Art or Kiddy Porn?

Blanchett steps into nude art row

Cate Blanchett has defended an artist whose portraits of nude children have sparked a censorship row in Australia.

Police shut down photographer Bill Henson's exhibition, seized images and are also considering charging him.

His work, featuring naked 13-year-olds, was condemned by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd as "revolting".

But in an open letter, Blanchett and 42 other leading arts figures said the action risked damaging Australia's cultural reputation.

'Social freedom'

"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," the letter said, addressed to Australia's environment minister and the premier of New South Wales state.

"We should remember that an important index of social freedom, in earlier times or in repressive regimes elsewhere in the world, is how artists and art are treated by the state.

"We wish to make absolutely clear that none of us endorses, in any way, the abuse of children," they said.

"Henson's work has nothing to do with child pornography and, according to the judgment of some of the most respected curators and critics in the world, it is certainly art."

I gave my reaction, I stand by that reaction and I don't apologise for it and I won't be changing it.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd

The exhibition at the Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery in Sydney was shut down by police before it could even open last week after some people complained about photographs of naked 12 and 13-year-old boys and girls.

Police seized 20 photographs from the gallery, most of them of a 13-year-old girl.

They said were seeking to interview the subjects of the photos and their parents and were still investigating whether the photographs violate obscenity laws.

'Innocence'

Prime Minister Rudd has stood by his criticism saying: "I gave my reaction, I stand by that reaction and I don't apologise for it and I won't be changing it."

"I am passionate about children having innocence in their childhood," he said.

Australian child advocacy group Bravehearts labelled the photographs as child pornography and exploitation and have called for Henson and the gallery to be prosecuted.

Two other galleries in New South Wales state have since removed works by Henson from their walls.

Henson, 52, has not spoken publicly since the controversy erupted.

The young girl whose naked photo appeared on the cover of an arts magazine, sparking a new controversy, has defended the picture, saying she is proud of it.

Do these photos go too far? See what other ninemsn readers have said on the issue below.

Art Monthly Australia magazine sparked fresh outrage over naked images of children by publishing an image of a six-year-old Olympia Nelson on its July cover and two shots inside.

The magazine's editors said the images were chosen as a protest against the recent furore over similar pictures by artist Bill Henson.

NSW police seized a number of Mr Henson's photographs featuring near-naked or naked children in recent months, but were returned to a Sydney art gallery without charges being laid.

NSW Community Services Minister Kevin Greene said he would refer the magazine to the classification board.

The shot of Olympia was taken in 2003 by her mother, Melbourne photographer Polixeni Papapetrou.

The now 11-year-old said she did not believe the photograph amounted to abuse and was upset with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who said he hated the shot.

"I'm really, really offended by what Kevin Rudd had to say about this picture," Olympia told reporters outside her Melbourne home, accompanied by her father, The Age art critic Robert Nelson.

"I love the photo so much. It is one of my favourites, if not my favourite photo, my mum has ever taken of me and she has taken so many photos of me.

"I think that the picture my mum took of me had nothing to do with being abused and I think nudity can be a part of art."

Professor Nelson said the family had no regrets. The photograph was a great work of art and there was nothing pornographic about it, he said.

"(It) has nothing to do with pedophilia. The connection between artistic pictures and pedophilia cannot be made and there is no evidence for it. No one's producing any science," he said.

"People are losing their cool over this matter."

He said the magazine cover was "a risk worth taking".

"I think we have to defend the dignity of children's nudity ... otherwise we are in for a culture where you can't expose children in any circumstance because someone might take some joy in looking at their bodies."

However, the magazine has been criticised by politicians and child protection advocates.

Bravehearts executive director Hetty Johnston said artistic merit should not override the rights and protection of a child, and called for clearer laws on the issue.

"When those two things collide we have to err with the children, it has to be in the best interests of the children," Ms Johnston told the Nine Network on Monday.

"We need to put a line in the sand because clearly some of those in the arts world can't do that and say this is where you don't go, this is a no go zone."

Head of Photography at the Australian National University (ANU) said the magazine had a duty to cover the Bill Henson saga.

"The original Bill Henson photographs have been found to be OK," Dr Martin Jolley told ABC Radio.

"These are significant works of arts and they're contributors to the national conversation about the world that we are creating for our children.

"If you are the editor of a magazine which is meant to be reporting on Australian Art ... you would be derelict in your duty if you didn't actually discuss the debate."

I recently read a novel by Dani Shapiro, entitled "Black and White", on this very subject.

It was told from the point of view of the now adult daughter who was photographed by her famous artist mother, in the nude to about the age of 14.

It was a story of violation and apprehension for the protagonists own daughter, who looks very much like her mother at that age, who occassionally gets stares from strangers, recognizing the same face from years ago.

What I got out of the book was the selfishness of the photographer mother for putting her art ahead of considering the long term view of how this was going to effect her family.

This slightly describes a bruhaha I was referring to -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Mann

That is one scenario, but I can also see that in other individual cases it might conceivably have a positive effect on the child in later life. Trouble is you just don't know until the child is an independent adult and makes that call themselves.

I also think that 13 year olds is different to 6 year olds - but I'm not sure why...

It reminds of the Blind Faith album cover:

The model was a then 11 year old Mariora Goschen. At fifty she said she was pressured by her sister and promised a pony. In the end she got 40 pounds.

"We're talking about the innocence of little children here. A little child cannot answer for themselves about whether they wish to be depicted in this way," Rudd added, as officials said they would review the magazine's funding.

What I got out of the book was the selfishness of the photographer mother for putting her art ahead of considering the long term view of how this was going to effect her family.

Art or abuse? Fury over image of naked girl

A magazine has reignited debate about the censorship of artworks

By Kathy Marks
Tuesday, 8 July 2008


In itself, the picture is simple. It shows a girl of six in a demure pose, sitting on a rock with white cliffs in the background. Its impact comes from the fact she is naked and the photograph is on the cover of Australia's leading arts journal.


According to the editor of Art Monthly, its latest cover is an effort to "restore dignity" to the discourse about the artistic portrayal of children. To its critics, including the Australin Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, it is "disgusting". What it has achieved is to bring to the boil a simmering row over the difference between art and pornography in a country with a long tradition of censorship.

The debate has been close to exploding since police swooped on a Sydney gallery in May and seized photographs of naked adolescent girls taken by the acclaimed artist Bill Henson. Police quietly abandoned their inquiry a couple of weeks later, having found nothing to justify charges against Henson or the gallery, and the pictures were put back on display.

Art Monthly's cover, published this month with two further photographs of the six-year-old inside, was clearly designed to provoke. It has succeeded, bringing calls for the magazine's public funding to be withdrawn and for new protocols on the portrayal of children in art. While supporters of artistic freedom defended Art Monthly's right to publish, child protection campaigners were affronted and Mr Rudd, referring to such images, said: "I can't stand that stuff... We are talking about the innocence of little children here. A little child cannot answer for themselves about whether they wish to be depicted in this way."

But the controversy was complicated by the intervention of two unexpected players. One was Olympia Nelson, the girl in the photo, which was taken five years ago by her mother, Polixeni Papapetrou. The other was Mr Henson - or, at least, "a source close to him".

Olympia, now 11, said: "I was really, really offended by what Kevin Rudd said about this picture. It is one of my favourites - if not my favourite - photo my mum has ever taken of me."

However, Henson's associate said the artist thought the choice of cover image displayed "a lack of judgement only serving to drive deeper divisions in the community". That comment may say more about Henson's fears of being charged and pilloried as a child pornographer than about his genuine views. Nevertheless, it was grist to the mill of Hetty Johnston, a child protection activist, who said: "When [art and pornography] collide, we have to err with the children. We need to put a line in the sand - because clearly some of those in the arts world can't - and say this is a no-go zone."

But just where that line should be drawn is as unclear as ever. Liberals argue that it all hinges on context and intent - if an artist has no intention of titillating, a work is not pornographic. And there is a difference between posting nude pictures of children online and displaying them in a gallery.

But for Ms Johnston and like-minded people, all nude images of children are sexual and should be banned. To them, Olympia's protestations are irrelevant. She could not have consented to being photographed at six and, at 11, is still not mature enough to pronounce on the rights and wrongs.

Once again, the matter looks likely to end up in the hands of police, thanks to the Opposition leader Brendan Nelson, who has asked officers to investigate. He said: "These people with Art Monthly have sought to... send a two-fingered salute to the rest of the country about the controversy surrounding Bill Henson's photography. I think it is time for us to take a stand."

This is, of course, an age-old debate and one not confined to Australia. It has a long history of censorship, and those old enough to remember books banned in the Forties, Fifties and Sixties could be forgiven a shiver of déjà vu. They included James Joyce's Ulysses, James Baldwin's Another Country, Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, Norman Mailer's The Naked And The Dead and, naturally, D H Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover.

The visual arts, too, have come under scrutiny. In 1982, police raided the Sydney gallery of Roslyn Oxley, where Henson's show was to be held, and removed works by a Chilean-born Australian, Juan Davila. His graphic sexual images were said to offend public morals. But the then state premier, Neville Wran, rather more cool-headed than his contemporary counterparts, intervened and the works were reinstated. Police may well scratch their heads about Olympia's photo. Some observers say that only in a climate of moral hysteria could the image be deemed sexually provocative.

Martyn Jolly, head of photography at the Australian National University, defended Art Monthly, saying: "If you are editor of a magazine which is meant to be reporting on Australia on a month-to-month basis, and this has been the biggest thing in Australian art for a long time, you would be [neglecting] your duty if you didn't actually discuss the debate.

"We aren't going to let politicians, who are always wanting to jump on populist bandwagons, dictate what we can and can't show."

The Australia Council, which funds Art Monthly, defended the magazine, saying: "For many years our society has managed to differentiate between artistic creativity and the totally unacceptable sexual exploitation of children."

Artists who shocked with child images

Marcus Harvey

Harvey's portrait of the Moors murderer Myra Hindley, created from a collage of hundreds of copies of children's hand-prints, caused outrage at the Sensation exhibition at the Royal Academy in December 1997. Winnie Johnson, the mother of one of her victims, pleaded for the picture to be excluded. Hindley herself sent a letter from jail requesting thather portrait be removed, out of respect for the victims' families. Despite protests, the portrait remained, until protesters daubedit with eggs and ink.

Tierney Gearon

The American photographer became the centre of controversy in 2001 following complaints from the public over an exhibition at the Saatchi gallery in London. Police warned that Gearon's works, which showed her children naked, could be seized under indecency laws. There were calls from the tabloids for the exhibition to be closed. But the artist received the backing of Chris Smith, who was Culture Secretary at the time. Mr Smith condemned the police for censoring artistic freedom.

Betsy Schneider

The American photo-artist's exhibition, Inventories, found itself in a storm after opening at the Spitz Gallery in east London in 2004. The show consisted of pictures of Schneider's daughter naked taken at intervals from infancy to five years old. Hours after the show opened, it was closed amid complaints that it was pornographic. Members of the public had been seen taking their own photographs of the exhibition.

This is a tough one.

First, it was not (as i understand) intended to be sexual. So you can argue its not porn.

However, someone who enjoys little kids (shiver) would probably think it's sexy. (double shiver)

That little girl is just a little girl and probably sees nothing wrong with being naked. And we shouldn't have to tel her there is anything wrong with being naked.

It's those freak weirdos who look at her in a way she should not be looked at that f*ck things up.

I'd not let my daughter do it.

So I guess that's my answer. It's not right.