Hensongate: Mach 2.

You know what's expensive? Spectacles. How can it possibly cost so much to fit some bits of glass together so that a person can see better? I have my own frames, yet without private health cover it will cost at least $280 to put anything of value in them.

I guess I'll just stumble around blindly, cursing the system and squinting at the oncoming traffic while I'm out riding. Stupid health system.

But thank heavens for small pleasures. I'm collapsed on the coach with the balcony door open and the rain pitter pattering along to some Blonde on Blonde. In a moment I might make a cup of tea in the old school blue pottery mug I bought from The Hippies up in the hills yesterday. English Breakfast I think. Yes.

And after that whimsical preamble, on to the more serious point of this post. Ostensibly for all those who engaged in discussion here, my mind's been a whirlwind of different thoughts and questions this afternoon. I'm not afraid to be wrong or have my mind changed, and I hope that any retractions or reassessments made in this post will be taken in the spirit of someone honestly struggling with the complexity of this issue and not as hypocritical back pedalling.

I practiced all this in my head as I rode home, but it appears my discussion topics have flown out the window. Please forgive any haphazard stream of conscious here.

Firstly, I'd say the fundamental point of my article had less to do with the content of Henson's photographs (though it certainly addressed this) and more to do with the seeming willingness of many art and cultural commentators on the left to laud work that is possibly not worthy of praise; however, by way of its controversial content and 'confrontational' ideas it's somehow ascribed merit and value.

Some might argue my cynicism is a result of Howard's culture wars, and that I'm part of the group determined to see nothing of worth in art that is difficult to interpret from a distance. I don't think that's necessarily true, but I do get frustrated by posturing and wank talk from people who like to think that art exists to create debate and challenge our views yet also have an attitude about who is and isn't allowed to form an opinion on that art based on their lack of formal education.

I should disclose that I've had email conversations today with three commentors on here, all of whom disagreed with me. I felt Marla in particular was very open to engaging in some robust debate - as a visual artist, she explained her frustration in reading (and I'm sure not just from me) opinions from people who are not experts in the field, but are casting judgement as if they are.

I understand this. When something that seems so vital to your expression as a human being is called into question and even disrepute and then condemned by opinion pundits such as myself, of course you're going to be a tad irked.

One thing in particular Marla raised with me was the 'sex fiends under the bed' fear (or as I like to refer to it, 'peds under the bed'). I know this has been discussed in the wake of Hensongate. The fact is, we ARE too sensitive to the images of children and how they could possibly be misconstrued to appeal to pedophiles and unsavoury types.

I didn't really mention that in the original article, but had I done I would have agreed with the majority of intelligent people who've declared such an idea total rubbish. I am not afraid of the naked child's body, and I don't think society should be either. To an extent, I can see this as being a pertinent point (at least of the photographs I saw - and yes, they were seen online and not in their full size) of the work - that the darkness surrounding the children and the uncomfortable, creepy Grimm's Brothers fairytale element is the fear we've constructed around childhood bodies and indeed their sexuality.

Because I do believe children are very sexual creatures. I also believe this sexuality can be dark, foreboding and frightening in its intensity, particularly so when children might not fully understand these feelings. I'm going for an overshare here, but when I was about 7 or 8 I used to write letters to myself on the family typewriter from one of my workmates (fantasy office job) telling me how much he wanted to 'fuck' me. Just writing that simple word made me feel dirty and hot and excited all at the same time - and I was seven. When I was 13 and going through a godfearing stage but unable to resist the lure of masturbation, I'd pray to God when I was finished, ask him to forgive me and promise never to do it again.

INTERJECTION

My parents were very open and honest about sex. I sincerely can't imagine where this Catholic guilt came from. Strange child...

/ INTERJECTION

I understand the darkness of childhood sexuality. I also understand adult fear of it, because we can no longer look at naked images of children in an artistic context without being tarnished with the pedo brush. But I never took issue with the fact that Henson had photographed naked pre-teens - I took issue with how he chose to represent them.

As I said to Marla and Bec (in another email exchange), the photographs that I saw placed the subjects in very vulnerable poses, downcast eyes and hesistancy in the way they held their bodies. It seemed to me that the poses were primarily a construction of Henson's visions of sexuality. This doesn't mean they're designed for sexual gratification, nor that he is intentionally pornifying them. However, in the same way I would find images of passive, unresponsive naked women cast in a dark metaphorical forest quite arrogant and offensive (as supposedly insightful art), I found the photographs released last Friday quite repulsive in terms not of the children's bodies but in terms of the photographer's eye.

Of course, this is where the censorship issue comes in. Even if a series of photographs of overage women is found to be arrogant and offensive, censorship is a slippery slope and nothing is achieved from removing them from the public sphere.

But that's because there are no laws banning the photography of naked women in all manner of poses. There are laws preventing the representation of children in a certain manner. After Miranda Devine wrote her article for the SMH on Thursday and talkback callers flooded the airwaves complaining, there was really no other choice but for the police to investigate as part of a duty of care. Should they have seized the photos? They obviously had reason for concern, and part of their role is to investigate claims that someone has broken the law.

On this point though, I have reassessed my stance. I no longer believe it helped the situation to storm in and shut the whole thing down. It certainly has not helped the situation for it to have escalated into a national crisis - we all know what happens when that occurs. People who have only heard about the situation second, third or fourth hand are suddenly an authority on what actually happened.

In that respect, I take full responsibility for contributing to the furore on Sunday through the publication of my article. The media has been grossly hypocritical when it comes to this matter - not only did online news sources take great pleasure in republishing the pictures (albeit 'censored') on Friday along with great DO YOU THINK IT'S CHILD PORN? VOTE NOW! banners, they are hardly innocent when it comes to the exploitation of minors. Heck, society is as guilty as sin.

In Larissa Dubecki's thought provoking piece in today's Age, she points out the glaring hypocrisy of getting on a high horse about these photographs when young girls are exploited daily on the catwalk and in fashion magazines. This is where the Disney element ties in - they make young women like Miley Cyrus and Vanessa Hudgeons feel guilty about the world suddenly realising they have bodies and sexual identities, and then they force them to apologise and dress up in shame to be considered 'acceptable' again.

Female sexuality IS commodified, but it's only condemned when power over it is suddenly taken out of the hands of whichever corporation is pulling its puppet strings.

Dubecki argues that it's unhelpful and frankly offensive for the Prime Minister to declare these photographs 'revolting' because - and I'm sure it's unintentional - the implication for the model is that it is HER that's revolting.

I agree with Dubecki. But this is one reason why duty of care has to be taken into consideration in these issues, and the ability of the model to properly consent especially when dealing with such dark, arguably adult, issues. I might have been a dirty little wannabe whore in my head when I was a child, but I expressed that myself in a way that was comfortable for me.

Obviously I can't speak for the models involved here - perhaps they enjoy a higher level of understanding than I did at their age. But as Penni said earlier in these comments, is it the role of a (much) older photographer to assume responsibility for exploring these issues with his pre-teen subjects? Children are inherently sexual, which means they are free to explore and investigate by themselves and with other children - we would never accept the idea that an adult should be free to involve themselves with that role. Penni writes books for teenage girls that include honest portrayals of teenage sexuality. Different to Henson though, her books are FOR the teenage girls whose sexuality she's dealing with and she's also been a teenage girl. I also doubt she'd frame her characters the way Henson has (in the few images I've seen).

Is it just that he's a man? After all, I've already expressed how taken I was with the Cyrus photo in Vanity Fair. From an email to Bec (who originally asked why I drew a distinction between the two):

"I really do despise the obsession that everything could be inspiring pedophiles. I think that's why I liked the Miley picture so much. I felt it had the appearance of sexuality in the way it's always constructed in the media, but there was something in her eyes that didn't suggest pliability or availability but more of a challenge of ownership. To me, her eyes were saying this is my body and yes I am on the cusp and yes I'm sexual but it's mine to give not yours to take.

I don't know, I just thought it was an amazing photograph."

I'm sure she won't mind me posting her response.

"I really agree, i thought the photo was beautiful. And i absolutely loved the expression on her face and in her eyes. Such a shame that she was made to feel (or at least to say) shamed and embarassed for that photo, for being beautiful and in control of her own sexuality. Really, we are fucking retarded - there is a huge uproar over Janet Jacksons nipple and Miley Cyrus under a sheet, but our kids are able to sit there and play games where they shoot people in the head, or watch vile torture porn movies."

I disagree with Dubecki when she says it was just another tired play on Hollywood up-and-coming-beauties photo spreads. It so easily could have been, but her face prevented that from happening. There's also the difference of a couple of years. Call it hypocritical, but 15 seems to sit more comfortably in the 'understanding your own sexuality' bracket than 12 or 13.

Jacob raised this point in the comments of the previous post:

"Oh, and your comment about Johnny Vegas reminded me of the Little Britain stage show which I saw last year. In it, David Walliams pulls a male audience member, hits on him and then just about rapes him on stage. It's all in fun, and most people were pissing themselves (including the gentleman at the show I saw), but is there much difference between that and Johnny Vegas...?"

I think this raises a really interesting point about what should and shouldn't be acceptable as a form of entertainment or art. My understanding of the Johnny Vegas show (and yes, I'm going based on the accounts of people who were there rather than my own eyewitness account) was that the woman involved had Vegas straddling her at one point, kissing her and apparently slipping his fingers up her skirt and inside her knickers for a brief moment.

Apart from the WTF?! factor here (sexual assault posing as comedic entertainment is not okay), it begs the question of whether or not something morphs from an assault into legitimate entertainment or discussion just because it's done on a stage or forum in front of people. Obviously it would not be okay for the Vegas incident to happen in a dark corner of a bar, or after a date, or at any time or place in the world whatsoever without the woman's consent. How do the lines get blurred just because it's on a stage? The woman may have felt pressure to consent to what was going on because she was aware of the audience and didn't want to spoil the show. Maybe she didn't and she loved it. The point is, the socially responsible thing to do is not present sexual assault as funny and acceptable to an audience that by all probability includes at least a handful of people that wouldn't mind trying it out.

Apart from anything, how is it funny to laugh at rape? Even if it seems funny at the time, it's treading fairly confidently into the city limits of Wrongtown.

That's not to say that Henson's photographs would reassure pedophiles that their activities were okay. I hardly think they need the justification of an art show for that. But we do have to accept that there are some limits which it shouldn't okay to cross over. As a friend said to me recently, there's a difference between aspiring to a liberal society and aspiring to a libertine one.

So while there ARE lots of issues surrounding the so called sexualisation of children that are overblown, panic inducing and plain old bogus, there are legitimate reasons to question Henson's motivation here and his procedures.

I heard an interesting debate on radio today between Monash University's Robert Nelson and ethicist Greg Pike. Nelson defended Henson as an artist but he did acknowledge that there was an uncomfortable element to the photographs. My question is, does something become art just because it makes you uncomfortable? Or is it just plain uncomfortable? Do we not have the right to say when something has gone too far?

On this point, Greg Pike made the following observation. Pike, whose wife is an artist (which I guess lends him legitimacy to a small extent as someone who's probably not out to blatantly demonise the artist's profession), was discussing the art community's online response to Hensongate and he said (I'm paraphrasing):

"Art must not be cloistered in the sense that it thinks it can say anything and the community should be expected to swallow it. I think the artist's job is to critique the community - but they have to be open to the community critiquing the arts. In some respects, I don't think the artistic community like this idea. But it has to cut both ways."

Which comes back to Lucy Tartan's criticism. Tartan doesn't think I have enough experience and knowledge on the subject to really comment. To some extent, she's right. I'm not familiar with Henson's ouevre and I certainly haven't received formal art training. However, I don't think this precludes me from forming an opinion about the issues central to the scandal, nor does it prevent me from being able to look at some of the photographs from this exhibition and feel a very strong sense of distaste.

I think Tartan might have been offended by my flippant referrals to the art community in the original article. Well I'm sorry, but if you're going to get uppity about a layman's right to engage with the subject matter then you've basically proved my point. As Penni said, "If you have to be qualified to talk about art, then I don't really see what the point of art is." It seems very exclusive to say that opinions on art can only be taken seriously if those expressing them have received formal education. It's art - it's about how it makes you feel. Sometimes, it makes you feel rubbish or empty or bored. Do you really need to be educated to justify that opinion?

As for her analogy about tax law, even I thought that was a stretch. Tax law may be changeable, but at any given time you can say 'this is what the laws on tax are' and they will be tangible and solid. Is Tartan saying there are rules on art, but because I haven't been taught them people should just ignore what I have to say on the matter? For heaven's sake, ignore it if you disagree with it or think it's the biggest pile of turd you've ever read. Don't ignore it because I haven't taken an art major and been taught to dismiss those who don't know as much as me.

------------------

And that is about all I really have the emotional energy for tonight. I've appreciated all of your thoughtful comments on the previous post. I feel a lot of the points made did challenge a lot of my ideas around the photography. I hope I've explained articulately what's changed and what's remained the same and why - I've no doubt many will still disagree with me but I don't accept I've been irresponsible with my opinion or that I don't have the right to express it. If anything, the fact I expressed it in the first place has led to this great discussion. Isn't that what debate is all about?

Peace out (my treat for finishing this follow up post tonight is to watch Becoming: Part 2. Joss Whedon continues to be a genius no matter how much I watch him.)