There's been recent controversy over an Australian photographer, Bill Hensen about the content of his work. Bill Henson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Henson)
Despite the fact that similar works of his have been publicly displayed for a VERY LONG TIME, a recent exhibition of his in Sydney has been postponed while he is under legal investigation.

The charge - child porn.

Yes, it's been claimed that the photographs of naked children in his work are pornographic.

To me this is utterly ridiculous. I've seen one of his exhibitions, and yes, it depicted children who were naked.

Gosh!

But somehow, I didn't get sexual vibes from it.
Is that possible?? Could it be that photos of children naked AREN'T actually attempts to make them objects of lust?
To me, they were about fragility and vulernability. Not about sex. I thought they were beautiful.

I'm all for protecting children! I completely believe that they should be cared for above all else. But please, this is going too far! Art needs a certain degree of tolerance!

On top of that, not only were the childrens' parents consenting, but also present in the room while the photographs were being taken. And not a single child from the photos (includong those who are now adults) has come forward to say that they feel exploited!

One woman who argued against Bill Hensen's work (Is it just me? :: Caroline Hutchinson (http://isitjustme.com.au/) - scroll down to "Lock up your daughters. Please.") undermined her own argument in a single sentence:
"If the subjects were adult, I might think the photos were beautiful..."

Of course, an adult's body can be regarded as a thing of beauty. Just because it's naked doesn't make it porn. But as soon as it's a CHILD naked it must be pornographic! Because nobody who isn't a paedophile could poissibly find a child beautiful! It's completely ridiculous! It says more about this woman over-sexualising children than it does about Bill HEnsen's work!

If nudity is suddenly un-PC, then go out and get rid of Michaelangelo, Da Vinci and Botticelli! And modern artists like Ron Mueck and Fiona Hall are completely desgraceful!

Do naked babies' bottoms on nappy/daiper ads count as child porn? How can this be allowed?

And then there's the compelte over-sexualisation of teens and tweens in the media, not to mention the parents who dress their toddlers in boob tubes and bikinis. If Bill Hensen's exploiting kids, then why aren't they??

I am furious that these accusations against HEnsen have even gone as far as an official investigation! And just wanted everyone to be aware that this is going on.

Lock up those sketches from your life drawing classes! Someone might not think they're "art"!

Just expressing personal views here...

Art being art has controversy within it,some artists like to create waves,maybe this particular artist did not mean to create the waves he is making at the moment,but it is bound to happen with famous artists.

As you said if nakedness is porn then there are many famous artists who's work does not include the word porn but sure does look like it if you take away the famous names of the painters.

For me I prefer not to take pics of my kid naked,not sure why but I feel that as a grown up looking back at photos of myself I would rather not see myself naked even as an infant and would not want to emberass my own child when they are adults.

That being said I am not into adults being naked on photos either.No double standards for me there.No naked kids photos no naked adult photos thank you.:).

I agree with you Kal,that some kids today are dressed like miniature adults which I am sure are attracting unwanted attention from sick people.
Not to mention provocative poses in photos of kids on family sites/blogs.

That being said a paedophile will take advantage of any and everything they can get their hands on to think sick things,scenrios we may not even think is sexually inclined.