Binoy.

You have writen a load of rubbish - but you have written it well.

The sexual exploitation of children under the age of consent is not art.
DIS

As one writer puts it 'When retailer David Jones used images of clothed under-18 models to promote their apparel offering, the Left described them as “corporate pedophiles” and were upset when the department store chain sued the lefty thinktank that published the defamatory claims.'

These same people are now making every excuse under the sun for this guy who photographs nude young girls (porn) in the name of art. What a bunch of hypocrites.

Moral relativism has achieved its goal of allowing the 'intellectual' to exploit young nude boys and girls and then excuse it. Funny how they were the first to call for Peter Hollingsworth's head, The latte left are the ultimate hypocrites.

A lot words not much content
I would like to think that "Art" is for the masses and not just for the chosen few. Most art lovers see different things in art.
I think that this photographer is happy when his work produces controversy, that makes his works sell. To me his art form is voyeurism and there would be quite a few who would love nothing more than seeing nude child photographs. Don't forget these pictures are now on the Internet. I was quite surprised to hear Bill Henson on the ABC explaining how his photographs are contrived and are not random in any way, somehow this made me think he is less an artist but an opportunist photographer. I feel Mr Henson should move on in his career, try something else to photograph and be the best photographer for the work and not for the shock value.
MAREE LORRAINE

This article is misleading. Using terms like wowsers and implying some sort of deviance on the part of the Henson detractors is the worse form of feigned indignation.

"Children are the noble savages of modern consciousness, deified, put on pedestals, and, as a result, beyond understanding. Adults are presumptively evil; children, the untarnished good”.

Sorry but this is emotive tosh. This saga is all about the sexual nature of photographs of children nothing else. It might go against your artistic sensibilities but fact is these images are sexual no matter the intention of the artist.

This reminds me of the story of the emperor with no clothes - if we pretend the sexuality isn't there, we can further go on to fool ourselves that these are just simply works of art as though art is somehow separate from the rest of culture and society.

Mentioning the Hart/Devlin debate is apt. Society continues to struggle with moral questions. The comments about leftist views and corporate peadophilia are spot on - but hey, aren't we all hypocrites?

The funny thing about the latest uproar is society now seems to examine all representations of children through the eyes of the 'paedophile'.