“Ongoing criminal investigations into the works of artist Bill Henson have resulted in more of his photographs being removed from an Australian art gallery.  Police have since said that they intend to use these photographs to press charges against the artist… a letter supporting Henson has been endorsed by several members of Australia’s artistic community, including celebrity Kate Blanchett… Yet, Peter Baklinski, a PhD candidate specializing in the theology of the body, recognizes a difference between paintings and modern nude photography. ‘Despite there being a significant difference between the naked body captured by the artist’s paintbrush on canvas and by the artist’s film or digital technologies, the underlying issue is that a body of a human person has been transferred out of its ontological identity as the body of this man or this woman and into an abstract dimension where the body begins to lose its connection to the gift-dimension of the person.’ Responding directly to Henson’s work, Baklinski emphasized the lack of context in the artists photography, which is needed to help viewers identify the ‘whole truth’ of the human dignity present in all persons in photographs. ‘Instead of seeing a young girl created in the image of God, many will see an object with breasts, an object that can arouse desires of the flesh. Nakedness without any context becomes an inhibition to viewing this young woman in the beauty and dignity of her femininity.’” — LifeSiteNews (US)

For background on the case of Mr. Henson, an artist whose work — like other prominent photographers such as Sally Mann — sometimes includes child nudity, see the Sydney Morning Herald. (You can also see his images by doing a Google Image Search on his name.)

In its mission statement, LifeSiteNews is clear that it “emphasizes the social worth of traditional Judeo-Christian principles.” Accordingly, when writing up a story on art and pornography, it elicits copious commentary from its own sources: Peter Baklinski, a theology student, and Gregory Carlin, “an international campaigner against child pornography.” In principle there is nothing wrong with the site’s selection of sources. A site about dogs would turn to dog experts. A religious site turns to theologians. Fine. For those inspired by Mr Baklinski’s commentary, the site provides an essay he wrote that reads as though it came from a graduate seminar. That’s perfectly commendable. The site is trying to amplify on its story by providing additional and possibly thought-provoking material.

However, when you read Mr. Baklinski’s essay and his commentary on artist Bill Henson, you can’t help but be struck by how completely the theologian misses his mark. Basically he wants to say that (a) child abuse is bad; (b) wholesome sex between husband and wife is good; (c) artists who can somehow manage to make nudity convey that wholesomeness are honky-dory; (d) artists who can’t are… Well, he doesn’t say it, but these artists are probably going to hell.

Few would disagree with the first opinion. Many would agree with the second. And yet the theologian’s arguments not only fail to support his points, they could be used to support the exact opposite conclusions. For example:

Since sexual aspects are an honourable part of the human body and are very connected to the love between a man and a woman, the artist, in depicting the naked body, must speak about these aspects in a way that arises from the whole truth of the human being. In many works that overemphasize the sexual dimensions of the person, it is not that they show too much, but that they show too little.

“The whole truth of the human being?” That is such a tremendous generalization that it means nothing. However, if you were to take it seriously at all, you’d have to say that the whole truth includes the fact that the human being can be a pretty unsavory character. Among other things, such as lying, cheating, raping, and killing, he too frequently lusts after little children. If an artist “must speak” the whole truth, must he not speak about deviance as well? Maybe the theologian is right that artists “show too little.” If we really want to get at “the whole truth of the human being,” we need artists who show man as pedophile, zoophile, necrophile, coprophile…

As an example of the “wholesome” sort of artist who depicts the truth about human beings, Mr. Baklinski cites Michelangelo.

With the paintings in the Sistine chapel, on the other hand, the sexual aspects of the naked figures are in harmony with the whole truth of the human person and do not draw unbalanced attention to themselves. For example, Adam, in the splendor and glory of his nakedness, testifies to the dignity, nobility, and beauty of all of humanity rather than to the sexual powers of man.

It is difficult to take this seriously. Does he not realize that Michelangelo was very likely gay? Even if you hesitate to apply the 19th century label “homosexual” retroactively to a 16th century artist, Michelangelo probably saw something in Adam other than “the dignity, nobility, and beauty of all humanity.” To judge from appearances, it looks as though he saw the Renaissance equivalent of a gym rat. It’s Tom of Finland avant la lettre.

Now return to Mr. Baklinski’s commentary on Bill Henson. He reprises his “whole truth” argument and continues: “Instead of seeing a young girl created in the image of God, many will see an object with breasts, an object that can arouse desires of the flesh.” Pause on that. First, depending on how young she really is, a girl may not even have breasts. Second, if she does have breasts, are those not sexual characteristics? If God doesn’t want to arouse desires of the flesh, maybe He should simplify matters and leave girls flat-chested until they’re twenty. Third, if a young girl is created in the image of God, then maybe God has tits too. Why not?

To be very clear, to pick apart Mr. Baklinski’s arguments does not mean that you support child abuse. What you’re against is sloppy thinking. But then, what else can you expect from a theologian? To an unfortunate reality — pedophilia — the theologian brings the most literally unrealistic solution of all, religion. It’s such a scandalously ineffective way to confront the problem that it is practically guilty of fostering it. Pedophile priests, anyone?

VideoBox

It's like the iTunes Music Store for Porn. Download unlimited high-quality video for only $9.95/month.