Bronwyn, you have got me curious now, so I googled and found this:

*When the First Fleet arrived in Botany Bay just over 200 years ago they found the locals, the Aborigines, naked and unashamed, sensibly attired for the warm Australian climate. But those early settlers brought their old English morality with them. It was indecent to be nude. Even at the beginning of the 20th century the British used horse drawn bathing boxes to avoid being seen entering the ocean for a swim.*

http://www.freebeach.com.au/Neck-Knee-Nude.htm

AFAIK they are pretty popular and families attend. Should we ban
them too? Or only allow people of certain ages to attend and not
families?

I'm glad to see there are people with some reasonable and thoughtful opinions on the subject who have an ability to seperate emotion from reason. Fractelle, I do know there are exceptions but I usually base my opinions on what I see. As far as OLO goes (and perhaps media), in terms of publications and articles I have observed a prevalence of feminists 'hatchetting' masculinity on a regular basis, with the subject being pornography. I have also read up on the history of censorship a little and the feminists appeared to have a key role in the formation of censorship legislation sometime in the 80s-90s period by allying with christian groups. Yes I understand there are a diverse range of views but this is how I'm seeing it and who is exerting the power and influence.

CJ Morgan writes

'There is nothing inherently sexual about a nude human body of any age. In my opinion those who think otherwise have unresolved problems with their sexuality, that they project on to others.'

Well in my opinion those who are prepared to let their 12 year old girl pose nude in the name of art are sick. People offering their daughters to this 'art' are no different from those who would strip a girl and place her in front of a web cam for every deviant to watch.
I hope not to many uni lecturers share your view. A former NSW Indigenous Affairs Minister would agree that it is just 'art' for some.

Runner, let me remind you that it is you who is apparently assailed by lust when you see a naked child, not me. Your suggestion that I would "offer" my daughter to anybody for any purpose is not only offensive, but typically dishonest.

What I said was that I would have no problem with my daughter posing nude for a bona fide, reputable artist if that's what she wanted to do. However, I doubt very much that she would want to.

Why are you fundies so dishonest, and why do you have such dirty minds?

I can't comment on the content of the exhibition, with one exception.
It includes a photo of a poor Vietnamese girl with skin peeling off her, as she runs from a napalm strike.

In such a case, I hardly see anything 'sexual' about her nakedness, rather, the raw naked brutality of war.

Other than that type of image, I'd have grave reservations about portraying children naked, depending of course on their age, and the setting of the image.

People who are determined pedophiles will see 'sex' in even the most innocent of images.. even of fully clothed children, so.. I don't think such people will be more confirmed in their attitude by such images as the one I mentioned above.

If this controversy shows anything, it is that we cannot legislate the moral FEELING of the whole community.
On the other hand, we CAN legislate a 'message' and no matter which message we send by legislation we will always get the spread of opinion found here.

Its a no win situation, and I don't feel deprived if I don't get to see anything at such an exhibition, I wouldn't waste my valuable time to see it either.
For those who feel 'oppressed' by the decision to remove the images :) I just say "get over it and get on with life" as you would say to us if they were left there.
*Peace*

Aah.... more information now.. and this rather says it all:

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2254253.htm

Bill Henson shows 'society exploits children in eroticised ways'

PM - Friday, 23 May , 2008 18:40:00
Reporter: Edmond Roy
MARK COLVIN: As the former executive director of the Australia Institute, Clive Hamilton published a controversial report titled "Corporate Paedophilia".

On the Bill Henson case, he argues that while artists have a right to push boundaries, society has a responsibility to push back.

He sees the latest controversy as the result of a society in which children are being exploited in increasingly eroticised ways.

AAAAAMEN! I love that :) Artist's push..we push back.. I think I'll use that in other places 0_^