If this is all the cultural elites can find to rabbit on about,then they are way out of touch.

Would you like your 12 yr old daughter to pose naked for Bill Hanson with the subsequent exposure on an art gallery wall?Would Bill do this to his own daughter?I most certainly would not.

Children of this age do not need adults imposing on their developing sexuality.It is their space and let them find their own way which is usually a lot more conservative than letcherous,lascivious adults.

If it is in a clear plastic wrapper and under the counter for $2.50 its porn.

If its behind clear glass in a frame on a gallery wall and costs $25,000.00, then its art.

As for the Sistine Chapel, is anyone seriously suggesting that young children posed with wings hung from a ceiling for the Michelangelo to copy? The cherubs were creatures of the imagination.

The models in Henson's photos are not creatures of the imagination. They are real, flesh and blood.

Henson's supporters have to ask themselves, would they be comfortable with someone taking photographs of their children on a beach, perhaps topless, without their permission and then puts those photos on the www and calling it art?

Because that is what Henson is doing, he is taking those photos without permission, as someone under 16 cannot give informed consent, and in the same way that parents cannot give consent to someone having sex with their under-aged children, neither can they give consent for these photographs to be taken.

How about some consistancy from all you anti-art, anti paedophilia experts.

You should join a chorus to ban 'Candide' the book by Voltaire.

It details explicitly a sexual intercourse between a man and a 12 year-old girl.

Let's hear it now! Where is your outrage?

Comparison with the sistine chapel and other rennaissance works by some posters is hardly appropriate. 14 was quite an acceptable age to be married at that time - but not now. Michelangelo also thumbed it to the Church on a number of occasions, being deliberately provocative with highly sexualised images. Added to that is the knowledge that many Church clergy including Popes happily indulged in their own sexual antics, and church clergy were not beyond favouring young girls and boys. But by using adolescents Henson crosses to the grey zone. If he seeks to challenge our perceptions and boundaries, then he has achieved his aim, and as with all that push at boundaries he must be prepared to take the rap for doing so.

Those defending Henson's right to photograph unclothed children seem to be viewing this through the prism of an old fashioned obscenity trial. But it's a more modern argument about child protection and children's rights.

May I mention I've enjoyed life drawing of the nude at a well-established art school, and do not object to the nude in art. But I am also involved in a child protection related field and so am attuned to arguments about child safety. I imagine a'gentleman', so inclined, could attend photography classes at the art school, and for $500 improve the artistic qualities of their shots. Such a 'gentleman' might then produce some very artistically rendered child pornography. Given financial incentives, there would certainly be people willing to allow their children to be subjects.

While Mr Henson's intentions may be honourable, it would be even more honourable of him to acknowledge the problem.

Here's another way to think about it: when priests are caught with unclothed children, the church is no longer able to say - 'but he is a man of God! His love of children is deeply spiritual!'

If a fellow at the the local good ol' boys football club has harmed a minor, it is no longer acceptable for the club members to cry, 'but he is a good chap! one of us! part of the team!

Dear old art world, you must see sense - the times have changed.

I walk my sweet-natured spaniel through the park where there is a children's playground. The sign says dogs must stay on leash, but I know my spaniel wouldn't hurt a child. He's a softy. Nonetheless I don't demand an exemption. The law is designed to protect the public from dangerous dogs & I'm willing to abide by it for the sake of the greater good. Quite likely Henson is a decent fellow who wouldn't intentionally harm a child or promote their exploitation. But it's reasonable that he should abide by the law for the sake of the greater good

I don't think that Henson's photographs--those I have seen, anyway--are intended to titillate. I don't think that you can reasonably read into them such an intention. Thus I don't think that they are pornographic.

But they do involve an invasion of privacy. If I took a picture of a naked adult and displayed it in an art gallery without the subject's consent, that would be an invasion of privacy. 12 and 13 year-olds are not able to give informed consent to being photographed and having their photos displayed--they have not yet an understanding of consequences, and insufficient experience for them to be given such an understanding.

Parents are not entitled to consent either--the basis of parents' rights is their obligations to provide for the good of the child. They are not entitled to waive their children's rights.

I think—but I am not yet sure—that the implication is that adults may consent to the display of photographs taken when they were younger; but young people cannot. Henson’s photographs should be kept private until he receives informed adult consent.

Sometimes there are purposes so serious they clearly override the child's right to privacy. The famous photo during the Vietnam War of a child victim of napalm bombing for instance brought home to people the reality of what was being done.

There are also family photographs of naked infants, taken with a mixture of delight and amusement, and kept in photograph albums. I can’t see anything wrong with that.

For those of us who don’t think that Henson’s photographs are not pornographic, the question is whether the purposes of art, and of this are in particular, are of such importance that they override the child’s right to privacy. Do the entitle him to take the pictures but not to display them till he receives adult consent? Or do they entitle him to display them right away? I’d be glad of comment.