Last Friday I went to see Barrie Kosky's latest Australian directorial offering, The Women of Troy, currently in production at the Sydney Theatre Company. Kosky and Tom Wright, a long-time collaborator, who together last brought us the stunning, multi-award winning reworking of Ovid's Metamorphoses in 2006, have combined forces once again on their own translation of Euripides' powerful anti-war play.
Kosky's blistering imagination has made its mark all over the staging of the production: this is a confronting, alarming, often highly distressing production. And what else would we expect of a production of a play looking at the suffering, despair and senseless cruelty that comes from the acts of war, and the aftermath.
A tiny boy was used in the production - two boys, in fact, who take turns playing the role on various nights. Each plays Astyanax, a voiceless character, son of the slaughtered hero Hector, a Prince in the Trojan royal family. Astyanax, we are told as he is dragged offstage by determined Greek soldiers, will be thrown from the top of the highest tower, and his body dashed on the rocks below. Later in the play we see a cardboard box carried in, his tiny little legs dripping with stage-blood. The Women of Troy is largely made up of various Trojan women (Hecuba, Cassandra, Helen) crying out in despair at the atrocious acts of war that have been performed by the Greeks, and reflecting on what the future could possibly hold for them now that their Kingdom has fallen. As actors in this grim, disturbing, compelling work, though unspeaking, these little boys would have been present for parts of the rehearsal, and would be backstage every time this work is performed.
I am a great admirer of Kosky's work, and see his bold, electrifying works as a wonderful contribution to Australian theatre. But I am uncomfortable at the decision to use such tiny boys in a deeply disturbing work. The performance of The Women of Troy saw the most walkouts in one performance I have ever witnessed. Usually one or two people would be the maximum, and even then it's a relatively rare occurrence. For Troy, there was by my count, roughly thirteen. If a swathe of grown adults can't stomach what they are seeing (and for that many to walk out it must be more than it simply not being to their artistic taste) how are kids meant to handle it?
But the point we're at here is to ask more questions. Find out how the boys feel about it, how the parents feel. Whether Kosky has taken steps to ensure that the children are not present for most of the gruesome bits. Whether there are other precautions in place to make sure the boys handling what's happening onstage. Maybe being part of the rehearsal process, seeing the actors laughing and joking in between scenes, seeing the little pouches of fake blood being set up backstage, that it's pretend, is more than enough to ensure that the boys know this is a play, a story, and can distance themselves as a result.
But it's impotant not to jump straight to high-octane, black and white, aggressive criticism. These kinds of issues are complex - there are shades of grey.
Kevin Rudd sees Bill Henson's work as "revolting", he "just hates this stuff". Turnbull, after openly stating that he owns some of Henson's work, is now "outraged" at what the photorapher has done. Others feel a sense of "betrayal". Always howling, always extreme statements.
This piece from Dr Leslie Cannold, a parent of a child at the Melbourne school which Henson visited looking for suitable models for his work, is an example of the more considered approach which I wish we could see more of ("Look after our children without hysteria", The Age, Oct 7, 2008)
After seeing a large-scale retrospective of Henson's work at the Art Gallery of New South Wales in 2005, I was hooked. Henson's work is exquisite, and we are lucky to be able to claim someone of such high international artistic standing as a fellow Australian.
I can understand how parents could be troubled by someone taking photos of naked eleven and twelve-year-olds in the name of art. But let's look at the details. Let's look at who he is, how he goes about it, how this work fits into the wider context of his other work. Check out his photos of landscapes, buildings, faces. Look at the shades of grey. Rather than going for a numbskulled, thick-as-bricks, simplified, black and white discussion of these kinds of issues, let's engage in discussion that is more considered, let's employ a dialogue that fits the complexity, the dialectic nature of what's being discussed.
Things can be one thing, and another. Not just either, or. I loved Women of Troy, but I'm not sure if smearing tiny kids in buckets of blood is artistically justifed.
Let's talk.
Sonia Allan holds a B.A Communications (Theatre/Media) from Charles Sturt University, with training in performance, devised theatre, scriptwriting and cultural event practice, which explores ways in which theatre and creative events can directly benefit local communities. She worked throughout 2007 as an Event Manager for the Wakakirri National Storytelling Festival (a performing and visual arts festival for schools around Australia) and is a regular arts writer and reviewer for www.australianstage.com.au, Timeout Magazine and Artshub Australia. She is currently studying towards an MA (English) at the University of Sydney.
___________________________________________ OTHER BLOGS BY SONIA ALLAN:
Printer friendly version
Comments
Arts & ethics: where do you cross the line?
I'd like to congratulate Open Forum on acquiring such a passionate and eloquent arts blogger and finally starting a discussion thread on the Australian arts. Bravo Sonia, hope to see more of your articles in the weeks and months to come!
I share your view that the discussion around the arts should be more measured, informed and civilised, taking into consideration the whole complexity of the subject, the context, artistic intent, conceptual basis, etc. Unfortunately I did not have a chance to see Henson's work at the gallery, but what little I saw in the papers was spellbinding and prompted me to follow his story as close as I could. Henson's art is fascinating, the artist and his models were victims in that very ugly and very public debate, so reading the recent article in the SMH Good Weekend where they break their silence for the first time was a relief (see also "Henson talks: despite all the mud, no regrets", SMH, Oct 3, 2008).
The following comment sums it all up for me in the Henson saga:
On another hand, my late professor's favorite quote was from the Russian composer Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov which in a close translation goes like this: "When it comes to Art, there are things that are not to be desired" - meaning, there is a line that you, as an artist, do not cross. And I've attended a number of theatrical performances in the past which really pushed the boundaries of good taste and even raised the question of their producers' sanity (which, I am happy to admit, is a totally subjective opinion, given that there are always those who "enjoy the show").
This whole arts & ethics / freedom of artistic expression / aesthetics vs. moral values debate is very complex indeed and should be approached with utmost seriousness, but possibly without bigotry and prejudice. The role of art is not just to please our senses, but to also make us think, elevate us above our daily routine, stir our emotions, inspire, provoke and yes, even shock sometimes.
I also wish there were at least a certain degree of humility in the way we approach serious arts. Yes, we are all entitled to have different tastes in art, but we shouldn't be carried away by our ignorance and narrow-mindedness (which, more often than not, is the case) and, whatever our feelings are about a particular work of art, we do need to pay some respect to the history, tradition and craftsmanship behind it, before offering our personal opinion.
Henson a Distraction
I went to hear David Marr present a lecture at the Art Gallery of NSW last night. He had been invited to speak about what we might be able to learn about "The Henson Case", (the title of his new book) by looking back at the public outrage expressed over the work of Monet over 100yrs ago.
I think drawing a comparison between the public opinion to Monet and Henson is a bit of a long bow. Monet offended the public's aesthetic sensibilities, Henson upset their moral sensibilities. These are essentially different conundrums. Poor old Monet merely had "that's not art" leveled against him. Being accused of a lack of artistic merit is the least of Henson's worries. In fact, even most of his critics want to avoid having saying he's not a good artist; they just want to be able insist that that is not the point.
A key point Marr was pushing is that any objections to Henson's works are as he puts it "a matter of taste"; a matter of Kevin Rudd trying to impose his taste on Australia. Henson has been found to break no law, so criticisms of his work need to stay in the realm of taste and not be elevated to accusations of pedophilia.
In this sense I totally agree with Marr.
Now, this opinion of mine is premised by a belief that nudity does not equal pornography. So if you think it does, we will divert paths here. However, I think most people will agree that nudity alone is not sufficiently offensive or sexual to define something as pornographic.
If forced to categorise a range of images of naked adults, I would place them according to my personal values into various groups a long a sliding scale that ranged through: never acceptable...hard core pornography... soft pornography...erotica...inappropriate...disconcerting... innocuous....artisitc....great art.
Of course, the categories aren't neatly defined, there are other "shades of grey" as Sonia says, and it is possible for images to fall across more than one definition, sometimes overlapping other times not.
However, when the subject is underage the rules are different. A whole bunch of those categories instantly disappear and the choices you are left with are: never acceptable...inappropriate..innocuous..artistic..great art.
How we interpret naked images is not just defined by a matter of artistic taste, but also a matter of sexual tastes. Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so too can some individuals bring an ugly attitude to their viewing of an innocent and beautiful image.
But that doesn't just happen in art galleries; it applies equally to chain store catalogues that get delivered to letterboxes around the country.
I really think many of Henson's supporters are being terribly naïve when they refuse to acknowledge that there might ever be a problem for the kids involved. You have to accept that if you allow a child to be displayed naked in public, some people will bring the very worst intentions to the viewing, and this makes child models extremely vulnerable.
But vulnerable to what? It is terrible to think that a "bad man" might have "bad thoughts" about a photograph, but it is much worse that all around Australia some kids are dealing with actual sexual abuse.
This is what has upset me the most about the whole Henson case. It has highlighted just how misunderstood the problem of child sexual abuse is in our society. The real problem is so unpalatable because it requires people to look inside their own families and communities and there is great reluctance to do that. It is much easier to scapegoat an (innocent) public figure like Henson.
Why are we still talking about the Henson case when the Orkopoulos case has dropped of the radar?
I strongly believe that many members of the community are confusing a desire to censor Henson with a desire to crack down on child abuse. A misunderstanding of this magnitude is an insult to the suffering of actual victims of pedophilia, and I think social attitudes need to grow up and be a bit more responsible so we can start talking about how to approach the real problem.
As Marr said last night (sorry I'm paraphrasing you without permission here), sure, let kids be kids, but stop trying to turn us in to kids.
Sally Rose
Art After Hours
You may like to have a look at the talk by David Marr it is on the Gallery's web site www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au in the 'events' drop down menu videos and podcasts
Just a point of clarification about the 'long bow' as you may not have been to other Art After Hours events, long bows are a bit of a feature of these events. The suggestion to make a general reference to the history of art scandals of the Impressionists and the recent one in Australia came from me rather than David. There is probably a whole PhD thesis in there somewhere but these talks on Wednesday nights are more or less loosely related to the exhibition and tend to be of broad and general rather than specific interest in relation to the current major exhibition.
Kind regards,
Sheona White
Senior Coordinator Public Programs
Art Gallery of New South Wales
AAH@ag.nsw.gov.au"
art
Art is about provoking an emotional response. A painting of a sunflower may do it for some, a dead horse hanging from the ceiling might do it for others. Theatre is an art form; that is, one goes to the theatre with the expectation of recieving an emotional charge from the performace, then later, if you are lucky, you might have an epiphany based on this experience. (Cinema is a lower form of this art, and one that often fails miserable to connect to the audience.)
Now you say "Rather than going for a numbskulled, thick-as-bricks, simplified, black and white discussion of these kinds of issues, let's engage in discussion that is more considered, let's employ a dialogue that fits the complexity, the dialectic nature of what's being discussed."
Then in black and white "I'm not sure if smearing tiny kids in buckets of blood is artistically justifed."
If you are looking for justification, remember this - it is not real blood, thirteen people walked out (an indicator of emotional response - unless it just plain boring theatre), the play touched you enough to write a long blog entry about it, the play's director would most likely be sensitive towards the needs of any youngsters involved - as would the more mature of the actors.