Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ratbastid
We've got our finger right on the nature of art, here. Art challenges. It poses questions. It brings up our prejudices and preconceptions and sacred cows so they can be examined and perhaps slain.
I can't fathom that the artist could have been naive enough to think this work would be uncontroversial. The controversy is the point! On some level, the controversy IS the artwork. This very thread is his actual art piece, not the photographs.
|
I disagree. Some art may challenge the viewer or social conventions, but saying that all art does so or that it has to in any way is a bit of a fallacy. Further, I don't see these images as being that way at all.
Mr. Henson may have realized that these images would be controversial, but personally, I'm inclined to believe otherwise. The articles here seem to imply that he has exhibited this sort of work before without this sort of a backlash, which if true would seem to further suggest that he had no reason to believe that there'd be such a furor over this particular set. I think getting caught up on the 'omg nekkid kids' aspect is completely missing the point of the images, which regardless of whether the backlash was expected or not have more to say than just that.
We have photographs of a young girl, nude, in low light with no backdrop. She appears sad and contemplative. These images suggest to me the vulnerability and uncertainty inherent in those years, which adults so often forget. This girl is isolated and alone, and that's what these images are conveying. I see nothing sexual about them and I consider them to be a powerful commentary on the trials of youth which, while often discounted by those of us who have passed them, are not inconsiderable.
I said above that art tells a story, which is true but may be too restrictive. It may be more accurate to say that art carries a message; sometimes that message is controversial, but assuming it has to be closes off a lot of possibilities.