Bill Henson, a so-called artist, who makes his living by photographing (among other subjects) minors in the nude, is no expert on child welfare. I find it quite upsetting that a person who has grown to prominence by insisting that photographs of naked minors are somehow artistic, gets the platform to point the finger at the church and sport.
The church is an easy target. Mr. Henson has made a diversionary “cheap shot” which is offensive and in very bad taste:
CONTROVERSIAL photographer Bill Henson has pointed to sport and the church as far more likely to harm children than anything involving the arts.
Mr Henson, who sparked outrage by including images of naked minors in a 2008 exhibition, told The Australian that the arts were the last thing likely to actually harm kids.
“We’re talking about the potential for harm,” he said. “If you want to talk about that in relation to real children and real harm, you’d have to start with priests in the church, or sport.
“If you want to talk about actual harm to actual kids, the last place you would start would be the arts.”
Henson has an exhibition opening in Sydney in September but said he had not decided whether it would include nude figures.
“There’s a lot of grassroots common sense out there in Australian society and I think a lot of people began to get a bit sick of it,” he said in reference to the furore over his 2008 exhibition.
I am not in favour of banning Mr. Henson’s work, but I am certainly not a devotee. In my opinion, there is no way to photograph a naked pre-pubecent child without being exploitative and without sexualising the “model”. Sure he might be talented, but talent isn’t an excuse for poor taste.
Mr. Henson should stop looking for easy diversions and grow up!
Topical Teaching 