And in shock news, the Australian censorship office has made a logical decision, announcing that the controversial Bill Henson photos of a 12-year-old naked girl rate a PG and should not be banned. Could this mean that any pedophilic thoughts while viewing the image are — wait for it — in the mind of the beholder? Are they saying that meaning is created between the viewer and the text? Is it possible that the censors have caught up with post-structuralist thinking? [1]
Henson must be thrilled, not least because everybody and their dog is now going to go and see this exhibition.
[1] Doug and I had an extensive conversation about this at the time the photos were banned. I essentially agree with this theoretical position but I do also think that there are interpretive communities and cultural codes that come into play and that it is possible for an artist to deliberately transpose sexual codes that are commonly understood in our society to indicate availability onto an underage person in such a way that would make it almost universally interpretable as sexual and furthermore that this would be problematic. Most people would interpret that image as revolting; pedophiles would interpret it as enticing. Would that image still be art? Doug thinks so. I’m leaning toward saying it would be porn. Note that Henson’s photos were not visibly sexualised — no makeup, no spread legs, etc.