop this. Just to call it something else doesn't stop it being what it is. It's disgusting anyone could think that this is allowable, parental consent or not. ---------------------------------------------------------- Posted by: Conor | June 15, 2009 01:31 PM |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |