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.

Story continues below

advertisement

"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

[jojojo]

Cate, I adore you, but you're wrong on this.

Artful nude photos can be taken of adults who are old enough to give informed consent. These are children not old enough to do so. If their parents gave consent, then they are abusing and exploiting these children, and ought to be beaten.

[MikeDu]

Reminds me of the mother who was hauled off to jail for taking an innocent snapshot of her daughter playing in the bath. There's not much out there that a dirty mind can't find prurient content in.

[TimmySlagle]

"There's not much out there that a dirty mind can't find prurient content in"

The dirtier the mind, the easier to find prurient content.

I imagine there are a few people that get aroused watching "Life in the ER."

[endlessjosh]

Yeah, and Sally Mann should be beaten for sure.
Here is a crazy idea...see the artwork before a dogmatic opinion is made and also realize that for hundreds of years youngsters have been portrayed nude (Donatello's David not to mention Michelangelo's). It's so ridiculous.

[Mykel]

Well, um, sure, but some religious groups also claim it's ok to oppress, beat, exploit and kill women, children and other races or religious groups because they've done so "for hundreds of years."

Doesn't make it right!

[Mykel]

This post makes the most sense.

In fact, given the many child actors who have grown up completely damaged by their experience, I'm inclined to want to see children barred from show biz for the same reason: as minors, they simply cannot give consent.

[TimmySlagle]

I'm old enough to remember when this Blind Faith album cover was in the record stores:

http://img292.echo.cx/img292/48/blindfaith8fj.jpg

Strange that today, even owning a copy might be reason for arrest.

[wndrwrthg]

Is it only art when done by someone with name recognition, or is the same thing done by someone with a home studio or a polaroid considered porn.

[andhakari]

I didn't recognize his name, but his photos i found on the net look like art to me. I doubt if he used a Polaroid though.

[PhDiva]

I think this is such an important point. Thank you for making it. The issue must not be the quality of the photograph. The issue must be the age of the children. Otherwise, pornographers can use this argument to justify their exploitation of children. These children are too young.

[Spazzers]

A mother buys a round blow up pool and lets her kids splash around in it while in the nude. She takes photos of them to show her family and friends. Is the mother exploiting the children sexually? Anyone who would say yes to that question has personal issues that should be addressed by a real doctor.

[awitness]

I'm against censorship and I'm sure the art work is quite beautiful and was created with a higher artistic purpose, but what troubles me is that if you are looking at pictures of naked 12 & 13 year old boys and girls on the internet better watch out when the cops come knocking on your door busting you for downloading child porn. As a society we believe you should keep your hands & eyes off of children - or do we?

[gclum]

I’m all for art and freedom to make it. But there are also legal implications for the artist and subjects of that art. I don’t pretend to know his work but I do know that photographing 12-13 year olds nude is wrong every time. No matter how innocent the photo’s are, some will use it as pornography and the photos will make it to the web. It is clearly not appropriate and should never had been done.

[slg]

Self appointed arbiters of public morals expose more of themselves than any artwork or artist could ever hope to.

Just because some take it as pornography doesn't mean it is. If you find something offensive, don't look at it but please do not pretend you have the authority to tell me what is offensive. We've been pandering too long to overly sensitive, narrow minded authoritarians and it's time Society stopped letting them dictate what is right and what is good for everyone else.

[mamacat]

One might argue that it is time we stop allowing society to exploit children, whether it is by forcing them to work in factories, or talking them into posing nude. When we use naked children as art, then we have gone too far. They cannot be held liable for contracts that they sign, because they are not considered competent to evaluate the consequences of the contracts. That argument applies to asking or paying them to pose for things that they probably don't fully understand yet. On the other hand, the adults who encourage them to pose nude, and who then display the nudity, can be expected to know what they are doing.

[intopolitics]

Censorship is usually wrong.

[cardtosser]

My choice for best post.

[PhDiva]

Usually, but not always. It is not wrong when it protects children.

[deckard70]

Protects them from what? From being in a museum? Is that something people need protection from?