Okay, here we go on thoughts and many gut feelings with my best attempts at explaining them. To me, a lot of the issues surrounding this topic come down to intention and audience. I do not truly believe that Henson is trying to create pornography, or images to create arousal, and hang them in art galleries. Perhaps he is, I can't be certain, but I don't believe so. I think his images, by and large, are more intended to make people think, debate, and get to know their own limitations and boundaries a little better. More interesting than the images themselves are our own reactions to them, and as part of the task is to respond and think about gut feelings about these images, I will try to work mostly from this.
Bill Henson
Untitled #30, 2009/2010
AH SH8 N35
archival inkjet pigment print
127 × 180cm
Edition of 5 + 2 A/Ps
Untitled #30, 2009/2010
AH SH8 N35
archival inkjet pigment print
127 × 180cm
Edition of 5 + 2 A/Ps
Bill Henson
Untitled #16, 2009/10
AH SH4 N13
archival inkjet pigment print
127 × 180cm
Edition of 5 + 2 A/Ps
AH SH4 N13
archival inkjet pigment print
127 × 180cm
Edition of 5 + 2 A/Ps
The first thing that I want to point out is that composition can play a strong role in how sexualised an image feels (to me, in the very least). The above two pictures are both extremely similar in pose. Going off gut feeling, the top one is acceptable and the latter one is not. It has a little to do with how much of the girl you can see, and a little to do with the fact that she looks younger in the lower photograph. I think the difference to me is that the first photograph is, without question, a portrait, whereas the lower image is hinting at being a nude. I say "hinting at" because I don't think it completely classifies as one, but by including her shoulder, collarbones, and hinting at the shape of her chest, the image has gained a feeling of being sexualised in a different way to the top one. It is a different thing to look at a body and a face, rather than just a face. My point in showing those images next to eachother was largely just to show how small a change is needed to change an image significantly on the scale of acceptable to not.
Bill Henson
Untitled #25, 2008/2009
AH SH21 N26
archival inkjet pigment print
127 × 180cm
Edition of 5 + 2 A/Ps
Untitled #25, 2008/2009
AH SH21 N26
archival inkjet pigment print
127 × 180cm
Edition of 5 + 2 A/Ps
The next point I think is really relevant is that a nude can be implied and not necessarily sexualised. I think this one (above) is really in the mind of the viewer. To me, it's a portrait that doesn't really imply much of a sexual nature, but I am quite sure that if other people looked at it, this image could be highly suggestive. David Marr brings up this idea in his lecture when he asks where we draw the line. He argues that if everything that people find sexually arousing were to be removed from publication (internet and elsewhere) there wouldn't be much content left. I once heard someone say that if you could think of something, there would be a fetish site for it on the internet, which is sadly not too far from the truth. This is not to say that some images are not, in the mainstream, seen as excessively suggestive in nature. I only mean to suggest that perhaps the line is being drawn in the wrong spot for the differentiation between acceptable and unacceptable.
That said, from a personal point of view, I have a girl who I consider to be my adopted little sister. She's 10 years old, and if I found out someone had photographed her in a way similar to any of these images, heads would roll. These girl's parents, families and friends must have been very open minded to accept these images. I am not sure that if I was put in the same position, that I would deal very well. However, were it me being offered to be in the photographs, I believe I should have the right to choose.
Bill Henson
Untitled #11, 2009/2010
AH C SH45 N33D
archival inkjet pigment print
127 × 180cm
Edition of 5 + 2 A/Ps
AH C SH45 N33D
archival inkjet pigment print
127 × 180cm
Edition of 5 + 2 A/Ps
Bill Henson
Untitled #23, 2009/2010
AH C SH49 N30D
archival inkjet pigment print
127 × 180cm
Edition of 5 + 2 A/Ps
Untitled #23, 2009/2010
AH C SH49 N30D
archival inkjet pigment print
127 × 180cm
Edition of 5 + 2 A/Ps
The above two images, at a gut feeling level, I detest. Beyond any technical reasons I may like the photographs, they make me feel sick to the core. To me they have a feeling of violence and vulnerability that absolutely makes me furious. However, evoking an emotional response is exactly what an image is supposed to do and in that sense, to me these two images have been very successful. To me, these two come down to Henson's intention. Was it his purpose to portray these girls as vulnerable and being manhandled as a sort of perverse image, or is it to raise awareness to these issues? Once again, I can't be sure. However, just because an image makes you uncomfortable doesn't mean that you shouldn't look at it. In fact, perhaps it means it is one you should study closely. On closer examination I find these images quite threatening. It doesn't quite translate to words well but they actually get my adrenaline going, I do find them very passively aggressive and threatening, which is both why I am so drawn to them, and yet at the same time repulsed.
Vogue
My feeling is that the Vogue affair with the children dressed up as adults must be a parody (right? right? please say it is). The images don't particularly promote or sell anything, and I don't quite understand why Vogue would publish them as anything but satire. I can't really say if Vogue did or did not intend them as satire - there seems to be no clear indication either way yet.If they're satirical, then they are well done, pinpointing how completely ridiculous the fashion industry and our society in general can be. However, if it was not intended as satire, I cannot even put words on how out of line I feel that the images are. Again, this is a gut feeling. Either way, I don't understand the purpose or intention of the images if not in jest or satire.
The fact that they may have been used as satirical does not make it "okay" to photograph children in this way - but I do think it is particularly striking how similar it looks to a "normal" editorial that one might see in a Vogue magazine. As such if it is being used as satire, then it is in a sense for a good cause. The fact that people are sickened by it is then a good thing. If it was to advertise clothes, then I believe Vogue has firstly failed, and secondly crossed ethical boundaries doing so.
I do apologise if I have rambled. I think these are disjointed bits of thoughts that have built up over the night.
