It's the changing nature of our government and times. Much as I'd hoped these issues were being resolved, quite the opposite has happened. Religious people (including our representatives, are introducing a defacto theocracy under the guise of secularism. The only real opposition to gay marriage is religious, for example. It's purely a religious law. Same goes for stem cell research.

Now I found a quote to encapsulate the situation whereby it has now become acceptable to lock up artists for political purposes, like in places like China.

"The decision to remove the photographs was criticised by the gallery's former director, Audray Banfield. "They were pandering to hysteria," she said. ".................and [Bill henson] has been doing it for 25 years.""

Now if you care to absorb that point for one second. The man has been doing this for 25 years, without any problems. And now because secular and moderate Australians have been manipulated into vote for religious leaders in both major parties, you have a situation in which artists are being locked up for no other reason than politics and religious purposes. Religious persecution of artists and scientists has been a problem throughout history, but it's simply amazing that it is happening right now without the knowledge of most Australians.

Religious groups have exploited weaknesses in the system to promote their agendas, by disguising their motives behind common, secular-appearing organisations. Many of them are Catholics, who hold a foreigner in the form of the Pope in higher regard and authority htan their own country.

Well Steel I agree with you about government opposition to gay marriage and about most ethical medical dilemmas but I don't think the reaction to Henson is due to religious hysteria as many of those who don't approve of using underage children as nude models are atheists.

You are also generalising about religious people, not all religious people think the same. The Anglicans have just appointed their first woman Bishop and some religious people are arguing for rights for gay couples. I would agree that there is a way to go.

Cross-posted from the parallel thread:

Those who are interested in this topic may wish to know that ABC1 TV has a feature about Bill Henson on Artscape tonight at 10pm.

"What's depressing to me is that I had assumed that our society had generally moved on from the 1950s, but in so many ways I seem to be have been deluded. This current epidemic of neo-prudery is just one example."

To me, CJ, the fact that society today is so different to that of the 1950's is the very reason we're having this debate. If we were having this discussion in the '50's or even up until the early '90's I would have pretty much agreed with the views put forward by yourself, Vanilla, Fractelle et al and in fact probably wouldn't have had a strong opinion either way.

The world has moved on however and is far from the comparatively innocent place it once was. A lot of the arguments you frame I feel fit an idealised world far removed from the no holds barred and predatory jungle that is fast becoming reality for so many young children today. I'm no Hetty Johnson supporter and don't at all agree with her single-minded and simplistic pursuit of perpetrators, but I don't think anyone here could reasonably argue that society today is not facing an unprecedented epidemic of child pornography, molestation and sexual exploitation.

In this environment I think it was either naive or reckless of Henson to proceed into this avenue of photography. He was playing with fire and he knew it. He must have known the reaction he would provoke. I see it as arrogance on his part that he considers himself to have the perfect right to publicly display photos of naked children, whatever the intent, while he knows full well that millions of far less artistic photos of similarly unclothed children are circulating unabated around the world, creating potential danger for every child as a result.

I guess it could be said that his broaching of the subject is fighting fire with fire. I just think it would have been better all round if the man had had the good sense not to go there.

Bronwyn: "In this environment I think it was either naive or reckless of Henson to proceed into this avenue of photography. He was playing with fire and he knew it. He must have known the reaction he would provoke. I see it as arrogance on his part that he considers himself to have the perfect right to publicly display photos of naked children, whatever the intent, while he knows full well that millions of far less artistic photos of similarly unclothed children are circulating unabated around the world, creating potential danger for every child as a result."

I understand exactly the point you're trying to make re the signs of the times, even though I disagree with it. If it is a predatory jungle, I don't believe Henson contributed.

But I would make this point — as many of his detractors would love to point out, Henson lives in a rarefied world of artmakers. He started on this project thirty years ago. Since then, he's sold to galleries worldwide, he's represented Australia at the Venice Biennale, he's a major retrospective at the Art Gallery of New South Wales. Reputable collectors everywhere own his pieces, including the man who will probably be the next Liberal PM, Malcolm Turnbull.

He is quite possibly naive and reckless and arrogant. So are lots of people, and most of them are artists. But I also think he would have good reason to argue that Australia has lauded his work and given him its imprimatur to continue on the path he was clearly headed.

Why is he suddenly unacceptable? Is it just the times that have changed? If so, how do you alert artists that they need to change their work? How do you justify that?

No.A naked teenager is NOT a sin.Has never been and never will be.The image can possess its own aesthetics, yes, certainly...

BUT
it is simplistic thinking, it is theorising on aesthetics in a social context that is fragmenting and in which a naked teenager is extremely vulnerable.Every work of art has its own audience of viewers.And herein lies the problem because such a viewing community also has its paedophiles.It is no use disclaiming that that is such a pity but an irrelevant postscript to the discussion.
NO it is NOT.There has to come a point where life is considered sacred,and what is more important than the wellbeing of a child.Anyone child and who even resembles one of the models becomes a target. I wonder what Cate Blanchett would say if she was asked to allow her pubescent daughter to be a model for a nude portraiture.
Would she be happy to expose her child to the inherent dangers ?
I doubt it very much.