A Modest Proposal
I’ve just read over on Ms. Naughty’s blog about some bloke in Australia who’s got himself into hot water taking naked pictures of adolescent girls. She linked back to my essay “A Criminal Intent to Arouse”, but I’m afraid she’s missed the point.
My essay ”A Criminal Intent to Arouse” has nothing to do with whether or not a morally corrupt or sexually perverse person might have an inappropriate response to my films. How a theoretical person might theoretically respond to my work is not my concern.
Conversely, the absence of the “intent to arouse” is not some magical incantation by which sexual work is rendered intrinsically worthwhile (”Art” with a capital A,) or worthy of greater consideration by society at large. This misbegotten notion is how you end up with DESTRICTED screening at ACMI the same night that ASHLEY AND KISHA is suppressed at MUFF.
But more than that, I am tired tired tired of critics, theorists, bystanders, moralists, politicians speculating on the intents behind a photograph. And I am outraged that anyone still thinks it’s sane or rational to either condemn or defend a photograph on the basis of the artist’s intentions.
Intentions don’t matter.
I’ll say it again. It doesn’t matter what the intentions are. Not what you think they are, not what the artist says they are. Not before the moment the exposure is made; not at the moment of exposure; not after.
Intentions do not decide whether or not a photograph is or is not art, and they sure as hell don’t decide whether or not a photograph is a crime.
When contemplating whether or not the making of a photograph constitutes a criminal act, let us conduct a thought experiment. Let us imagine all the circumstances of the creation of the photograph: where, when, who, how.
Now let us imagine that there is no film in the camera.
Get it? Everyone is there, everyone’s been informed, consented, tricked, bribed, lied to, flattered, compensated. Strobes pop, motors whir. But there is no film in the camera.
If absent the creation of the latent image, there is no crime, then the creation of the latent image is not a crime.
If, absent the creation of the latent image, the circumstances – the where, the when, the who, the how — constitute a criminal act, then let’s prosecute the criminality, and let’s not entertain any foolish notions that including a camera in the undertakings (with or without film) changes the circumstances in a meaningful way.
Simple enough?
And as far as the question ”Is it art?” is concerned, let’s leave that to history.
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Just to clarify - I didn’t link to your essay because I was talking about whether morally corrupt people would get off on your films or suggesting that it was a concern of yours. I simply wanted to use the phrase and the concept - that it is a crime to make someone aroused. I liked your phrase and idea so I thought I would link to it as a courtesy.
Your thought project makes perfect sense.
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:40 pm
I’ve edited the post so that the link is in a different context.
May 24th, 2008 at 4:40 am
I understand why you found the phrase appropriate to your post, and I appreciate your recontextualization.
None the less, I think your eagerness to defend Mr Henson in the name of art (always should be italicized and probably capitalized too), to ascribe to him only the most noble intentions, (”Maybe I’m just an idealist but I do want to believe that this man has a dispassionate, artist’s desire to capture a human condition - one that does involve aspects of sexuality.”) you are only perpetuating the sort of irrational, erotophobic, elitist nonsense that allows SHORTBUS (”No one got an erection.) or DESTRICTED (”But it’s Art!”) to pass the OFLC with an R-rating or be shown in festivals, while my films and others are banned from public exhibtion or sale.
We all need to stop doing this.
Similarly we need to stop using our financial needs (producers) or our orgasms (viewers) as justification for unhealthy onset practices, retrograde sexual attitutes, shockingly low production standards, and the general shabbiness that characterized the field of erotic art in general, and moving images of sexuality in particular.
I do not know the circumstances under which Mr. Hensen made his art, but that’s where the discusion belongs, not in some airy fairy speculation about how his intentions, his art, justify what we (perhaps) would find contemptable were the camera in someone else’s hands, or absent altogether.
At present I am working on an essay about the art of Ed Gein. Look him up on wikipedia.
May 25th, 2008 at 1:33 am
Tony, don’t get me wrong. I am completely on your side in opposing the the “it’s art not porn” way of thinking. And I’m also in agreement that the intent of an artist should not be an issue. But the problem here is that it’s not a level playing field because we’re not talking about *art*/*porn*/whatever depicting *adults* here. We’re not talking the relatively easy territory of Destricted vs Damon and Hunter.
Perhaps the issue at stake here is not “what is art?” but “what constitutes child porn?” which is a whole other, tricky kettle of fish. Does mere nudity constitute child porn? Because, from what I’ve read, the photos depict toplessless and nudity but there is nothing that is obviously sexual (although, thanks to the government censorship, I’ll never know, which was the original point of my post).
So why, then, is the child abuse campaigner Hetty Johnson going around saying “the issue is depictions of 12-year-old children within a sexual context, there’s no question about that.” How did she come to the conclusion of a “sexual context”? How did the Prime Minister when he hadn’t seen the photos? Is it simply a value judgement imposed from outside? Or is the intent of the photographer a factor?
What’s being argued is that a person has not created *art* or even *porn* but child porn. And as soon as “porn” becomes “child porn”, you’re into very murky territory indeed. It’s a brave blogger that argues for the right of child porn to exist. And to be honest that feels like where this discussion could be headed which is definitely somewhere I don’t want to go on a lazy Sunday night.
When it comes to CP, intentions do matter, apparently, as do definitions - at least in the eyes of the law. Charges have been laid and people are threatening to burn down the art gallery. There’s lots of talk about “drawing a line in the sand.” Where’s our line?
The idea that whatever happens in front of the camera should be legal and consensual sounds good. Once again I’m in agreement with you. Thus I find myself defending Bill Henson because his photographs were taken legally and consensually (I stated this in my original post). But on top of that I want to defend his intentions because otherwise what I’m defending (in the eyes of the law at least) is child porn. Which, again, is somewhere I’m not so keen to go.
In the end I haven’t even seen the images which means I’m not really not qualified to comment at all and should not hold an opinion on this whatsoever nor write extensive blog posts or comments. It just comes down to the original fact that I’m objecting to censorship, as usual.
I’m would like to read your essay on Ed Gein, although I suspect I’m getting your point already. Just remember that I’m not arguing against you on this topic. Indeed, this wasn’t really what I was originally posting about at all.
In fact, dammit. I’ve wasted all this time writing a long and detailed comment when I could be drinking red wine. I told myself I wasn’t going to write anything else on this topic because it has the potential to be an endless discussion but I took exception to the suggestion that I’m perpetuating “erotophobia” among other things. I can see your point but you’re misrepresenting what I’m trying to say.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
[...] Lastly, I’ve seen in the last few days that some of the photos in question are now available to be seen online, but with the naughty bits covered by black bars. This is quiet possibly the low point in this whole farcical episode, and to illustrate my point, I would propose that we conduct another thought experiment: [...]