John Armstrong | October 10, 2008 WHEN the Bill Henson controversy first erupted last May, I was approached by the NSW police to give some philosophical advice in connection with the possibility of prosecuting either the photographer or the gallery that had intended to display his work: specifically, three images of naked adolescent girls. The police wanted help with the central question: What is art? And behind that, they wanted to understand what it might be about art that could justify the making and displaying of such images. If a sex magazine had commissioned and printed the same images, it would have been prosecuted without a second thought. Why should art be any different? The art world has rallied behind Henson. This takes a little explaining. In much of his work -- his moody urban scenes of damaged, noble buildings,...
[read full story]
Your Web Site
