if there was moderation, it was probably because someone broke the rules and guidelines (assuming you are not lying)

David JS where do you draw the line between sexualised images of children and child porn? Isn't that what child porn is?

There has been much debate over the last two years over the sexualisation of children in the media and I suspect given that people have little democratic power against the big corporates (music, advertising and media) it is an issue that is not going to go away anytime soon.

A significant point of difference in this debate is that some people believe that a naked image of anyone under the age of 18 is de facto pornography. I found nothing sexualised about Henson's photograph. The girl was merely naked, not posed provocatively.

Rather than getting worked up over a single image in a small gallery, unlikely to be seen by more than a dozen people, the crusaders should be targeting disturbing stuff like this - satinemodel.net - which is perfectly legal.

I don't recommend you follow that link at work, by the way.

I'm surprised no one seems to have missed the deletion of a Link which in turn linked to:
http://www.roslynoxley9.com.au/artists/18/Bill_Henson/123/

The offending Link was that of 'xupacabras', a portugese photographer who has collated many artists' work at his site.
As originally posted, the Link was meant to demonstrate and so align Henson's oeuvre with others' of a perhaps more dubious intent.

It is for the moderator to explain/excuse the deletion.

Sancho, no-one is saying nudity equates with pornography. It is about the context of the nudity with its surroundings or the posing, or other factors depending on the individual study.

In an ABC documentary, Henson himself said something along the lines of 'the twilight years between adolescence and adulthood is interesting time of sexuality and sexual awakening' (words to that effect) and this is what he wanted to capture. The artist is speaking in terms of sexuality not nudity. This time is an interesting one, but a journey that should be experienced and allowed to be conducted in privacy.

I don't think Henson or Olympia are paedohphiles or into pornography just misguided in their idea of artistic freedom as sovereign over all other freedoms or rights.

if you type "renaissance madonna and child" into google and then go look at the "images" tag, on page one you will see
14 (out of 20) naked infants.

When someone can actually separate "the porn" from "the art", there will be a basis for determining the merit of the contemporary photoes and images,

Until you can clearly denounce something as "Porn" it should remain as "Art" because "Art" is all things to all men and women

Denouncing one representation, because it does not conform with some peoples view, is to denounce the process of individual expression.

Art is one of those experiences which makes the journey of life worth walking.

Denying free expression to any artist is to diminish the life quality which we can all aspire.

Among the many purposes of all art is that intended to challenge the viewer.

Bugger all these feeble minded attempts at this censorship of the spirit.

Sculptors, Painters, Photographers are here to challenge us. If someone cannot rise to the challenge, they have the right to turn away.

But they do not have the right to denounce Art because of the challenge, any more than Hitler had the right to denounce (say) Klimpt as degenerate.