Alison Croggon is an Australian writer and critic. She is also the driving force behind the 2020 Open Letter in Support of Bill Henson, a letter signed on to by a couple dozen luminaries of the Australian arts and culture scene. The night before last I decided I would e-mail her, and she’s been kind enough to assent to my posting  the resulting correspondence:

From: tony@comstockfilms.com
Subject: CensorshipDate: May 29, 2008 2:57:51 PM EDT
To: alisoncroggon@xxxx.net.au

Where were you and your friends when police were sent to prevent the screening of my film last year in Melbourne? Or the year before that in Sydney?

Rather stark, but it does get to the point. It also got a response… (more…)

I would guess that many of you who enjoy reading this blog also enjoy reading Ms. Naughty’s blog, and are already aware that Ms. Naughty and I find ourselves embroiled in a vigorous disagreement over recent events surrounding the photography of Bill Henson. At the heart of our disagreement is the strong exception I take to Ms. Naughty’s invocation of the word “art” as a justification and or defence of how Mr. Henson creates his work.

Mr. Henson’s work is problematic in that he feels the best way he can explore and express his ideas is by taking naked pictures of adolescent girls; a practice generally frowned upon on the grounds that children are not capable of giving consent to such activities, and that it is inappropriate for their parents to consent on their behalf.

The truth is, I don’t know how I feel about Mr. Henson’s work habits. On the basis of the facts as they’ve been reported, I find the particulars of how Mr. Henson makes his images disquieting. I am myself a parent, and have trouble imagining delivering my own daughter to Mr. Henson’s set where she can serve as a “vehicle for expressing the things that interest [Mr. Henson] about humanity and vulnerability.” (more…)

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.

I have a modest proposal.

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.