Right: Bill Henson's brooding images hang on art gallery walls in many countriesArguments opposing a ban and criminal action against Bill Henson
1. Mr Henson is a highly respected artist whose work has been shown without objection for years
In an open letter to the Prime Minister from the Creative Australia 2020 Summit representatives it was claimed, 'Mr Henson is a highly distinguished artist. His work is held in all major Australian collections including the Art Gallery of NSW, Art Gallery of SA, Art Gallery of WA, National Gallery of Victoria and the National Gallery of Australia.
Among international collections, his work is held in the Solomon R Guggenheim Museum, New York; the Victoria and Albert Museum, London; San Francisco Museum of Modern Art; the Los Angeles County Museum of Art; the Denver Art Museum; the Houston Museum of Fine Art; 21C Museum, Louisville; the Montreal Museum of Fine Art; Bibliothque Nationale in Paris; the DG Bank Collection in Frankfurt and the Sammlung Volpinum and the Museum Moderner Kunst, Vienna.
Major retrospectives of Mr Henson's work at the Art Galleries of NSW and Victoria attracted more than 115,000 people, and produced not one complaint of obscenity. His work has also been studied widely in schools for many years.'
The same point regarding the wide and long-standing acceptance enjoyed by Bill Henson's work was made by John McDonald in an opinion piece published in The Sydney Morning Herald on May 31, 2008. Mr McDonald stated, 'In 2005 Bill Henson was the subject of huge retrospectives at the Art Gallery of NSW and the National Gallery of Victoria, which were advertised in the media and even on bus shelters. His work is held by most of the important public collections in Australia and he is every bit as internationally successful in his field as Cate Blanchett or Hugh Jackman is in theirs. He has been making works that use teenagers for almost 30 years, exhibiting and publishing at the highest levels.'
2. Mr Henson's work is not pornographic
It has been repeatedly claimed that Bill Henson's work is not pornography and thus legal action should not be taken against him nor should his photographs be banned.
It is readily acknowledged that some of Henson's photos depict naked children; however, their defenders note that nakedness does not of itself equal pornography.
The New South Wales Law Society president, Hugh Macken, has stated, 'In New South Wales, child pornography must depict a child engaged in sexual activity or subject to torture, cruelty or physical abuse - or [show] the child ... placed in a sexual context. If the child is not placed in a sexual context - it's not pornography.'
Bill Henson's supporters claim that the children in his works are not presented in a way that is intended to incite sexual feeling.
A similar point has been made by Shane Danielsen in the Guardian's Art & Architecture blog. Mr Danielsen notes, 'Were these images sexualised, there might be cause for complaint. They are not: as so often in Henson's work, the youths appear to be engaged in some kind of private ritual, outside of society and even time. But the depiction is not carnal, nor in any sense gynaecological. And over two millennia of Western art attests to the principle that the nude - of whatever age - is not obscene per se. On the contrary, it's a legitimate and accepted field of artistic representation.'
Similar points were made in an open letter to the Prime Minister from the Creative Australia 2020 Summit representatives. Their letter stated, 'The work itself is not pornographic, even though it includes depictions of naked human beings. It is more justly seen in a tradition of the nude in art that stretches back to the ancient Greeks, and which includes painters such as Caravaggio and Michelangelo.
Many of Henson's controversial images are not in fact sexual at all. Others depict the sexuality of young people, but in ways that are fundamentally different from how naked bodies are depicted in pornography. The intention of the art is not to titillate or to gratify perverse sexual desires, but rather to make the viewer consider the fragility, beauty, mystery and inviolability of the human body.
In contrast, the defining essence of pornography is that it endorses, condones or encourages abusive sexual practice. We respectfully suggest that Henson's work, even when it is disturbing, does nothing of the sort.'
3. Taking action against Bill Henson will harm Australia's international reputation
A number of commentators have claimed that the confiscation of Bill Henson's work and his threatened prosecution have left Australia open to international ridicule. The views of the Prime Minister, Mr Kevin Rudd, have been seen as particularly inappropriate.
Elizabeth Farrelly, in an opinion piece published in the Sydney Morning Herald noted, 'At last, it seemed, we had a leader to walk forward, not back ... And then, embarrassment, with the ghost of decades past again making global headlines: police raids on Sydney galleries, artists in the dock. The thin blue line knotting itself once again around art.'
In an open letter to the Prime Minister from the Creative Australia 2020 Summit representatives it was claimed, 'The potential prosecution of one of our most respected artists is no way to build a Creative Australia, and does untold damage to our cultural reputation.'
Jake Hoerner, the director of Kick Gallery in Northcote has said, 'I think that it's been blown completely out of context and it's very unfortunate that there's been such a furore.... This excessive reaction to Henson's work will damage Australia's reputation internationally.
It disregards the contribution Henson has made, especially to photography in Australia. The whole saga is unfortunate.'
News of the raid has made headlines around the world, reaching readers in the United States, Canada, Britain and the United Arab Emirates.
Sites posting articles on the controversy from newswires have included The Washington Post, The Independent in London and The Gulf Times in the United Arab Emirates.
The potential impact on Australia's international reputation can be seen in a comment made by Shane Danielsen in the Guardian's Art & Architecture blog. Mr Danielsen writes, 'Australia has a long and unfortunate history of book- and film-banning, and a deep-rooted mistrust of intellectualism in general and aesthetic experimentation in particular. This is merely the latest instalment in a long, painful struggle to grow up, to think and act like adults, in an adult world. Clearly, there is some way yet to go.'
4. Banning Mr Henson's work is an encouragement to pornographers to misuse it
It has been argued that banning Mr Henson work is both dangerous and futile. Those who hold this view maintain that by imposing a ban, work that was never intended to be pornographic will now be seen as such by paedophiles and others.
It is also claimed that the media attention that the ban attracts draws the attention of a mass audience to works that would otherwise only be seen by a very select few.
These points were made in a letter to the editor published in The Age on May 27, 2008. The letter states, 'The problem with the intense publicity surrounding the police intervention is that the items in question are now highlighted as pornographic material. No subsequent exposure will enable them to be judged in their own right.
Of course, this is the dilemma of all brands of censorship. The very act of banning awakens a prurient curiosity in material that, in itself, would have a limited exposure in the community at large.'
This argument is an extension of the more general one that by banning something censors make it more attractive and may in fact encourage some people to deliberately seek out the prohibited material.
5. Banning Mr Henson's work is an infringement of the rights of those who value and produce art
There are those who claim that the actions taken against Bill Henson and a number of gallery owners represent an attack on artistic freedom of expression.
Richard Phillips, writing for the World Socialist Web Site, has claimed, 'Henson and the gallery owners are now being threatened with prosecution under the federal Crimes Act and state child pornography laws. If charges are laid, they will constitute a gross violation of freedom of artistic expression, and must be vigorously opposed by artists, students and all working people.'
Leading Melbourne gallery owner, Anna Schwartz, told the Age newspaper it was a 'dark day for Australian culture [and]... an indictment of a culture when an artist of the integrity and stature of Bill Henson isn't free to show his work.'
'The issue doesn't lie with Bill Henson and his work," Ms Schwartz said, 'it lies elsewhere in the culture, with other imagery and other behaviour. He is being used as a scapegoat.'
Other official actions taken against artists freely exhibiting their work are seen as evidence of a repressive tendency in Australian culture.
Former NGA director Betty Churcher said banning the photographs was censorship gone too far. 'In this day and age, we are going far too far in the wrong direction of censorship. Will we end up being so censored that there's nothing left for us to contemplate?' Dr Churcher asked.
Dr Churcher further argued, 'I don't believe the rest of us should be in any way censored so that we can't see these things because he is, without a doubt, one of Australia's most important artists and he is one of a few with a genuine international reputation.'
In an open letter to the Prime Minister from the Creative Australia 2020 Summit representatives it was claimed, 'If an example is made of Bill Henson, one of Australia's most prominent artists, it is hard to believe that those who have sought to bring these charges will stop with him. Rather, this action will encourage a repressive climate of hysterical condemnation, backed by the threat of prosecution.
We are already seeing troubling signs in the pre-emptive self-censorship of some galleries. This is not the hallmark of an open democracy or of a decent and civilised society. We should remember that an important index of social freedom, in earlier times or in repressive regimes elsewhere in the world, is how artists and art are treated by the state.'
6. Mr Henson's work poses no threat to public morality
It has been claimed that Bill Henson's work is neither an incitement to paedophiles nor an attack on public decency.
It has been argued that the current controversy is an hysterical over-reaction to a fear of pornography and paedophilia and not a reaction to Henson's work at all. Shane Danielsen, writing in the Guardian's Art & Architecture blog has noted, 'This righteous condemnation seems especially absurd when one considers that, in 2004-2005, the Art Gallery of New South Wales hosted a major retrospective of Henson's work, which was viewed by over 65,000 people ... and which included a number of images very similar to those seized a few days ago by the police - including some from the Venice Biennale. At that time, not a single complaint was received.'
Writing for the Sydney Morning Herald, Elizabeth Farrelly has noted, 'Henson's detractors look for harm caused by his pictures...harm to children generally; harm, as it were, to public morality. This underlies Rudd's "let kids be kids" comments and Iemma's blather about moral codes and decency. As though a latent paedophile might enact his fantasies only after popping into a Paddington art show for inspiration.
In truth, however, paedophilia pervades society, ban or no ban. We habitually accept the sexualising of children - in advertising, television, beauty pageants and talent shows - as entirely normal.
We know that paedophilia thrives less on public erotica, offensive as such advertising is, than on secrecy masked as decency. We know it exploits children's innocence, not their sexuality, and that it flourishes in the very vestries, boudoirs and private offices of the respectable.'
According to this line of argument, paedophiles have innumerable sources of motivation other than works of art. Further, it is implied, works of art by their frank and public nature are less likely to foster the furtive and secret thrill that appears to attract many paedophiles.
7. Mr Henson works with the consent of parents and treats his models with care
Young women who worked with Henson in their adolescence and the parents of children who have recently worked with him both stress the care and respect with which he treats his subjects.
Zahava Elenberg, now 34, was 12 when she posed for a series of photographs taken by Bill Henson. Twenty years she claims she has 'absolutely no regrets'.
'It was quite dark but I never felt uncomfortable,' Ms Elenberg has stated. 'Bill made you feel incredibly safe and calm. I was involved in the artistic process and I never felt that I wasn't in control.
I absolutely support Bill Henson. I'm a parent myself and I abhor child pornography, but this is not child pornography. It's artistic and creative.'
The Sydney Morning Herald has spoken with a number of women who as children were photographed by Bill Henson. The newspaper has claimed, 'All the women who have spoken to the Herald about posing for Henson tell a similar story. They paint a picture of a Melbourne artistic community where it is common for artists and photographers to approach parents to ask if their children will be part of their next project.'
The parents of the girl whose photographs have contributed to the current controversy have also supported Bill Henson and his work. The parents have known the artist for more than a decade. The girl lives with both her parents in the family home in Melbourne. In a statement to The Age, the mother said, 'There is a police investigation under way and we cannot say anything other than (that) we are very strong supporters of Bill Henson and his work.'