The Bill Henson controversy has been ignited again by David Marr’s latest book, which defends photo-artist Bill Henson’s right to take naked images of teenage children. My personal view is that it is fundamentally flawed on two counts.
Firstly, to argue that all is allowable in the name of art is to argue that ‘extraordinary rendition’ (ie torture) is permissible if we are able to extract information that we may put to some ‘greater good’. The same fundamentals apply.
The two arguments go like this. They, the enemy, use torture because they are barbarians, but we, we apply 'justifiable' force for the greater good because we are the righteous ones. Similarly pornographers take sexually suggestive photographs of children born of heinous motives but artists may take very similar but award-winning photos that are then hung on gallery walls to great acclaim (usually by other artists).
We would not condone the action of a parent who allowed his or her child to endure significant pain in the name of art. Why are some parents lauded by the arty-farty brigade for allowing their children to take part in an activity clearly on the fringes of normal society’s standards of modesty?
Secondly, Mr Marr is a childless man. It may be that he imagines that he can understand the completely different view a caring parent of a child might have on this subject but, by definition, he does not. He is therefore a member of the group least qualified to comment on the rightness of the actions of Bill Henson and in particular the irresponsible parents of his subjects.
You may like to sign the petition at Bravehearts. Click here
