Henson decision leaves questions unanswered

Natasha Percy | 30 June 2008

Font size: + - | print | email to a friend

PHILIP GERBER, PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT
Artists should have the same freedom as anyone else... that’s the great dilemma of freedom of speech: you can say, and in the case of artists, do anything you like as long as you’re not harming anyone else. It’s the harm issue that makes the display of those images problematic.

MALCOLM WILLIAMS, FEVA (visual arts ministry)
People like Malcolm Turnbull have been strident in defending the freedom of the artist, but such freedom needs to be carefully balanced... it is disturbing how willing people are to put such great faith in the artist as a priest and a prophet.

The furore over acclaimed artist Bill Henson’s latest exhibition has been called the “greatest art scandal in a decade”.And little wonder considering the personalities involved include Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and film star Cate Blanchett.

Before police seized 20 photographs from the RoslynOxley9 gallery, Mr Rudd said on May 23 the photographs of naked 12-and-13-year-olds were “absolutely revolting”, while Ms Blanchett, along with 44 others, signed a letter stating that Mr Henson’s possible prosecution “is no way to build a creative Australia and does untold damage to our cultural reputation”.

Some commentators labelled the controversy as the sad outcome of a quiet news day, while others expressed astonishment that the outrage came now, three years after Mr Henson’s more explicit exhibition was viewed by 65,000 people at the Art Gallery of NSW.

Unresolved questions
The questions raised in the heat of the conflict remain unanswered: what does distinguish pornography from art? Can a child of 12 or 13 really give their consent to a such a project? Is parental consent sufficient for the protection of children in this instance?

These issues have been concern enough for some curators to decide not to exhibit Mr Henson’s work.

Yet his defenders centred their arguments on freedom of expression.

The storm has died down, but perhaps too soon for some. Police cleared Mr Henson and the Classification Board, of which prominent Sydney Anglican Donald McDonald is director, deemed five images – on the internet and in promotional material - to be “very mild”.

“The decisions… were made in accordance with the Act, the Code and the guidelines,” a spokesman for Mr McDonald said.

The discretion beneath the Board’s judgement is legally tied to a specific criteria: “Public opinion and media comment do not play a role in classification decision making.”

Should Sydney Anglicans view these images? Professional Standards Unit director Philip Gerber says it would be “drawing a long bow” to class viewing the exhibition as “child abuse”.

“It’s possible clergy might go to see these things because they feel they need to be informed.”

FEVA’s Malcolm Williams says “I don’t think there’s any imperative for Christian artists to ‘educate’ themselves by knowing everything that’s out there – people can’t cope with the knowledge of every evil. But the key issue here is the decision being taken out of the hands of these children.”

Click here to comment on this article for the next edition of Southern Cross