Bill Henson Investigations Continue

More Raids On Art Galleries

In a perfectly logical yet somehow hysterical development, the Federal Police went to the National Gallery of Australia to inspect the 79 Henson photographs housed there. None were seized.

The director of the National Gallery of Australia, Ron Radford, was reportedly questioned last night over the gallery's collection of 79 photographs, all of which were in storage.

Police said inquiries related to child pornography.

No photos were seized in yesterday's raids on the NGA and other Canberra galleries.

"If we determine there are offences disclosed, then we will go through the process of seizing whatever needs to be seized in order to prove the offence," a police spokesman said.

Photos held in storage were subject to as much scrutiny as hanging works because child pornography charges included possession, he said.

"If you're in possession of child pornography, whether you have it on your computer and whether you view it or not, that's an offence."

It stands to reason that if they are willing to venture that some of Henson's work is kiddie Porn, it is entirely possible his other works are kiddie-porn too. How, in an oeuvre of art, they decide which is kiddie-porn and which is not kiddie-porn totally escapes me; especially given that they were all intended as works of art and were shown as works of art and were understood to be works of art by the art community. The AFP must be confident their eyes are better than those of the curators and Gallery chiefs such as Mr. Edmund Capon.

Mr. Henson has declined to be interviewed by the Police on legal advice. The interesting bit in the linked article is Malcolm Turnbull coming out to bat for the artist.

The Federal Opposition treasury spokesman, Malcolm Turnbull, supported Henson yesterday. He owns two works by the artist, although neither is similar to the photographs seized.

"I don't believe that we should have policemen invading art galleries," he said . "I think we have a culture of great artistic freedom in this country."

Despite an outcry from the arts community, the Prime Minister stood by his original assessment of Henson's exhibition as "absolutely revolting".

"I gave my reaction. I stand by that reaction and I don't apologise for it," Kevin Rudd said yesterday. "I am passionate about children having innocence in their childhood."

His refusal to apologise follows an open letter from artists urging Mr Rudd and the NSW Premier, Morris Iemma, to "rethink" their criticism of Henson. Mr Iemma had said the photographs were "offensive and disgusting".

The actor Cate Blanchett and the writers J.M. Coetzee and Peter Goldsworthy were among 43 members of the 2020 Summit creative stream to condemn the portrayal of the artist as a "child pornographer". They warned against art censorship.

The Arts Minister, Peter Garrett, has remained silent.

Well, of course Mr. Garrett is going to try and stay out of this mess. As a guy who stopped being a practitioner to be a politician, his credibility and loyalties have already been shredded. Need we take him seriously at all?

On Malcolm Turnbull's point, it is encouraging that somebody on the Liberal side is taking a small-'l' liberal position, especially given how uncompromisingly moralistic the previous Prime Minster was, and how equally a wowser the current Prime Minister is.

The weekend letters section of the SMH provided an interesting read in as much as there really doesn't seem to be a middle ground. One side says, "Yes, Kiddie-Porn is bad, but you can't go around locking up artists because their work reminds you of Kiddie-Porn," while the other says, "Yes, Freedom of Speech is important but when you cross the line of bad taste into Kiddie-Porn, we should string up the artist and lynch him".

If The Label Fits, Wear It
Miranda Devine is on the crusading side of this issue. She brought up the initial outrage, and is trying to label the arts crowd as puerile and the real philistines. Again, normally I would not want to sink to the level of discussing the un-sound reasoning shown by jaded columnists such as Ms Devine, but this piece does seem to shed some insight into the mind of the wowser.

So artists want the freedom to exploit budding pubescents as nude models, but they don't want the Prime Minister to freely express his thoughts?

If the arts community is so creative and "edgy", why do they all travel in lockstep on such things? Their single voice suggests not originality and boundary-pushing, but a suffocating conformity.

Who in the arts community - whether creator, curator or critic - has come out and said: "This is wrong," not just "provocative" or "controversial"? They say they are happy to have the debate but they have never had the debate, perhaps for fear of being seen as prudish or out of touch with the in-crowd.

This deficit of moral courage was most stark last week in people who have since told friends they felt "uncomfortable" about the image on the invitation from Roslyn Oxley9 promoting Henson's show, but kept their feelings to themselves. It might not all be cowardice; through the relentless normalisation of the abnormal, the annihilation of taboos and the persecution of traditional moral guardians, we may have reached a point of such communal moral ambiguity that these people don't quite trust their instincts.

And on and on she goes.
The first point that the arts community doesn't want the PM to express his opinion is not true. The Prime Minister is entitled to his opinion and is accepted in expressing them. It is when he condemns artists sight unseen, the arts community would rightfully bristle. We also bristle at the thought that the Prime Minister's opinion is one which gives no benefit of the doubt for the artist. Then, when the Prime Minister says it should be left to due process, having poisoned the waters of public opinion itself, it is logical that the arts community take umbrage. On top of all this, his position is that of a wowser philistine.

The second point that somehow the arts community is in lockstep and therefore are all somehow brainwashed lefties, is a mis-characterisation. The fact of the matter is, Freedom of Expression is one point all artists of all walks would agree upon; and equally, regardless of the political persuasion of the artist , an artist cannot surrender their Freedom of Expression on suspicions alone - Just as if Ms. Devine herself were to be rounded up by a political organ and sent to trial and prison for her (rather daft and misguided) opinion pieces, there would be an equally vociferous solidarity by the same people for her behalf. The same Freedom of Expression that allows her to sound off her political diatribes day in and day out without injurious consequences, are exactly the same freedoms which these artists are unanimously supporting.

It shows an incredibly over-privileged perspective and irresponsible attitude for MsDevine to think that somehow it is the Lefty artists who have lost their own 'moral instinct' that are squealing in the face of proper moral rectitude. But of course such an obvious point would be shoved under the carpet so she can score ancillary partisan points.

Thirdly, to try and say there is a 'deficit of moral courage' because they don't see the moral questions in the same way is a kind of Orwellian double-speak. It is just as moral to champion the said freedoms of and for and by the artists themselves. If people felt uncomfortable, they should be grateful that they had just experienced a truly artistic moment. Art isn't all pretty flowers and nice colours. It is going to be challenging. To try and construe a position that "smut sells" and therefore the Roslyn Oxley9 gallery was trying to make a buck out of prepubescent nudie girls is an insinuation that says more about Ms Devine's own lack of taste more than anything else.

On a side note, I have met the owner of the Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery. Truth be known, she insinuated that I was somehow a Chinese person who through racial association was therefore a cannibal. Though it was brief, it was a most distasteful conversation. She was so wrong in so many ways, but I let her have her nasty little spit at me because I figured she's entitled to her opinion, no matter how wrong (as in incorrect, mistaken, and false), and did not need to be prosecuted for such words spoken in rash prejudice.
So, yes, I do have sufficient moral courage.