I don't know Bill Henson or men like him well enough to judge whether they defend their profession or pedophilia. After seeing an interview he gave, I don't think he sexualizes his art, but I find that he does something similar by objectifying people as 'subjects' (You could say I am somewhat biased against photographers who capture unwilling people in moments and call it art, although I admit these images can be very powerful). But in any case, it's most likely that we blame one person to deny recognition of how widespread the problem is.
There are probably thousands of pedophiles who enjoy looking at the children, and thousands more of the adults who exploit the sexuality of their children for money. Most 12 years olds don't know what they are fully consenting to; and in most cases an artist would be profitting off their innocence. They probably make a prefered art subject because of this innocence.
I would reject his art out of disgust for what the thousands are doing to the child, not the composition of the art itself. I address the part of the population that holds the viewer responsible for sexualizing the children. And yes, it is correct to state that it is the media that sexualizes everything and the media that tries to tell us what to think about the issues. I think the Senator in the article is foolish to consider this a betrayal of 'parent' trust.
This doesn't have to be an issue about nudity; humans are naked at birth, and we wear clothes for aesthetic reasons, to protect us from the cold, and to ease those who are self-conciousness (aside from protecting us from witnessing other's poor hygiene). But I don't think Bill Henson really makes that case, if you still find him worth defending 4 months later.
|