The debate over Bill Henson’s photographs has been sidetracked by notions of artistic merit, artistic licence, the obscenity laws, censorship and the issue of paedophilia. Bill Henson’s photographic installation, which includes photographs of naked girls as young as twelve, is the straightforward exploitation of those girls. A twelve or thirteen year-old is not mature enough to give her (or his) fully formed consent, and as such informed consent, to be photographed in this way. No amount of hindsight by her (or him) or anyone else that has been photographed in this way can remedy the consent problem and the consequent problem of exploitation.
This is not an artistic problem and it is clear that the arts community fails to grasp the issue. This is a developmental issue that cannot be resolved by resorting to other moral, artistic or ethical arguments. These girls are simply not old enough to say ‘yes’ to Bill Henson, no matter how innocent or beautiful or artistic they, the photographs or the proposition may be. No parent or guardian is in a position to say ‘yes’ either. Bill Henson is or was misguided and this is simply an error of judgment on his part.
Bill Henson’s intentions cannot help us either. The developmental problem can only be resolved when each girl becomes an adult. When they do become adults, they are no longer twelve or thirteen, and can no longer be photographed naked as twelve or thirteen year-olds.
Exploitation is exploitation be it by an artist or anyone else. Exploitation is exploitation, be it by good intentions or evil.
I take the most benign perspective in this matter and make no claims about Bill Henson. Whilst I do not know Bill Henson I am sure he is a fine man and a fine artist. It is unlikely that he is a paedophile, a supporter of paedophilia, or a supporter of any other form of child abuse or exploitation. In fact I imagine it is highly likely that Bill Henson would find such matters abhorrent.
In short, most of this debate is not about Bill Henson. It is about a blindsided arts community for whom the times have shifted without them noticing. We are no longer in the pre-1980 period when children’s rights barely existed.
I have no knowledge of Bill Henson’s intentions except to note that no one else, apart from Bill Henson, knows about his intentions either. Again, I assume, without any other knowledge, that Bill Henson’s intentions in this matter were entirely noble.
The difficulty is not with what we know but with what we don’t know. We don’t know what the relationship was between Bill Henson and these girls when these photographs were taken. We don’t know what really occurred when these photographs were taken. We don’t know how these girls came to be naked for Bill Henson to photograph them. We don’t know who else was involved in the taking of these photographs or any of the other circumstances in relation to these photographic sessions. We don’t know what other images were taken of these girls and in what form these were taken. We don’t know whether any other people were present and what other images were taken of these girls and in what form.
All we know is what Bill Henson has shown us. Did Bill Henson take other photographs that have less artistic merit than these? Where are the other photographs? Who else has had access to these images? Who else has copies of these photographs? How are these images managed and secured? Who consented to these girls being photographed? Did one or both parents of each girl consent to them being photographed? If only one parent consented, has the other parent ever been informed? What process did Bill Henson go through to obtain such consent? Is that consent in any visible, enduring, form? Who holds that enduring consent? Can that consent be withdrawn by any one of the girls at any time? Does artistic merit override consent? What happens if the consent was obtained under a form of duress not visible to Bill Henson at the time?
A less benign view would lead to a set of more difficult questions for Bill Henson to address. The artistic merit argument assumes a benign relationship between artist and model. This is not always the case.
We do know that, developmentally most twelve and thirteen year-old girls (and boys) in this society are somewhat reluctant to undress and appear naked in front of other people, particularly adults. It is, in developmental terms, certainly odd that these twelve and thirteen year-old girls would undress for Bill Henson and his camera. This immediately raises concerns for many people about this matter and process.
The voices of the arts world avoid addressing the central question and denigrate, as Philistines, those who have legitimate concerns about this matter. The arguments and comparisons put by Denise Ferris, Patrick McCaughey and others are specious. The more legitimate comparison is with Nabokov and Lolita, not with Lawrence and Joyce.
The argument that trawls art history for examples of child and adolescent images to bolster the case for the primacy of artistic merit over child exploitation is also specious. Time does not stand still. We no longer condemn children to the coal mines or the workhouse. The orphanages have been torn down; the walls of the asylum are long gone. The systematic legal and state sanctioned protection of children is, historically, very new in this society. When Nabokov wrote Lolita this society had a different view about children and sexuality. That is true of many of the images referred to by the arts community.
It is time for the arts community, and those who claim to be the voice of that community, to ferret their intellectual and emotional way into the shoes of those who are deeply, and reasonably, concerned about this matter. Many come to this debate with hard won experience about children and adolescents and the issue of their exploitation and abuse. Many practitioners working with children and adolescents who have been gratuitously exploited have dealt with the photographs of naked children and adolescents in a very different context, long before Bill Henson hung his. If any of these photographs, taken out of context, had artistic merit, would they also stand some chance of being hung and getting past the Censor’s cut.
The point is that artistic merit is not, and can never be the first or only point of reference in this matter; that considerations about the protection of children from exploitation and abuse take precedence over artistic merit; that this is not a debate about the obscenity laws and that casting this as an ‘obscenity’ matter does no justice to the issue at all.
Whilst this may be a matter for the ‘Censorship Board’ to examine whether Australia’s ‘obscenity laws’ have been violated, it remains a ‘Child Protection’ matter, that should now be pursued by the responsible State authorities. Child Protection laws are there to protect children, including those photographed by Bill Henson, from exploitation.
In short this is a developmental and jurisdictional issue not settled by the Censor and clearly beyond the intellectual and experiential grasp of those speaking for arts community in this country.
I know that my disquiet over this matter is shared by many of my colleagues who, like me, believe the State should act on the child exploitation issue and not consign this to a fringe ‘obscenity’ question.
Malcolm Robinson
Director
Bower Place
Psychology, Psychiatry and Family Therapy
Adelaide SA
