The Law and Art: - Bill Henson

Posted by Philip Northeast May 28, 2008

Normally people with photographic collections of naked adolescents may have broken laws regarding the sexual exploitation of children. This is the basis of the police action in this case.

A number of high profile people, including Cate Blanchett, have leapt photographer Bill Henson’s defense claiming the work is not child pornography because some respected critics and curators say so, and likens the action to artistic censorship. Malcolm Turnbull, a politician with aspirations to one-day lead Australia, said police should not be tramping through art galleries.

There is no doubt Henson is a serious and accomplished photographic artist. Henson has exhibited his work in Europe and America and some of his other works are on display here.

The question really is not on the artistic merits of the works, but how far can you go justifying actions on the pretext it is art. If Henson is allowed to circumvent the law does this create an ugly legal precedent where people primarily interested in the sexual exploitation of the young can claim immunity “because it is art.”

Henson probably had consent from the models and their parents or legal guardians. However, the laws were set up to protect the innocent and the vulnerable that may not be properly make an informed decision about posing for a well-known photographer.

For example, the recent fuss over Miley Cyrus in a Vanity Fair shoot with Annie Leibovitz covered by a sheet showing only her naked back also raising the issue of informed consent.

One of the roles of art is to question established truths and dogmas. This Henson exhibition is objectionable, not because it shows naked people, but because it could open the door to the sexual exploitation of children. Fine art adult nudes are a well-respected and long running photographic genre.