Probably my favourite artist is the sixteenth century Cranach the Elder. (There's was a Younger as well, you see.) His models were clearly underage. See: http://www.artchive.com/artchive/c/cranach/cranach_lucretia.jpg

The Royal Academy in London recently had a Cranach exhibition, and advertised it with this poster: http://static.royalacademy.org.uk/images/372x372/poster-1766.jpg

The London Underground deemed it too sexual, and banned it from tube stations. "Millions of people travel on the London Underground each day and they have no choice but to view whatever adverts are posted there. We have to take account of the full range of travellers and endeavour not to cause offence in the advertising we display," a spokesman said.

I think it was later unbanned, and Venus went on the thrust her proud bosum from the sides of buses everywhere. But not one has mentioned the fact that the girls looks about sixteen years old. She's not around to tell tattletales on Cranach the Elder, I suppose.

I hope that the indignant 'moral' outrage will eventually settle down (I really wanted to say 'peter out', but perhaps I should steer clear of the double entendre).

Even "Piss Christ" has earned its place in Art History.

I'm sure that no-one could find anything offensive in the following image:

http://www.christian-travelers-guides.com/art/art-pics/03v0014a.jpg

It's not all bad - at least it's got people talking about art, not to mention the likelihood of a surge in the market for fig leaves.

Dear Vanilla,

I've studied Art History for more than five years so nudity is not something that would shock me. We've had cries of outrage from the public before -
Norman Lindsay's voluptuous female nudes come to mind.

I have to admit that I'm not familiar with Bill Henson's work - so as Robert said - I too can't comment on the individual pieces.

However, I have to admit that from what I've read, Henson has concentrated his work on children aged 12 and 13 as his subjects and
despite whatever claims are made of the artistic value of his photographs, there has to be considerable unease - showing them in the nude.

I'm not trying to be deliberately contentious here but we live in an
age in which there is an on-going procession of cases involving child pornography on the Internet and child molestation and familial abuse.

We heard about the nightmare and scourge of alcohol and drugs in
remote communities. Shocking crimes are hidden from mainstream Australian Society.

I'm not suggesting we 'burn' art books or anything of the kind. I am
stating that I understand the unease with which some people would view
Henson's work - considering the ages of his subject matter - and the fact that he presents them naked.

I saw the censored versions of a few photographs of one child on news.com, and I thought they were sad. I won’t make any comment on the rights or wrongs of taking pictures of naked children; my moral judgements belong to a generation much before the time of most other posters, and they will have to live with whatever behaviour and beliefs they espouse throw up in the future.

However, my hackles did rise after I discovered that the “young adults” referred to by a supporter of Hanson’s on ABC News Radio were, in fact, aged from 11 years to 13 years. Anyone who thinks that 11, 12 and 13 year olds are adults is a very dangerous person.

There is a male poster here who seems to be quite comfortable about these photographs. Not so long ago (in a totally innocent and unrelated context) the poster revealed that he had a 12 year old daughter.

I wonder if he would care to advise whether or not he would be prepared to have his daughter photographed naked and put on public display

I feel absolutely no need to qualify why I find this 'art' offensive.

I am sick to death of the pretentious élitism that looks at a pile of bricks and calls it art;-a blank canvas;-art,....naked youngsters;-art.

Lets face it;- if one is raped tastefully;-it's erotic art?

NO! It's rape.

A pedophile (no;-I'm not saying wotsaface is),- can express his pedophilic gratification by photographing naked children and adolescents;-framing them; and calling them 'art'.

Does that qualify them as art? By definition it should do.

Frankly, artistic expression has boundless sources. I am contemptuous of a so-called artist having such a narrow field of expression that he has to resort to this.
I feel the same contempt for the pretentious bullshite that not only allows it, but praises it, and condemns those who oppose it.