 
Art and Morality
In 2008, a Bill Henson exhibition was the subject of a police investigation after it emerged that it contained photos of naked children. In defence of himself, Henson said:
"The greatness of art comes from ambiguities, which is another way of saying it stops us from knowing what to think. It redeems us from a world of moralism and opinionation and claptrap."
Although I am unsure about the appropriateness of using a young a girl as a subject matter, I do see value in his philosophy in general. The artist has a role to play in the ambiguities of life where change leaves people in periods of uncertainty. By exposing the issues, others can form a logical, emotional or moral response to them. Valuable art can be divisive because it splits people into different spectrums where they are forced to reflect on a range of issues if they are ever to reach consensus again. In this period of reflection, new ideas are born and new feelings are experienced. When society needs to adapt from old moral codes to new morals codes, artists can potentially facilitate that adaptation by helping people see issues from multiple perspectives. Once the artist has revealed these perspectives, activists can come along and lead the community in a new direction.
Of course, an artist should never be viewed as a divine being that is all knowing and all good. Just because a singular artist believes society needs to change doesn’t mean it should. To the contrary, there are many taboos that exist for good reason and by challenging them, artists can potentially act like termites that undermine the fabric of society. In such cases, perhaps the artists have little value.
In the case of Henson's child nudes, they could be interpreted in a number of different ways. The most obvious interpretation is that they explore the emotional angst that characterises children during the awakening of their sexual years. Henson didn't sexualise children, rather, he showed that their sexualised selves had awakened and brought a range of issues with them.
It was open to debate as to whether such an exploration had value. Because the years can be a difficult time for children, it could be argued that Henson's photographs raised awareness on an important topic so that parents could provide superior guidance. Furthermore, Henson was just exposing the reality of what happens to children when they commence puberty.
On the downside, taboos on the depiction of teenage sexuality exist for a reason. If Henson had been allowed to get away with taking photos of naked teenagers, other artists may have followed suit, using "art" as a guise to produce child pornography.
For some people, Henson's work was pornography because some men would have been sexually aroused by the fragility and innocence of the photo. I don't agree with this argument. For me, the intention of the creator determines whether something is porn or art. Porn is made with the intention of eliciting a sexual response in an audience. If something is made with a different intention, then it is not porn irrespective of the effect it has on others. Not only do I use this definition to differentiate porn from art, I also use it to differentiate porn from educational materials. For example, in 2009, a Zambian doctor sent government officials pictures of a woman giving birth without medical help in order to highlight health care issues. The man was then arrested on the charge of creating pornography. Even if the government official was aroused by the image and compelled to masturbate, I would still not consider it porn because it was not made with the intention of provoking a sexual response.
I don't really know what Henson's intention was. If his intention was to stimulate debate, probably the opposite effect occurred. The uproar over the photos caused Australia to become more conservative. The photos polarised people to such an extent that many parents are now worried about taking photos of their children running around in the nude. Maybe that is a good thing or maybe it is not, but despite Henson's claim to be somewhat amoral, I would guess it was an outcome he was not particularly pleased with.
In addition, mass media coverage censored the subject of his photo in such a way as to communicate that she was a victim. A lifetime of people approaching the subject as if she were a victim could potentially be more harmful than complimenting her for her involvement in a piece of art. Again, it would be an outcome that Hensen probably would not be happy with.
Art Monthly cover featuring the daughter of art critic Robert Nelson
Defences of Henson by powerful figures in the arts community were probably counter productive as well. One of these defences came from Art critic Robert Nelson, who allowed a photo of his naked daughter to be published on the cover of Art Monthly in a show of support. Ironically, the show of support revealed a very different ideological approach to art than that promoted by Henson. Whereas Henson stressed the importance of moral ambiguities and freedom of opinion, Nelson and co promoted moral certainity and opinion. In their morals and their opinion, it was wrong to censor the arts or denounce children being shown naked. They didn't actually keep an open mind in regards to the topics that Henson was addressing or the moral issues associated with his work. It seems Nelson and co didn't understand that being open-minded means considering both points of view. It doesn’t mean automatically denouncing the restrictive approach.
Aside from taking a close-minded approach to the issue, Nelson harmed Henson’s cause when the media became aware that he had written had written about his baby daughter in a highly sexualised way. In his own words:
"In the suite of nude photographs, Olympia is seen with a dummy ... The dummy, itself, is ambiguous; for while it vouches for the child's infancy ... it also evokes the perversity of pleasure-sucking, tellingly, then, the outward sign of innocence is potentially the most diabolically sexual."
Nelson tried to defend himself using a cultural relativism argument. He argued that in some cultures it is acceptable to behead a woman for wearing a miniskirt, and to a degree, their cultures should be respected. In other words, there was no such thing as higher morality. In his own words:
"In some cultures, it seems unquestionably appropriate to behead a woman for wearing a miniskirt. And up to a point, we have to respect those alien standards. But the great mistake is to imagine that such moral positions are absolute and immutable, that no other standards can be considered equally legitimate."
It was a weak argument. Firstly, cultural relativism can not be used to defend the sexualisation of children because it is taboo in every culture. It always has been and always will be. The only cultural variance is in regards to the age used to determine childhood and adulthood. Because Henson’s photos showed signs of puberty, they would be acceptable in some cultures. Nelson’s essay that sexualised his baby daughter would be taboo in all. Secondly, just because some cultures have decided they want to behead women for wearing miniskirts is no reason to invalidate the choices of Australians who want to live life in a different way. Thirdly, it was hypocritical of Nelson to say he would respect the rights of other cultures to sanction women for wearing miniskirts but not respect the rights of Australians to sanction artists who sexualise children.
In regards to my own morality, I often approach art as if I was opening Pandora’s Box. I don't really consider whether it is in my interests or the interests of others to open it. Curiosity just compels me to go into new territory. Again I agree with Henson when he says:
"Every true artist takes the path of the holy fool, the child looking into the dark mirror, the mad simpleton encountering as a mystery the stuff of the world."
Adam Meets Eve - Chad Swanson
Although I am an artist motivated by curiosity, I am not a sociopath. I have morals and I see the value in the moral codes of others. My consideration for the moral codes of others sometimes causes me to question whether I should be doing what I am doing. For example, when I was living in China, my website was blocked. The main concern was probably the use of sex as a subject matter, which censors might have believed would corrupt China's morality. I could see the censor's point of view. Because China lacks a social welfare system, it is important to preserve the institution of marriage so that working couples can support their children, themselves and their parents. If art encouraged sexual promiscuity, then perhaps it could tempt people in marriage and be quite harmful for Chinese society.
It was definitely not my intention to do that. For example, even though my paintings such as Adam Meets Eve are explicit, I don’t think they promote promiscuity any more than reading the bible. That said, it is impossible to perfectly predict how others might react and the depiction of sex in a harmless form could inspire other artists to depict sex in a harmful form.
Even though I could see the censor's point of view, I don't believe that a prohibitive approach to sexuality in art leads to chaste outcome. When it comes to sex, denying a outlet for sexual desires in art may compell some people to gain an outlet for their desires in the flesh. I suspect that this might be occurring in China. In Beijing, there is no red light distinct because prostitution is spread throughout the whole city in the form of hairdressers, Ktvs, and massage parlours doubling as brothels. Sweeping an issue out of sight doesn't make it go away.
Something similar can be seen in different approaches to sex between Australia and America. In 2004, a Quantum/AustraliaSCAN found that more than 60 per cent of Australians were "permissive" about sexual mores, with only one in 10 espousing a more "restrictive" approach. By contrast, only four in 10 Americans were "permissive". Almost the same number were puritanical in their desire for more restriction.
Despite being less puritanical in thinking, Australia seemed to be more puritanical in outcome. The rate of HIV infection in Australia was 1.2 per 100,000 population; almost 1/12th the American rate of 14.7 (Avert.org). Australia's divorce rate was 2.7 per 1,000 population; significantly lower than the United States' rate of 4.3 (Australian Bureau of Statistics). In Australia, there were 0.25 paternity tests for every 1,000 people; almost 1/5th the U.S rate of 1.2 tests per 1,000 people (Professor Michael Gilding, Swinburne University of Technology).
Finally, there seems to be a correlation between permissive attitudes to the depiction of sex in art and the success of society as a whole. During India’s golden age, its artists were carving depictions of orgies on temple walls. During China's golden age, its artists were creating woodblock prints of couples enjoying a variety of sexual positions. During Rome’s golden age, its artists were creating erotic frescos. During Greece’s golden age, its artists were creating naked statues of the human form.
Today, America, Japan, Australia and Europe lead the world in progressive ideas and technologies. They also are relatively permissive about the depiction of sex in art. At the other extreme, the prohibitive countries really don't have much to respect in the way of human rights, social harmony, technological progression or even quality of life. They definitely don’t come close to those ideals that are typically associated with a golden age. They also provide an example of what happens when governments are more concerned about moral standards about sex than about human misery.
I don't mean that governments should be encouraging their people to go out and make pornography in order to improve society. I just think that there should be a degree of tolerance of artists exploring issues that they don't understand, provided they are not harming anyone during the creative process. Some artists would challenge taboo and help society change. Some artists would challenge taboo and elicit such a hostile reaction that the consequence of their actions would be a strengthening of the taboo. Either way, change will only occur if there is value in change and most of the community agrees to it. One artist can only influence society if society wants to be influenced. If otherwise, a lone artist is really nothing to be concerned about.
|
