Porn and the Art Market - artmarketblog.com

Porn and the Art Market - artmarketblog.com

You
have probably all heard or read something about the controversial works
of Australian photographer Bill Henson that have been confiscated by
police due to the use of naked underage girls in his work. I would not
normally get involved in a debate that has already been commented on by
everyone and anyone but since I have already written on a similar issue
involving the work of Nan Goldin, and I am an Australian, I am going to
say my piece.

Considering that Bill Henson has been producing similar works for
more than 15 years it is unfortunate that he has basically been led to
believe that what he is doing would not result in any serious negative
consequences. I have no doubt that Henson has been treated unfairly and
has been falsely portrayed as some sort of child abuse promoting
monster. However, now that the works have come under scrutiny there is
no way that action can’t be taken. By not taking action after questions
have been raised I believe that the police or who ever else is
responsible for investigating such complaints would be seen as
advocating eroticised images of children (whether or not they were). I
have heard compelling arguments from both sides of the fence and would
like to be able to support Bill Henson (who is a fantastic artist) and
his work but as a Christian I am compelled to look beyond my opinion as
an art critic.

I do believe that there are two main factors in this whole saga that
should be considered above all others and they are consent and
consequence. I am aware that there have been comments from one of
Henson’s former child models that supports his work but the opinion of
one or even a few of the former models cannot be taken as I doubt that
the children in Henson’s photos were able to fully understand the
gravity of the situation or fully comprehend the possible issues and
consequences of being photographed naked. Because the children in the
photographs were not able to make a decision with the same
understanding and awareness that an adult would, they should really not
have been allowed to consent to being photographed or have consent
given for them by their parents. The second issue of the consequences
of not taking some action, as I mentioned earlier, could be used as an
excuse for more sinister activities which just can’t happen. I think it
is also important to remember that Bill Henson is the only person who
really has any choice in this situation in that he can choose to change
the subject of his future work but the children in his photographs
can’t choose to be taken out of his past work.

I do actually agree with those that are of the opinion that Bill
Henson’s work is art and not pornography but as far as I am concerned
the question of whether or not Henson’s work is art or not is not the
primary issue. I also genuinely believe that Henson’s motives were
genuinely artistic and that in no way is Bill Henson a paedophile.
Having said this, the life of a child is far more important than
anything related to art and artistic freedom.

Photo of Bill Henson and one of his works by: Jon Reid

**Nicholas Forrest is an art market analyst, art critic and journalist based in Sydney, Australia. He is the founder of http://www.artmarketblog.com,
writes the art column for the magazine Antiques and Collectibles for
Pleasure and Profit and contributes to many other publications.