Creativity Architects
Customs and Values AboriginesStatus of Aborigines Australian English (Strine) Poetic deception Christianity Jesus and Convicts Drinking Shouts and rounds Facts Odd facts of Australia Etiquette Important social rules Immortals Iconic battlers Tall-poppy syndrome The misunderstood icon Traditions A time to be sombre and to not Underdog Siding with the loser
|
Photography in Australia
For photographers, Australia's eccentric culture and harsh environment has proved to quite inspiring. Those who have taken an interest in Australia have been able to been able to created a body of work that is very unique,if not refined, sexual or beautiful. Culturally Australia provides photographers with a greater deal of material to work with because it produces a lot of eccentrics. Because they don't want to connect themselves to their convict heritage, Australians are not bakwards looking people, and don't have the traditions that define other people around the world. As a consequence, individuals of each generation have a great deal of freedom to choose their own paths. Invariably, individuals choose paths that are quite outside the square by world standards. Much of the eccentric nature of Australia can be seen in the book, ....It shows .......man standing with two women in a department store. A bloke with white shows, huge sun glasses sitting with flowers. In addition to eccentricinity become cultivated by a lack of a strong historical identification, eccentricity has been caused by cultural mixing.
Although the creation of art is very much an individualistic pursuit, the display of art is very much a social affair. How the audience reacts to the individual's unique creation reveals a great deal about their emotions, morals, logic and sense of community. No where has this been more evident that in recent controversies in Australian photography. In 2008, a Bill Henson exhibition was the subject of a police investigation after it emerged that it contained photos of naked children. After seeing the photos, Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said, "I find them absolutely revolting." After the controversy erupted, some people felt the need to publicly show support for Henson. One of these people was Art Monthly editor Maurice O'Riordan. On the cover of one of the magazine’s editions, O'Riordan put a photo of a naked six-year-old girl. O'Riordan then said he hoped his actions would restore "dignity to the debate". Instead of restoring dignity to the debate, the controversy escalated when it emerged that the father of the girl, art critic Robert Nelson, had written about his daughter in a highly-sexualised way. In a previous article, Nelson had written about photos taken of his daughter as a two-year old in which he said, "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 also wrote that "The sensuality of children is integral to parental fondness."
In response to the photo, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd again gave his opinion and said, "We're talking about the innocence of little children here. A little child cannot answer for themselves about whether they wish to be depicted in this way. " The controversy was inflamed even further after extreme left-wing author David Marr showed his support for Henson. In a book, Marr told of Henson visiting primary schools to look for child models. Despite Henson being accompanied by the school's principle, Marr's story sounded like a man in a trench coat looking for targets. Furthermore, given Marr's activism on various issues, especially in regards to liberalising attitudes to gay sex, Henson's association with Marr made it more difficult to claim his work was apolitical and would not be used as part of an activism campaign designed to make sex a morality-free zone.
The moral outrage against Henson was ironic because he is one of Australia's least pornographic photographers and his work has far more artistic integrity that most of his contemporaries. Most contemporary photographers have dreams of being the next Man Ray and devote themselves to producing art that evokes erotic feelings. The photographer does something generic like putting a woman in a leather outfit and then uses black and white film to argue the purpose is art. Henson is not that kind of photographer. His images are often obscured somewhere in the range from light to dark. Deliberately ambiguous, Henson wants the audience to form their own possibilities about his work. In the case of the child nudes, they could be interpreted in a number of different ways. The most obvious interpretation was 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 have 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 to their children. Furthermore, Henson was just exposing the reality of what happens to children when they commence puberty. On the flip side, it could be argued that children didn't need to be understood by having them naked before an audience of adults drinking wine. Whether the photos were pornographic or not was a semantic question. If pornography is a photo that is intended to provoke a sexual response, then it is unlikely Henson's photos were pornographic because sexual excitement was not his intention. If pornography is an image that provokes a sexual response in some viewers, intended or not, then the photos probably were pornographic. They depicted the vulnerability, innocence, and fragility that often appeals to rapists. It is quite likely that some men would have masturbated over the photos. The main problem with using the outcome rather intention to define pornography is that almost everything is exciting to someone. So much so, some men get sexually excited by photos of feet. Likewise, many muslim men get sexually excited by seeing exposed female hair. It would be impractical to define photos of feet or hair as pornography even though they arouse some people.
Despite concerns about whether a child could give consent to being photographed in such a way, Henson's talent was that he opened the doors for people to form their own conclusions and their own emotional response. By exposing the diversity of morals, emotions and logic in the community, Henson was able to expand human awareness. If social problems were caused by his work, they were problems that were not personally defining of Henson's own character. These were problems of other members of society, not problems of Henson. Admittedly, Henson could have reflected as to whether he was contributing to the cause of the problems or the solutions to them. It was likely he did neither. In his defence of his art, he simply said he was being amoral, which was somewhat of a selfish point of view. A moral perspective is a perspective that considers others and, in theory, puts the interests of others before the self. Perhaps revelations that fathers sexualise their baby daughters was one problem that Henson exposed. Perhaps revelations that left-wingers can't appreciate art on non-political terms was another problem. Perhaps revelations that adults are themselves emotionally troubled by seeing children going into puberty was another problem. Perhaps revelations that prime ministers are too concerned for children that they can't appreciate the benefits of art, or refuse to consider some of the difficulties children go through, were other problems. Even if Henson’s art couldn’t be appreciated as a window upon teenage angst, it could still be appreciated for its ability to reveal problems that do need to be considered. In a nutshell, a lot of ideas came out of considering the topic. Henson's photographs laid bare the role of the artist. The artist's role is one that resides in the ambiguities of life where change leaves people in periods of uncertainty. The artist exposes the issues so that others can form a logical, emotional or moral response to them. Good art is 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. While it is the role of artist to break down the community by forcing individuals to experience something for themselves, it's the role of activist to strengthen the community by telling people what to think and promoting a moral code. Both roles are important and somewhere artists and activists need to strike an uneasy balance. The activism by the prime minister, the arts magazine editor and the left-wing journalist all represented an attempt to strike a balance not only with the artist, but also with opposing members of their community. Which activist was right, and which was wrong, was something for the individual Australian to decide because, as Henson's photos showed, the Australian community was not united on the issue.
Chinese Girl with Her Legs OpenA mild mannered good girl, A face as white as snow But away from the loving eyes
|
Cultural comparisons Argentina America China Canada England France Ireland Japan South Africa South Korea New Zealand
|
- |
