Geoff Parr on the Bill Henson Controversy

What did our newish Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, find “absolutely revolting”? No it could not be Bill Henson’s latest exhibition because we know he has not actually seen it. Maybe it was some reproductions picked up from the Gallery website; we don’t know. But we do know that a telephone caller whispered in the ear of the NSW police leading to a police raid on Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery in Paddington and the seizure of some 20 Henson artworks (known in the media as photographs). It was stated by the constabulary that charges would be laid.

Media momentum built with condemnation of Henson as a child exploiter and attention was given to the model, said to be a 13-year old female. The police followed up by making calls on a number of public art galleries in NSW and Victoria and after discussions with administrations, some Henson artworks were removed from public display.

At the time of writing, there has been a defence of Bill Henson and objections to the acts of censorship mounted by some in the visual arts field. An open letter addressed to Prime Minister Rudd, federal Arts Minister Peter Garrett and NSW Premier Morris Iemma, stated that “the potential prosecution of one of our most respected artists is no way to build a Creative Australia, and does untold damage to our cultural reputation”.

Last Week in more tranquil times, I received an invitation from Roslyn Oxley9 Galley, to preview this exhibition by Bill Henson. When all the fuss erupted I took the invitation down from mantelpiece to examine the high-quality reproduction of one of the exhibition artworks. Although a small print the content is all there.

Against a predominantly black background is a frontal view of a prepubescent female figure. The torso and head are backlit, with the upper body modelled in a soft ambient light. The lower body is shrouded in shadow and darkness. The eyes are downcast and the face slightly flushed.

That is the sum total of the visual information in the artwork.

With this untitled image, the artist’s own intention remains largely unknown. Beyond the visual information provided, the image itself is silent, ambiguous. Indeed these are qualities present in many Henson images.

On the evidence of the visual information, this artwork is not indecent, unless we are to regard the human body during this stage of its development as indecent. It is certainly not obscene, nor from the sum of the visual information can it be reasonably argued that it is pornographic. The evidence to support such claims as these is simply not there.

The ambiguous nature of visual images in general enables viewers to construct their own interpretations. In this respect any publicly exhibited artwork assumes a life of its own and one largely free of the artist’s intentions. Artworks therefore are open to new and/or unintended meanings. On occasion some such interpretations may dominate the image’s reception and even capture large chunks of public opinion.

The ABC deserves much credit for rescheduling its 10pm Tuesday night art slot to show a half-hour feature on Bill Henson. The program did deal with the artist interest in the transitional period of human development from child to adult. In an opinion piece in the Australian newspaper today, Sebastian Smee argues that Henson’s vision is authentic and original, that Henson is highly sensitive to emotional ambiguity “as great art should be and politics never is”.

Emeritus Professor Geoff Parr