Welcome to Eureka Street

back to site

MEDIA

Henson nudes not 'revolting', but demand reflection

  • 15 January 2009

The controversy about the Mr Bill Henson's photographs has touched deep feelings. The issues involved have inevitably been reduced to single words or phrases, like exploitation, censorship, pornography, parents' response and freedom of artistic expression.

The issues however are complex, because the social relationships involved in taking and showing photographs of pubescent children are also complex and interrelated. They need to be named and thought through patiently.

The central question is whether it is ever right to photograph children, particularly children partially or totally naked, as an art form. There are many different contexts in which it is possible to photograph even undressed children. They range from a doctor making records preparatory to medical treatment, to war photographers filming families fleeing in terror from bombing, to filmmakers producing pornographic images.

Most of us would judge the act of taking photographs differently in these contexts. Our judgment is based partially on the intention of the photographer, but also on the likely impact on the child. So is it legitimate for an art photographer to take photographs of children in order to illuminate the aspects of childhood that we normally don't attend to?

As part of the context, the working relationship between model and photographer is also significant. Our judgment may be affected by knowing whether the photographer was abusive and manipulative or respectful and professional.

One of Mr Henson's earlier child models has described her experience as deeply respectful and safe. If she is believed, it cannot be argued that this kind of photography invariably damages children. It can certainly be argued that it is highly likely to damage them. But then we would also need to ask under what conditions the process would be safe.

One of the knottiest issues raised is whether children are capable of giving informed consent to an activity that is likely to affect them deeply. Even if they are capable of such consent, should we regard their consent as irrevocable? Children, after all, can change their mind totally and often.

Even if we judge that children cannot give irrevocable consent, that need not totally exclude their involvement. Their consent would clearly need to be supported by wise parental support. It would also need to be revocable. If they did revoke their consent, the image presumably would be removed from display and excluded from publication. Such conditions would have added benefits in discouraging the commercial