Bill Henson - that writer's perspective

I know everything has been said and everyone has had an opinion on the whole Bill Henson and photo of the young girl thing. I think the response on both sides have been absolutely knee jerk and typical. One aspect which to me has been overlooked (if it's actually possible that anything has) is how it brings into focus the artistic/commercial interplay. As a writer the relationship's pretty clear because the actually physical manifestation of my work comes out of  a factory:  a book is clearly a product sold in shops.I think visual artists can get get away without realising that their output becomes a product too. Ultimately Henson took a photo of a naked 12 year old girl and tried to sell it for $20,000. The arguments about quality of art for me become sullied when people are trying to make money out of exploiting a girl. To me this is what Henson and Roslyn Oxley Gallery are doing, and frankly that's a despicable way to make money. How different is it to using a stunning but controversial photo to sell make up or clothes?

I can't get away from the fact that regardless of how good a photo it is a little girl has been exploited, and is now going through school being pointed at as 'that nude girl', knowing she's the subject of intense national discussion. Given Henson's previous subjects, chances are she is not a well-adjusted, bright, secure and happy girl well able to deal with this. If she wasn't vulnerable he wouldn't photograph her. There is no way given what's gone on over his work and in society in general that he and the gallery didn't know exactly what they were doing. He’s always exploited vulnerable teenagers,  but has now taken it further.

Part of me thinks this is exactly where his work was leading, it's the culmination of his journey. In my mind the more important picture  isn't the photo itself but the taking of it. That for me is the ultimately confronting work, a picture  of a man with a camera and a naked girl. The second he clicked the button he changed both their lives for ever. That he did it to himself is his prerogative, whether he was making a point, giving in to a long repressed urge, determined to pursue his art despite the repercussions - all that is fascinating and a rich part of the creative process, but the fact that he knowingly wreaked that change on a young girl is what is really disturbing and I think wrong.