Clearly, there is a fine line between artistic (and freedom) of expression and child pornography that we are all trying to give definitive substance to.

Some of us take the hard line in that no nude study of children by adults (and for adult artistic audiences) is acceptable.

Others assert that such artistic expression brings many ideas about children, adolescence and human nudity to our attention and this is a good thing.

I guess Henson has in many ways achieved his objectives, or perhaps he didn't have any at all? What were his phenomenological intentions?

Art, no matter what it is, is created for the eyes and senses of audiences and by nature is left open to interpretation by many.

If Henson is blind to these broader and phenomenological and ontological arguments about child pornography then he deserves to be chided.

But if he is not blind, if he understands these arguments and wants his 'art' to bring these and other arguments to the fore, then surely his intentions are much worthy.

I have not seen any evidence of this being the case.

The naive artist, or even stupidly defiant, claiming artistic freedom and expression, does not wash with me.

We are all accountable for our public comments, be they words or art and well intentioned or not.

Artists should not be given amnesty simply on the basis of being artists - any more than amnesty for judges or politicians.

This does not mean I agree with state imposed censorship. Framed properly and cognisant of the broader sociological and cultural tensions Henson may well have drawn support from his detractors.

That he has not, speaks volumes. He should not rely on the intellectual calbre of others to defend what is inherently his own work.

Sorry to hear you've been ill, Fractelle, I hope that you are now fully recovered.

>>With the news that a REAL paedophile ring has been broken and appropriate charges made, surely those who were against Henson's work have gained a little more perspective<<

Another observation on this genuine, and welcomed, police action, is this.

I wonder how many of Henson's photographs turned up on the computers belonging to those paedophiles?

My guess would be somewhere close to or less than zero.

"The 'mild' Henson material has been classified as child pornography elsewhere, and that makes Henson what there?."

And if my understanding of doings in foreign parts is correct women have been stoned to death in parts of the world for not covering themselves completely when in public or for talking to strange men.

Does that somehow make women in our society guilty of the crimes they could be punished for in those foreign parts?

I think not.

R0bert

Yes, for many, “it’s all artistic”, until a picture of your own child turns up in the evidence gathered from police raids.

Rainier: << We are all accountable for our public comments, be they words or art and well intentioned or not.

Artists should not be given amnesty simply on the basis of being artists - any more than amnesty for judges or politicians. >>

I'm not sure what Rainier's trying to get at here. Henson hasn't broken any laws so he doesn't need an amnesty.

<< Yes, for many, “it’s all artistic”, until a picture of your own child turns up in the evidence gathered from police raids. >>

Again, what does this have to do with Henson? His models all had their parents' permission. Also, as Pericles suggests, it seems unlikely that Henson's artworks would be of much interest to a paedophile who collects actual child pornography.

While there's no evidence to suggest that any of those who've been charged in the recent investigations into child pornography also were in possession of copies of Henson's images, I'd think that the international focus brought to bear on them by St Hetty and the accompanying mass media brouhaha would be likely bring them to the attention of creeps like those ensared by the Centurion investigation.

It fascinates me that otherwise intelligent and rational people still seem to have bees in their bonnets about this particular issue, when we are confronted daily by true issues of obscenity - which of course 'moral panics' like this one ultimately function to obscure.

It seems that the people of Bravehearts live with their heads in a bucket of excreta. That's all they can see. They think that everyone is a pedophile (except them of course) They may deal with an occasional child that has been sexually abused. I agree that a bad thing & the person that committed the atrocity should be put away never to be released. Statistically though, only .0003% of Australians are possibly pedophiles. THE REST OF US ARE NOT! The mere photo of a child, naked or not, is not pornographic. It does not lead to pornography.
Those people that are inclined sexually towards children have mental problems. The list of people involved in this crime involves the most trusted people. Religious ministers of all persuasions, Politicians of all parties. Lawyers & Judges, School teachers of both sexes, Scout leaders, Gymanastic, Swimming & little Athletics coaches, etc. The list goes on. Strangely very few ordinary Mums & Dads. Yet it's the ordinary Mums & Dads seemingly cop the accusation.
What does that involve. I can't take a photo of my Grandaughter at her Gymnastics Competition because I MIGHT be a Pedophile. I can't sit next to a child on a Plane. I MIGHT be a pedophile. I can't pick my Grand kids up from school. I MIGHT be a pedophile. The list goes on. Why? Because of the fear generated by people who live with their heads in a bucket of S#!t & who see all the world as being covered in S#!t.
Well, The world isn't. I'm not. In fact most of us aren't. So get your heads out of your bucket of s#!t, wash off & look around. We're all clean except for the exceptional .0003%.
You lost this one accept it.