Bill Henson Controversy

Now let me preface this article with two points: firstly, I am a pretty liberal kind of guy when it comes to the whole Sex thing, as I think we seem to have, like America, a somewhat skewed attitude towards sex whereas we have a surprisingly lax attitude towards astonishing violence. It's fine to show someone having their head hacked off, but a pair of naked boobies...omg that's bad, I tell you. Secondly, I am no artist. I'd like to think I am creative and have a little talent in creating some nice artwork, but I don't really know anything about art, though I do know what I like.
For me, photography is an odd sort of medium. It either looks beautiful, crap or staged. For instance things like sunsets, thunderstorms, nude women...all beautiful. Pictures of fools slipping in mud or whatever is crap. "Art" shots, where a naked man eating his own penis with a barbed wire crown and an Osama Bin Laden beard apparently representing "war" is, possibly inventive, but still looks staged. And of course, one of our greatest photographers is Jim Henson...no, no, sorry, Bill Henson. And no, of course, we have Bill's latest work, themed vulnerability in kiddies (or some such title).

Which appears to involve a lot of 10 - 12 year olds stark naked.
Now, Bill has street cred. He is the youngest person to have a display of his photography (in the seventies when he was nineteen) and has gone, apparently, from strength to strength. It is perhaps worth noting that his style of photography involves lots of naked people (invariably quite young) in dark, stormy scenes against bizarre backdrops. Indeed, dear Billy apparently went a little too far a few years back when a girl he photographed had her nipples on display and appeared to be about twelve years old (she was, actually sixteen, so obviously that was all right then).

Therefore his new exhibition isn't actually a surprise. In fact, one might say it's a logical progression. But for me the whole thing just seems a bit weird, and not so much about Henson. Clearly Henson is a bit of a Michael Jackson style freak (for the record, I don't believe Jacko is a paedophile, just a fucking weirdo who genuinely believes there is nothing wrong with sleeping with kiddies, not in the biblical sense by the by) who obviously thought to himself - photographing naked pre-pubescents, no problem there, because it's art. And, surprisingly he's actually right in the eyes of the law who won't be able to prosecute him, it seems as there was no intention. Act, yes, but no intention (apparently mens rea peoples...watch Law & Order!!!).

So, Happy Henson is just fucked up. But here's the question - neither the art gallery, nor the parents of the girls involved thought there was anything wrong with this. Now, maybe it's the forthcoming protective father in me coming out, but if some Charles Manson-look-a-like came up to me and said "Here, sir, have a large wad of cash so I may take pictures of your nude ten year old daughter" I think I'd politely reply "Why don't you go fuck yourself?"

I lie, actually. I'd just punch him in the face.

And knee him in the bollocks.

But apparently some parents said "Yes, that sounds like a wonderful idea, William. Let's run with that." Seriously, what's with that? Now, given that their intention was to give some nude the opportunity to take nudie pictures of their kids for money, surely that's intent to pimp out their child? Which means mens rea is there! Which means this loser parents should be charged with facilitating child pornography. And given that any half-way sensible person would look at a nude pic of a ten year old girl and think "Hmm...that could be a little controversial..." this art gallery should have had some foreknowledge that these pictures were offensive. Therefore, intent to distribute child pornography.

Bill, you're a toss, but clearly you always have been. Parents and Art Gallery, you've pretty much disgraced yourselves. There's little you can do to redeem yourselves.

"D"