News 
 Local News 
 News 
 General 
 Click here to read this story and have your say 

Click here to read this story and have your say

30 May, 2008 01:58 AM
THERE was little difference between the subject in a 122-year-old painting displayed at the Ballarat Fine Art Gallery and some of the works by controversial photographer, Bill Henson, the gallery's director said yesterday.

Gordon Morrison said the 1886 painting by William Bartlett featuring a naked pubescent girl dipping a foot into the sea, had not drawn any adverse comment.

The gallery acquired the painting, titled Hesitation, in 1887, and it has been permanently displayed at the gallery along with other paintings from Australia's colonial era.

Some weeks ago Mr Morrison received an invitation to the opening of the Bill Henson exhibition which last week drew the attention of police, who confiscated some of Henson's photographs.

The cover of the invitation featured a picture of a naked teenage girl from a photograph taken by Henson.

"I see the two images as having very strong similarities," Mr Morrison said.

"I could read out the description of Hesitation from the gallery's 1911 catalogue and you could apply that same description to the Henson picture on the invitation to the opening of his show."

He said the response to Henson's work compared to the work by artists such as Bartlett "raises all kinds of issues about what was acceptable then and what is acceptable now".

He said gallery records show that about the time the Bartlett painting was acquired the main considerations preoccupying the gallery association were not whether paintings might be controversial but whether it was wrong to open the gallery to the public

on Sundays.

President of the Australian Family Association Angela Conway said the art community had recognised Henson's art as "edgy, confronting and provocative and some have said erotic".

Ms Conway said it was important there was a debate over the culture of sexualising children.

"We have a problem in our community which is significant, that is the culture that sexualises kids for commercial gain. We have a culture that normalises the sexualisation of children," she said.

"The arts community needs to wake up to itself. It is not a borderless country, it needs to fit in with society."

In mid-September the Ballarat gallery will open an exhibition featuring nudes.

"It will feature four to five different things about what nudes can be made to represent, everything from sexuality to spirituality," Mr Morrison said.

"For example there'll be a naked figure of Christ by no less an artist than William Blake that we will have on loan from the NGV (National Gallery of Victoria)."

Also forming part of the nudes exhibition will be a painting called The Grasshopper, featuring a nude woman painted by Jules Lefebvre who also painted the famous Chloe, which hangs in Melbourne's Young and Jackson Hotel.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Page:
1

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
You might as well add 'Puberty' 1895 by Edvard Munch to the pile. The similarities are very strong. The hysteria is unwarranted. In the mean time we might read the 'The Idiot' by Dostoyevsky? Congratulations on a sane approach.
Posted by Alpha, 30/05/2008 8:55:22 AM
It is disappointing to see the naked picture of another young girl on page three of The Courier. This local paper distributed to thousands of family homes and is often left laying around for ALL the family to see including young children. I wouldn’t take my children into a gallery and expose them to this form of art, so what motivates the editor of this family paper to think they have the right to do it It seems the art community is up in arms over the treatment of Henson’s questionable work and they are pushing the boundaries even further to push their agenda. This action by The Courier has now exposed this painting of an obviously very young girl to the whims of every deviate in the area giving them the opportunity to cut out and hang this painting on their trophy wall. What price do we place on the well-being and safety of our children; it seems about $1.30 per issue. This is tabloid journalism at its best. Dale Butterfield
Posted by Concerned, 30/05/2008 12:43:22 PM
IT's not porn, you idiots. It's just the naked form - we all look the same underneath our clothing - give or take a few flaws! We all know that those who get off on these sorts of images are sickos, but why should the rest of us miss out on seeing the artistic talents of others just because of couple of weirdos might get their rocks off.
Posted by alpha beta, 30/05/2008 1:01:00 PM
There are two issues here, the exploitation and sexualization of young teenagers; right or wrong, that has been occurring and sanctioned in the film and print media and advertising for the last 15 years. My main issue is the interference of the local Taliban, or moral police in trying to impose their ideology on the rest of society. What's the next stop? The ransacking of our art galleries and libraries and burning of so called offensive works out in the street?
Posted by Hans Tracksdorf, 30/05/2008 1:56:23 PM
Back in the 1880s this had the same response as hensons paintings do today. I guess no one likes to see little girls dipicted naked. After all they are not consenting adults,with that no one has a problem.
Posted by willow, 30/05/2008 2:16:35 PM
spot on alpha - like everything in life it is a balance between risk and reward.....where's the evidence that people viewing this type of art are or become sickos ?
Posted by eureka, 30/05/2008 2:48:26 PM
I have been concerned for some time about the painting, Chloe, mentioned in your article. I have always considered it to be of an underage girl, presented for the sexual gratification of the viewer - unambiguously "eroticised".
Posted by Shane Lyons, 30/05/2008 3:07:05 PM
If this is 'PORN,' than I had better apply to the Vatican for the Pope's position. How can Australia be so 'BODOH?' Just watch TV and you will see advertising and shows full of sex related images even naked babies. What sort of a country are we? The man is an artist and he has rights to display his art. After all, the girl's mother was present when the shots were taken. So what is wrong you idiots. Fix country first back to what it was, don't just think of sex at all the times.
Posted by BB-Leo, 30/05/2008 3:18:51 PM
The subtle differences between art and pornography matter tremendously when children are involved and we have a duty to protect children from exploitation, from voyeurs and paedophiles. The boundaries were pushed by this painting then and Bill Henson has been pushing it mightily for some time. I find his groups of naked 12-year-olds in erotic positions particularly suspect. Most often, the public get it right and the public is generally outraged by these images.
Posted by seesaw, 30/05/2008 5:52:50 PM
It's just lovely. Interpreting a painting or photo as pornographic simply because there is nudity is a sad insight into the mindset of those who view it as such.
Posted by tut-tut, 30/05/2008 7:22:31 PM
1 | 2 | 3  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.

Most popular articles

Photo Sales
 
Paperboy
 
Design and Print
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...