Informed Consent: Artists and the Use of Adolescent Bodies

Informed Consent: Artists and the Use of Adolescent Bodies

In the summer of 2008, the work of leading contemporary photographer Bill Henson caused a flurry of controversy when 12 of his works were confiscated by police from the Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery in Sydney, Australia. The works were removed due to their allegedly offensive nature. The perceived "offensiveness" of the works primarily rests in Henson’s depiction of naked adolescents. Henson and supporters defend the work as images that explore the "unknowable" (PerthNow) and that discomfort with the works arises from a general unease with emerging adolescent sexuality. They also note that Henson’s works are included in many of the world’s most respected art museums (PerthNow).
Henson’s critics, which included various child safety groups and Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, assert that the images violate the privacy of the children depicted and, according to Rudd, are "revolting" (PerthNow). There is not much dispute that, while beautifully rendered, the images do show the children in various nude poses. Nor, however, is it disputed that parental permission was received for the photographer to create the images.
Henson’s exploration of adolescents is longstanding, as are their potential for controversy. In an online review from 2003, Christian Perring noted that Henson’s works have the potential to be as controversial as those of fellow photographers Jock Sturges and David Hamilton and, consequently, open to charges of being child pornography. Perring writes, however, that even though Henson’s works certainly depict youthful sexuality they transcend the moral depravity of child porn. He writes:
Aside from their sadness, the most striking aspect of these young people is their sexuality. In many pictures they are half-dressed or naked, and in some we see them touching or kissing. Their bodies are thin and elegant, and they look entirely comfortable without clothes. There is no denying their melancholy beauty, even if one might be concerned about the depiction of the eroticism of young teenagers.
I’m introducing this controversy not to initiate discussion about the “art worthiness” of Henson’s photography—whether one “likes” his work or appreciates the themes he explores, there is little dispute that his work qualifies as art and that it is broadly recognized as such within critical circles. The purpose of this topic is for us to discuss the implications of artists using the bodies of adolescents in their work and the social and ethical consequences this may have in today’s media-driven world. This issue takes on a particularly contemporary urgency because of how quickly and broadly images are disseminated in today’s world. For example, awareness of the Henson controversy rapidly spread around the globe primarily because of how quickly news of it (and accompanying photos) were posted to the Internet. In some instances, the photos were reproduced without alteration (see Images 1 and 2 below); other times, however, efforts were made to disguise the individuality of the child and his/her genitals (see Image 3).

Questions for Discussion (Below are a set of questions to use in your postings. You are welcome to select one or more to focus on; you are not required to address each question in your Original Posts or in the Follow-up Responses.)
• There is no dispute that the parents’ of Henson’s subjects gave their permission for their children to be photographed by him, do you believe the government should play a role in deciding whether children may be presented in work such as this? Consider, for example, the arguments made by Hetty Johnson and Clive Hamilton)
• We live in a time when images are easily and rapidly decontextualized from their original intent and reproduced for distribution in entirely different contexts. Many people. for example, have noted the startlingly different experience one has when viewing Henson’s images in a gallery as opposed to viewing them in an online environment such as the Internet where they are frequently used to illustrate news stories (about the controversy) or as completely decontextualized visual images presented outside of any fine art context. What are the implications of this for artists? Should artists consider how (and where) their works may be reproduced when choosing subjects and/or models to present in their work? Does the mode of expression used by an artist (e.g. painting vs. photography) make a difference in your response to these two questions?
• Julian Burnside claims that it is only by making the controversy about these works so "public" that harm was done to the subjects. Respond to Burnside’s argument.
• One of the speakers at the conference (Clive Hamilton) is concerned about how Henson’s images (and others like them) are likely to persist on the Internet for a very long time and that this could present lasting consequences for the subjects. What do you think about this argument?
Sources:
1. Drysdale, R. 4 June 2008. "Pornography or Art?." URL: http://www.dailyserving.com/2008/06/. Daily Serving Blog. Retrieved: 22 September 2009.
2. Pavement Magazine. 2003. "Bill Henson: Ambiguous Spaces of Adolescence." URL: http://www.pavementmagazine.com/billhenson.html. Retrieved: 22 September 2009..
3. Perring, C. 9 May 2003. "Review-Bill Henson." URL: http://metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=book&id=1694&…. Metapsychology Online Reviews. Retrieved: 22 September 2009.

 
ORDER THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET A DISCOUNT !!!

You can place an order similar to this with us. You are assured of an authentic custom paper delivered within the given deadline besides our 24/7 customer support all through.