Henson outrage

I see that David Marr has written about the recent investigation of Bill Henson's photos of a young girl. A preview article was published today in the Sydney Morning Herald.

Marr says that "Henson was having trouble finding the models he needed for the Sydney exhibition due to open in May." I suppose that would be because the models don't last long, being unusable once they get older than 14 or thereabouts.

Then, according to Marr, "Friends introduced him to the principal of a Melbourne primary school." Henson says "I went in there, had a look around at lunchtime, just wandered around while everyone was having their lunch. I saw this boy, and I saw a girl too, actually, and I thought they would be great and the principal said, 'Fine, I will give the parents a ring and let you know.'

I find the idea of Henson wandering around a school playground looking for children "who would be great" a little creepy. Nevertheless, I would be interested to know what made these two children "great" and the other children less than great.

But Marr says there is no problem because "the child's mother explains for the first time how her daughter - whom we'll call N - came to know Henson many years ago and agreed to model for him earlier this year." I see, Marr thinks the child could give consent, but she can't be named. Why is this anonymity necessary?

Well, anyway, we can all read Marr's article in the Good Weekend tomorrow, and the SMH tells us helpfully that "Henson's photographs of N appear in Good Weekend with the model's permission." Oh good, I suppose the SMH hopes that will attract lots of readers to the Good Weekend.

Personally, I would like to see the girl ask Bill Henson to take his clothes off so she can photograph him. I think that would be art, but I think it is unlikely to happen. I wonder why?

Clive Hamilton has discussed this case in an article in crikey.com.au

Hamilton does not think the photographs are pornographic, but discussion of them is justified, especially as they were published in the internet.

"If artists have a responsibility to push at the boundaries of the acceptable, society has a responsibility to push back. After a decade or more in which children have been increasingly exploited, society is beginning to push back and Bill Henson has been a victim: innocent perhaps, but he should have known better."

I will be interested to read Marr's full article. I will be disappointed if Marr plays the victim card and claims people like Henson should be immune from discussion and that any criticism of him proves the base motives of the people offering the criticism.