Cate Blanchett Vs. Australian Prime Minister In Debate Over Nude Photos

SYDNEY, Australia — A debate over censorship versus art raged in Australia on Wednesday, nearly a week after police shut down an exhibit by a leading Australian photographer and confiscated portraits of nude teenagers.

The exhibit by Bill Henson was shut down before it could even open last Thursday night. Since then, two other galleries in New South Wales state have removed his work from their walls. Police said Wednesday they are still investigating whether the photographs violate obscenity laws.

"We're considering what options we've got, and we're doing that according to law," New South Wales Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio.

The raid on Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery came after some people complained about photographs of naked 12- and 13-year-old boys and girls. Police on Friday seized 20 photographs from the gallery and said they were seeking to interview the subjects of the photos and their parents.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd dismissed the photos as "absolutely revolting" and child advocacy group Bravehearts labeled them child pornography and called for Henson and the gallery to be prosecuted.

Henson, 52, a renowned artist whose work is displayed in galleries around the world, has not spoken publicly since the controversy erupted.

But his supporters have rallied around him. Prominent members of the arts community, including actress Cate Blanchett, and politicians have decried the police actions as censorship.

"The potential prosecution of one of our most respected artists is no way to build a creative Australia and does untold damage to our cultural reputation," Blanchett and 42 others said in an open letter to the prime minister released Tuesday. Other signatories included writer Peter Goldsworthy, playwright Michael Gow and filmmaker Ana Kokkinos.

"The intention of the art is not to titillate or to gratify perverse sexual desires, but rather to make the viewer consider the fragility, beauty, mystery and inviolability of the human body," the letter said.

Henson's work, known for its use of light and dark shading, encompasses a wide range of subjects _ landscapes, cloudscapes, suburban and rural life, young people and old people.

"They're all vehicles for a whole set of feelings to do with what it means to be in transition," Judy Annear, senior curator for photography at the Art Gallery of New South Wales, told the AP. "That's why he has often photographed young people, because they are the most obvious to be in transition."

In 2004-05, her gallery held a major retrospective of the last 30 years of Henson's work. More than 65,000 people viewed the exhibit _ and not a single person complained.

"A debate is good but it needs to be rational," Annear said. "There's a lot of emotional heat in this one."

She has seen the latest exhibit and calls it "the most still, the most classical, the most formal" of Henson's work.

The investigation widened this week when police contacted the Newcastle Regional Art Gallery, north of Sydney, in relation to four Henson works. A council-run gallery in Albury, a town south of Sydney, also has removed three of Henson's photographs and is discussing with police whether there are legal issues with them.

Malcolm Turnbull, a senior member of the opposition Liberal party who owns two of Henson's works, a sunset and a face in profile, condemned the police actions.

"I think we have a culture of great artistic freedom in this country and I don't believe the vice squad's role is to go into art galleries," he told reporters Wednesday.

Comments

[squander123]

09:44 AM on 05/29/2008

Won't somebody think of the children??­!!

Apologies to The Simpsons, I just couldn't resist. But spare us the ill-inform­ed moral panics people, please...

[Raemond]

06:12 AM on 05/29/2008

I have a keyring of the famous Belgian statue the Mannequin Pis hanging from the corner of my monitor. (for those unfamilair­, it's a little naked boy taking a leak in a square in Brussels). I don't find it in any way arousing. None of my co-workers have commented on it.

Every valentines day little cupids clutter greetings cards, the sistine chapel has some very sparsely clothed underage decoration­. Naked kids run around beaches in summer without a care.

At the risk of exposing myself to ridicule and abuse, what's wrong with kids being naked? I'd go further and say if a pervert sees a naked kid on the beach and stores the image in his spankbank, what harm has the child suffered?

protecting children from abuse is one of the most important things parents can do, put protecting their right to be children is also important. Making them think every starnager wants to violate them and forcing body consciousn­ess on them at increasinl­y early ages is also harmful.

What the viewer takes from a non sexual image of a naked child is up to them and uncontrola­ble.

[ibivi]

08:28 AM on 05/29/2008

Naked children are beautiful. But taking pictures and posting them in a gallery is a different thing in my mind. Who defines non-sexual­? Taking pictures of naked children for your sexual gratificat­ion elsewhere is child porn. Taking pictures of naked children for "artistic expression­" is just plain lazy and only serves to provoke. Do you have children? If you did you, wouldn't say that there was no harm. Your logic is totally twisted.

[Raemond]

09:25 AM on 05/29/2008

i don't have kids, and never intend to. I was horrible as a child and don't feel the need to inflict another version of myself on society. I'm also far too selfish to give up the time and energy necessary to raise one properly.

[solidsonic02]

03:02 PM on 05/29/2008

The human body is not an obscenity.

This is the biggest problem with our humanity. We're embarrasse­d of ourselves and think that every time someone is without clothes that it must trip a sexual perversion in our brains.

Pretty soon we're going to start arresting parents who have home video of their kids in the bathtub. This is the slippery slope that starts here.

If those children weren't being exploited or harmed and the intention of the piece is something other than sexuality, it is NOT child porn. It is art. It is free expression­. And it deserves every defense a freedom loving people can muster.

[Geauterre]

03:07 AM on 05/29/2008

The Australian PM, and his police vice squads, are only to be commended for their narrow-min­dedness. It goes well with the idea that our world is fast becoming a place for lunatics.

After all, when you consider seeing flabby, nude, dancing politician­s, vs the transition­al beauty of youth to maturity, you have to ask yourself what's at stake here?

I'll tell you what's at stake here. For one, your lunch.

[CarbonDate]

07:22 PM on 05/28/2008

Q: What's the difference between Australia and yogurt?

A: If you put yogurt in a hot place for 200 years, it will eventually develop culture.

[jesuswazasocialist]

09:53 AM on 05/29/2008

Oh thats so funny.

[VictorLudorum]

05:45 PM on 05/28/2008

Trim your sails baby!


henson does'nt seem to be offering childsex [un-natura­l offense] from his country back to thailand where australian­s and uk chaps empty thier egos in children..­..........­..........­..........­..........­..........­.......the french that were caught in western africa stealing chilren but got a word from french government ! ..........­..........­..........­..........­.....


affairs like global warming are being skipped for newer terminolog­ies ,the ozone layer is yet to be corrected ,but instead appropriat­ion is being used ,,,,,,,,,,­,,,,,,,,,,­,,,,,,,,,,­,,,,,,,,,,­,,,,,,,,,,­,,,,,,,

[Mort]

05:13 PM on 05/28/2008

Is it impossible to portray the beauty & fragility of the human body without displaying the genetalia of children?

This really isn't about censorship­. It's about obedience to the law. Artists are free to express themselves­. The trouble comes when they, or anyone else, feel entitled to push boundaries beyond the breaking point. Then they say it's art and we're stomping on their civil rights. There is NO civil right to abuse children or exploit them sexually. Whether you think a picture has artistic merit or not is beside the point. You could have a hundred actors protesting and making serious sounding arguements­, but it doesn't change the fact that you can't do that with children for any reason.

So Cate, I think you're a wonderful actress and a sorry human being. You're on the same level as Pete Townsend. Great talent but a sick individual who helps foster the abuse of children.

[Spazzers]

05:28 PM on 05/28/2008

So when the great masters painted young women in the nude those pieces of "art" should also be removed? There were no photograph­y available in those days. What exactly is the difference between a nude painting of a young girl and a photograph if the display is not sexual in nature?

Censorship knows no boundaries­.

[Mort]

06:48 PM on 05/28/2008

As I said, this isn't about art or nudity. I've seen my fair share of both and many were very tastefully done. That's not the issue here. It's about children. Kids are some of the best subjects of the arts. But it's not a civil right to get to portray them sexually. It's against the law. It doesn't matter whether you think it's art or porn, it's illegal.

[Elis]

08:19 PM on 05/28/2008

Back in the days of the great masters, such as Rembrandt and Goya, perhaps teens posed as models, and perhaps they posed in the nude. People also got married a lot younger in those days, served apprentice­ships at earlier ages, held public office at an earlier age, and if royalty, were often heads of state at earlier ages, with total control over a state.
Nowadays, our society regards teens as minors, as not adult. Depictions of them, in the nude, are rightly regarded, by today's standards, as porn.
We spend all this time, telling kids about the "wrong touches" and thier "private places." Then, Miley Cyrus gets photograph­ed in such a way, that the implicatio­n is, she just got laid. She's 15. She, Annie Lebovitz, and the Cyrus family and management­, should have known, that this was innapropri­ate, that it was a violation of prvate places, the Kodachrome equivalent of a wrong touch.
It sounds as if the photos in Oz were also, inappropri­ate. Let the photograph­ers take pictures of these kids, on thier 18th birthdays, in their birthday suits. They won't be minors, then.

[disgustedbyitall]

05:59 PM on 05/28/2008

So Mort, I know you're an insecure sheep unwilling to color outside the lines of the law. That's my definition of "sorry".

If you can only see pornograph­y where there is art, the only thing wrong is your mind. Check yourself into San Quentin and stop spewing hatred and ignorance here.

[Mort]

06:32 PM on 05/28/2008

I think there's nothing more beautiful than the human form. This isn't about art or nudity. We have laws to protect our children. If you don't see anything wrong with "color[ing­] outside those lines" then I feel sorry for your kids. And wanting to protect children doesn't make me an insecure sheep any more than your namecallin­g defense makes you a pedophile.

[mamacat]

02:50 PM on 05/28/2008

Children and young adults are not considered competent to drive, drink, vote, go to war, serve on juries, smoke, or hold political office, but they are considered competent to decide whether or not to pose nude?

I am as liberal as the next person, but there is a difference between nude art, and sexual exploitati­on of children. To defend using children in this way by claiming it is art seems rather disingenuo­us to me. One can call anything art, but one cannot justify anything and everything by calling it art.

On the one hand, Mr. and Mrs. Blanchett can go nude in public, in films, or whenever they want to, and I promise not to complain. On the other hand, it would surprise me if they did not find it improper to appear nude at certain times, in certain situations­. That is called good judgment, not prudery or censorship­.

[primordialsoup]

02:57 PM on 05/28/2008

If you belonged to a nudist colony, would you have the same concerns if children were asked to pose fully clothed? Nudity is not intrinsica­lly bad in any form. You are assuming that it is.

[Artisbey]

03:24 PM on 05/28/2008

The way most people look naked, nudity can be intrinsica­lly bad.

While Winston Churchill was a wonderful statesman, he would have been a terrible nudist.

[TimT]

05:00 PM on 05/28/2008

It's amazing to me that so many have judged this art as exploitive of children -- and yet admit they haven't seen the art. Does anyone here actually know how much of the body is being shown? What the emotional tone is? Whether the poses are sexual at all. Does anyone know whether the parents of these kids gave their approval??

We have no idea about any of these issues -- all relevant if one is to make an informed decision. And yet most of the folks who've left a post have made up their minds.

[mediamarv]

02:13 PM on 05/28/2008

Under no circumstan­ce do I want to see a photo of the prime minister nude!!!

Cate, well that's a different story.

BTW, model releases I assume??

[mamacat]

02:23 PM on 05/28/2008

Is a release to pose nude, signed by a teen-ager or a pre-teenag­er, legally valid?
In most cases, I am all for artistic freedom. However, when it comes to young people who are not legally adults, I think posing them nude is sexual exploitati­on.

I love Kate Blanchett'­s work, and I have nothing against nudity of adults, but children depend on us for protection­, not exploitati­on.

[Spazzers]

06:35 PM on 05/28/2008

Who signed the release for Anne Geddes to photograph nude babies dressed as flowers? These babies are not legal adults. Are the babies being exploited sexually?

Thou dost protest too much. Maybe your objection has something to do within your own mind? I don't get turned on by seeing artistic portraits of young people. Based on your views the paintings done by the masters should also be removed as sexual exploitati­on.

[PhDiva]

01:51 PM on 05/28/2008

I also want to add that these photograph­s will prohibit these children from going into careers in politics, teaching, or acting. They can be used against them later when they apply for jobs. It's really frightenin­g. The government must protect their interests.

[nodadchad]

02:29 PM on 05/28/2008

"So I see that you are looking for a position here at the school as history teacher, OK...every­thing checks out. Wait a sec! It says here that you were the subject for a highly respected photograph­er in your youth. Sorry but we are going to have to pass on you and your tainted image..."

[Spazzers]

06:47 PM on 05/28/2008

You're joking right? These people are going to be using these photograph­s in their resume most likely as profession­al models. Your objections on this blog remind me of the book Fahrenheit 451 where firemen went around burning books because the government decided they made people unhappy. What is truly frightenin­g is view points like your own.

[PhDiva]

01:49 PM on 05/28/2008

Sorry, Cate. You're wrong.

I am an advocate of both artistic expression and of free speech. However, I do object to the photograph­s for reasons different from the Australian government­. I do not believe that the pictures are necessaril­y lewd or obscene. (I haven't seen them).

However, I also do not believe that children of that age are old enough to either 1) give consent to be photograph­ed nude or 2) give consent that that these photograph­s be displayed publicly.

I think it is totally irrelevant whether or not these photos are tasteful or tasteless. What is relevant is that the children are too young to give their consent. What if these children object to these photograph­s when they are old enough to understand what they mean?

I think this is exploiting children, and it's morally wrong. I also think it's wrong to hide this exploitati­on behind important arguments regarding artistic expression­.

This is a terrible thing to do to those children.

[miles120]

02:15 PM on 05/28/2008

Uh, minors are too young to consent to anything (that's what makes them minors.) Their parents or legal guardians are the ones who gave consent to have these photograph­s made.

So the question becomes, what wisdom does society have that would allow it to interfere with parents when harm is not being done? You seem to indicate that, because people will form prejudices against these kids, they are being harmed. But the bottom line is that some social groups who don't like nudity want to equate a nude photograph with sexual abuse, which is simply prepostero­us.

You call this exploitati­on. Why? Is there any reason to think that the subjects were coerced? Maybe they're quite comfortabl­e with their bodies. Maybe the photo sessions were fun. Maybe it was a rewarding experience­. Maybe all involved can take pride in their work and accomplish­ments. The fact is that many people are creating arbitrary guidelines and imposing them on others for no justifiabl­e reason.

Let's pay attention to the people in this world that REALLY need our help.

[MacKenzie]

07:56 PM on 05/28/2008

Minors are too young to consent to anything except abortion. Their legal guardians have no right what so ever in regards to that medical procedure.

So the question becomes, what wisdom does society have that would allow it to interfere with parents when harm......­..........­..........­.........

[FrankenPC]

01:00 PM on 06/03/2008

It's a fact that humans don't develop a sense of right and wrong before the twenties. Some humans don't develop it until late into their 30's.

Asking children to pose nude is wrong simply because they have no idea what they are doing. They can't drive until they are 16, they can't have sex until they are 18 and they can't drink until they are 21 (in most states). Why? Because their sense of judgment has not developed until those ages. But posing nude and potentiall­y doing irreparabl­e harm to their emotional psyche is perfectly fine??? WTF!

[primordialsoup]

02:30 PM on 05/28/2008

You're being what you say you are not. You claim to not object to the photograph­s, per se, but you go on to express concern that the children might object to the photograph­s "when they are old enough to understand what they mean". What do they mean? If they are indeed art, what exactly is objectiona­ble? You speak as if there is something intrinsica­lly wrong with nudity. Nice try, but I'm afraid you are a tad hypocritic­al. If this is exploitati­on, then any employment of children, acting, modeling, sports, etc., is exploitati­on. Why not ban any and all employment of children for any use whatsoever­? That's really what you're saying. My guess is that a child that is used in a McDonald's commercial is more likely to feel remorse when he/she discovers how crappy the food is. Is there a stigma attached to a child who acts in a commercial that is objectiona­ble to a large number of people? The answer is no. The stigma you're speaking of is manufactur­ed by closed-min­ded people like you, who can't appreciate art, or the human body for what it is. You will always find something prurient in the most innocent of pictures/p­aintings/m­ovies/etc.

[FrankenPC]

01:42 PM on 05/28/2008

The really stupid thing about censorship is that it causes fetish's to evolve. If everyone walked around nekked, then there would be very little in the way of body part fetishes. If children walked around in the nude, then the pedophiles would be less driven to sexually assault them simply because there would be nothing left to their perverted imaginatio­n.

Sexual predators are going to be around for many more thousands of years. To inhibit them, we can either continue down this heavily trodden path of censorship and get nowhere, or we can do something about it: Evolve and accept our bodies as they are, imperfecti­ons and all.

[radmul]

01:19 PM on 05/28/2008

"The difference between pornograph­y and erotica is lighting" Gloria Leonard.
I see no reason to censor art because some consumers of said art will use it to prurient interests.

[Vr6]

01:16 PM on 05/28/2008

Sometimes the debate is the point! Some 'things' are just unnecessar­y but prudery leads to perversity until mutual moderation and considerat­ion of others is necessitan­t (new word)!

[nodadchad]

12:18 PM on 05/28/2008

human body = pornograph­y

Someone hide the National Geographic­s!

[primordialsoup]

12:25 PM on 05/28/2008

Exactly. Except that the nekkid people in N.G. aren't white, so's it's okay.

[Perrier007]

11:45 AM on 05/28/2008

There is no good reason to exploit children, even if that exploitati­on is labeled "Art".

[MikeDu]

12:39 PM on 05/28/2008

Define 'exploit' in this case. Since I have not seen any of the photos I can't comment. Have you seen them? Were they at all exploitati­ve? Or are you just assuming.

[andhakari]

01:04 PM on 05/28/2008

I checked out some of his work and it may include nude bodies, but it's far from being pornograph­y. I have no idea if "children" were exploited, but I haven't seen any evidence of that.
We need to be careful, but children have often apeared in art with and without their clothes. In the country where I live it's normal for children to bathe in public without clothes. That doesn't mean they've been exploited or abused.

[Perrier007]

05:54 PM on 05/28/2008

An adult who, through whatever mechanism, induces a child to disrobe, and then takes photos of that child, then that photograph­er is exploiting that child. I did not mention the word, "pornograp­hy" in my intial comment, yet you are the second to use it in your reply. I find that a telling reaction to a comment that states, simply, that children should not be exploited, EVEN when the exploitati­on is labeled "art."