Re: slightly OT - another photographic controversy

[Trevor Cunningham <tr_cunningham@yahoo.com>]

Completely apart from the artistic element, and on the legal, is where does he find the models?  Certainly through some form of an agency and, given the nature of the work, he would require extensive parental involvement.  Good thing this was Australia and not the States.  In the good old US of A, he would have dragged the parents down with him, who would have been cited as abusive as soon as child protective services were bought in.

It is one heck of a conundrum, however.  I've always been right up there with Frank Zappa on the censorship issue.  However, there is a point at which I begin to question motivation, regardless the level of credibility.  I think everyone has their own limits.  Mr. Henson's work was in a reputable gallery, and he holds a considerable level of respect in the Australian and global artistic communities.  But even the gallery has chosen to limit the exhibit.

Without the full scope of the work in the exhibit, news of this sort is unfortunately out of context and leaves incredible potential for errant discussion.  So, let me be the first to initiate: 

1. Can a bona fide pervert bare his soul and be a respectable artist? (perhaps too easy)
2. At what point does the construct outweigh the work?
   

 

"somewhere between zero and one...everything else is exaggeration" - Anonymous

----- Original Message ----

> HI all,
>
> As things seem to be a little quiet on the list, and I am putting off
> going into the studio to get down to some real work, I thought I'd pass
> on some news on a photgraphic scandal now in progress here in Sydney,
> Australia.
>
> The list has had discussions about censorship and the photography of
> children or minors or young or under-legal-age people in the past. So if
> this is going to stir things up too much, please don't read on. It is
> not my intention to make trouble, simply to point out that, in this
> country at least, we have just returned to the 1960s - to a time when
> the police closed a shop in Oxford St in Sydney, and confiscated a
> poster of Michelangelo's statue of David!  BIG sigh.
>
> Anyway, late last week the police went to the opening of a show of
> photographs by Bill Henson and closed it down, based on their assesment
> of some of his images. The Gallery is regarded as a leading Sydney
> Gallery (Roslyn Oxley9) and Henson is very well known in Australia and
> was Australia's rep. at the Venice Biennale some years ago. Henson's
> significant reputation was forged, in fact, on the very stuff that has
> now been censored and taken away in a big truck by the police.
>
> Henson makes his own big dark, moody, C41 prints (so this is not truly
> an alt proc item, but sometimes he tears the prints and gives them rough
> edges like an alt print...), staged scenes, with the main subjects of
> his work being mainly young people - adolescents - often very vulnerable
> looking young people. Henson's new images, which are frontal images of
> an adolescent female, have attracted outraged allegations of pornography
> and pedophillia - attracting bomb threats. Such are the kinds of people,
> who have not even seen the images, but who have condemmed them. Sadly
> even the new Prime Minister has weighed in with a stupid, ignorant
> comment, causing many of us who had recently held some hope for the
> renewed appreciation of the status of culture - totally degraded under
> the previous conservative Government - to feel downright disillusioned
> all over again.
>
> It's a real ding-dong battle in the press, politics and the community,
> with pages of the newspaper covering the issue. Anyone interested can
> check out the (generally very parochial) Sydney Morning Herald, and this
> article for instance:
>
>
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/artists-crying-out-for-martyrdom/2008/05/25/1211653841090.html
>
> Also the Australian newspaper for its articles over the last few days.
>
> Interestingly, on the weekend, the Australian newspaper's magazine
> featured an advertisement whcih, to my eyes, showed 2 young women who
> could have been 14 years old - the same age as one of Henson's subjects.
>
> Both newspapers also feature some good photographs of the whole event
> including Henson's actual censored photographs - now complete with
> little black rectangles over the 'offending' body parts.
>
> in despair,
> Catherine
>