This is not p-rn

For those interested in the arts in Sydney, and even for those who aren’t particular interested, it was difficult this week to avoid the controversy over the recent photographs exhibited by Bill Henson, world renowned photographic artist. See recent articles in the SMH, the Australian and on Crikey.

It is clear that, from the very start, the public debate has not been about the artistic merit, or otherwise, of Henson’s work. It has been about whether the photographs constitute child p-rn-graphy, and consequently, whether Henson should be charged with serious criminal offences.

Are the photographs p-rn-graphic?

For my part, from what I have seen of the photographs in the media, the photographs are not p-rn-graphic or s-xual. Although it is very easily to get tied up in defining p-rn-graphy, for me, the test is very easy. Was the work (whether it be a photo, a story, a film or other piece of work) created for the intended audience to m-st-rbate over? A little crude, I admit, but on this test Henson’s photos are not p-rn-graphic.

Now, the arguments put forward by a number of commentators are that these photos will be used by p–dophiles to satisfy their base desires. Although at first blush, this argument has some merit – after a little thought, my view is that this argument completely misses the point. P–dophiles, by their definition, see children as s-xual objects. Accordingly, it is not possible, in any work, to portray children in a way that a p–dophile would not find gratifying. And does anyone seriously think that seizing Henson’s photographs and prosecuting the various participants will prevent the s-xual abuse of a single child?

Is nudity always s-xual?

This was an argument put most forcefully by some commentators, lobby groups and activists to say that Henson should be charged with child p-rn-graphy offences.

A good friend of mine has a picture of her, and her sister, in a bubble bath taken when they were about 3 and 5 years old, respectively. They are each naked from the waist up and smiling at the each other. Her mother has this photo sitting prominently in their living room and it is the only photo of her two daughters which she has on display. She is obviously proud of the photo, and of her daughters. But no-one would suggest that this is child p-rn-graphy.

Nudity is not, by its nature, s-xual. Of course, in many cases it is – and in many other cases, clothed bodies can be s-xual. However, I haven’t heard too much from the current agitators calling for the prosecution of those who s-xualise children in the mass media (see these reports here and here).

The truth is that there is little difference between the minds of the p–dophile and the puritanical. Both are s-xually provoked by the innocent, the only difference is that one rejoices in their perversion while the other is ashamed.

Questions of consent

Both the parents of the subject, and the subject herself, consented to the photographs. However, many commentators (including a former Federal Court judge) said that the issue is really one of consent – and that a child, or their parents, cannot consent to having their photographs taken in this way. In other words, you shouldn’t put a child in a posititon where they can say in adulthood, “Mum/dad, how could you let me do that”.

The question of consent is really a red herring. The photographs are either p-rn-graphic or not. If they are p-rn-graphic, then consent is not an issue – it doesn’t matter whether the subject or their parents consented, they are illegal. If they are not p-rn-graphic, then again consent is not an issue. Parents give their consent for things to happen to their children every day, which, very often, their children do not consent to. We let parents choose their child’s religion, pick their schools, select the musical instrument or sport they will play, influence which friends they hang out with and what movies they see and sometimes, even, who their future partner will be.

Now, in none of these cases, does the law intervene on the basis that a child, many years later, will regret what their parents made them do.

And, quite perversely and ironically, it is the attention given to Henson’s photographs by the child welfare experts and mass media that is likely to cause the subject and her parent more regrets than if this whole brouhaha was never given any oxygen (the current news media rejoices in humiliating individuals – think of the recent Tania Zaetta stories – and this, I fear, is no exception).

Perhaps I am wrong

One of the most influential teachers I had during high school taught us to always admit the possibility that we are wrong. And perhaps I am wrong on this issue. Perhaps, we do need to censor the arts and the media, starting, I suggest, with Home and Away and Neighbours, so that children are not portrayed in a manner which p–dophiles may find appealing. With this in mind, I took out my censors pen, and inspired by the local media who – at the same time – criticised yet published the offending Henson photographs , to produce my tribute to the current state of the Australian arts.

Click on the photo to see the original – all photos were taken from other photographers on Flickr.

The Gaze

Children playing by Thirroul beach

Girl from Vietnam

Race on the beach

Children play at Legzira

Beach cricket at sunset

An armada of nippers