Bill Henson has been exhibiting his works for more than 20 years in various galleries. That’s probably the reason why so many were taken by surprise when Sydney police took 21 photos of naked children during Bill’s opening night in May 22, 2008, at the Roslyn Oxey9 Gallery in Paddington.

The police responded to a number of complaints made to their office, which expressed concern about a certain photo, wherein a 13-year-old girl was photographed naked—budding breasts showing and one hand covering her private part.

The seizure of Bill’s photographs elicited very strong reactions from two different camps: the ones who claim to protect art from “censorship,” and the ones who tried to bring attention to graver concerns, like a parent’s responsibility to the child, and the protection of children from this kind of abuse.

Hetty Johnson, from the group Bravehearts (an organization that advocates for victims of child sexual abuse), was among those who labelled Bill’s work as “child pornography.”  Worse, the country’s Prime Minister also added that the photos are “absolutely revolting.” But Bill’s supporters are just as vigilant and outspoken as his detractors. Michael Gow, a playwright and a theatre director, attacked the Prime Minister for this blunt assessment. Michael proclaimed that “The Prime Minister who invited us to Canberra has questioned the abilities and credentials of a major Australian artist.” In his side of the line was Betty Churcher, former director of Canberra’s National Gallery of Australia, who said “In this day and age, we are going far too far in the wrong direction of censorship. Will we end up being so censored that there’s nothing left for us to contemplate?”

That last question was perhaps the most bothersome of all. It’s no surprise that Bill will defend his work and, of course, insist that it was art. The police and advocates like Hetty acted in the interest of protecting the integrity and innocence of the youth, and Bill’s supporters responded to, according to their claims, protect the beauty and honesty of art.

Most artist, or those who consider themselves so, are pretty much one in fighting even the slightest sign of censorship. But is acting upon the interest of the young individuals in Bill’s photos censorship? Or has Bill gone too far in what we all like to think we all have—artistic license?

Art is supposed to make people uncomfortable, yes. And perhaps something that leaves one thinking about it, “contemplating” upon it, so to speak, is the best art of all. But if someone toes the line of artistic freedom and exploitation just to produce something that people can “contemplate” on, can that still be considered art? Or is it just something that the artist wants people to talk about?

Related Posts