Henson Debate Continues...

In response to the (what should be expired) debate circulating the photographic works of Australian artist, Bill Henson and the comments raised on the blog, I would like to start by saying that there have been and continue to be, far more aggressive, sexualized, pornographic and disturbing images/artworks then that of Henson's. For example fluxes performances of the 1960s group The Vienese Actionists, which involve men and women vomiting, ejaculating, masturbating and covering their naked bodies in paint. Or the work of Vitto Acconci, whereby he situates himself underneath the floor boards of gallery spaces and masturbates repeatedly into a microphone. Or the work of Carol-lee Schneeman's 1975 performance piece, "Interior Scroll" in which she pulls a scroll out from her vagina and recites its text to a live audience. Or perhaps the work of Eve Klein, in which many of his performances involve him conducting a group of naked female models, of whom are covered in blue paint, to sprawl themselves over a floor canvas while being orchestrated to a live philharmonic.

However in keeping with Henson's context - perhaps we should take a look at the work of American artist, Sally Mann - in which she photographs her young, adolescent children. Like Henson, Mann's subjects are naked. So what then marks the difference between Henson's images and that of Mann's? Arguably, the difference boils down to the fact that Hensen is male and Mann, female. And furthermore, mother.It is Hensons very 'msleness' which automatically positions him as a voyeur. So then if Mann and Henson's photograph's are of the same or very similar subject matter, it seems to be societies conditioning of the relationship between man and child which is the problem.

This is not an art Vs pornography debate. But rather a mere consequence of societies contemporary obsession with protectionism, pornography and fetichism. If anything, it is the compulsive desire of communities and governments to protect and hide which serves to heighten ones fascination with the erotic or thereby pornographic. That which is hidden, is often imagined, and that which is imagined in terms of men's, women's and children.s bodies, is often sexualized and fetichised. Porn is after all, at least to my understanding, designed to stimulate sexual excitement. And is this the intentions of Henson's photographs, I think not.

Blake.