Can I point out that any poster accusing another poster of being a pedeophile sounds ridiculously childish. And no, "he started it" is not an adequate defense. There is no one on these forums who has given any indication of pedeophilic tendencies. If you honestly believe someone has indicated they are getting sexual enjoyment from looking at pictures of minors, report it to Graham and/or the police.

No one wants to encourage pedeophiles. As I have said a gazillion times, the argument is about whether or not Henson's work is art or pornography, if the young boy and girl could give consent or not, etc.

Paul: "Are you saying "Yes" its OK for a pedophile to have photos similar to those Henson takes? So you would be OK with your neighbours taking pictures of your daughter naked if she was OK with it? Is that right?"

I think what CJ is trying to say is that context matters. I could take a picture of my child naked and put it in a photo album. If you child came over to play and they went skinny dipping together, we could take a photo for both our albums. If my next door neighbour was taking photos through a gap in the fence, that would not be ok. If my husband put them on our family blog on the internet, ok. On a forum for pedeophiles, not ok.

What is appropriate artistically is different from what is appropriate in other arenas. Realistically, no pedeophile is going to collect Henson prints. For a start, they are prohibitively expensive. Secondly, you may insist they are sexual, but they are certainly not sexy. Thirdly, there's no genitals involved — an underaged nipple in shaded light is the extent of it.

If you have time, please read this blog entry by an excellent Australian blogger called "TigTog".

http://viv.id.au/blog/?p=1773

Vanilla, you stated "Realistically, no pedeophile is going to collect Henson prints. For a start, they are prohibitively expensive.. ."

Thats making the quantum leap and assuming pedeophile's are poor or cannot afford expensive art. Come on- you are smarter than that- you know Pedeophiles transcend social-economic lines. Try again.

“Thirdly, there's no genitals involved — an underaged nipple in shaded light is the extent of it.”

Not entirely true Vanilla, as shown on the ABC documentary a couple of nights ago. But I agree; sexual but not sexy.

Ludwig: I know there's nudity in his previous work — the work that's still hanging downstairs at the Art Gallery of NSW, for example! But I thought the current exhibition was waist-up only. However, I was wrong — this is from The Age: "Most of the shots were taken from the waist up, although the genitals of the female model were visible in one image."

Tammy Jo: You're quite right. However, as I understand it (and I am no expert) people who are into child pornography tend to hide their attraction to images of children, and stockpile lots of images. Paying $20,000+ for one blurry image seems unlikely behaviour to me. I agree with you that I was wrong to say it wouldn't happen, but I still think it's unlikely to happen.

My point is that Henson does not have the hallmarks that it appears pedeophiles are attracted to. He is frequently compared to Caravaggio — who used naked child models himself: http://www.christusrex.org/www2/art/images/caravaggio24a.jpg. Like Caravaggio, his images are dark, complex, disturbing, whereas child pornography is usually clear, simple, well-lit.

Of course, it's not a blanket rule. And it is of course possible that pedeophiles might buy Henson's work and become aroused by it. Pedeophiles find erotic content in many things — Target and David Jones catalogues, Dolly magazine, their children's friends, their local beach, and, as Catharine Lumby pointed out the other day, the movie The Sound of Music. We cannot ban everything that might turn on a pedeophile — to do so would be to put the lunatics in charge of the asylum.

Um, by the way, The Age has reproduced the photo that has been seized here: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/05/24/1211183189567.html

Surely that isn't legal? I'm ringing my journo friends to find out.

Last I checked Vanilla there were genitals of children displayed in the Sistine Chapel. Really, you seem to be all over place in the last couple of posts. For example, the only problem with someone photographing your naked child in your private yard was that there was no consent to do so. The photograph or the child in it doesn't magically change into something else depending on where the photograph is placed or who took it.

CJ,

I’m not being obtuse, I’m merely pointing out that you are admitting that taking nude photos of children should be limited. Your limit is clearly that the picture taker should be an artist. So after all you do recognize that a line must be drawn somewhere. I just draw it in a different place.

You say >>” I didn't say there was nothing sexual about the pictures” Thursday, 29 May 2008 10:27:00 AM,

Yet you also said,

>>” If you'd seen these or any other of Henson's works you'd be aware that there is little that is 'sexual' about them, other than the attributions put on them by philistines with sexual hang-ups” Sunday, 25 May 2008 4:14:48 PM

Well make up your mind CJ. You are blatantly contradicting yourself.

You say >>” All humans are 'sexual' - at no age is any normal human androgynous nor asexual”

Well I’m starting to see why you are so confused about this whole issue. Most normal people would agree that with puberty comes sexuality. The idea that babies posses any kind of sexuality is ridiculous.

You say >>”Why is the age of consent for having sex relevant to that of models posing nude for a reputable artist?”

The adoption of an age of consent acknowledges a level of maturity in those concerned that I believe should be a minimum requirement to make a long term decision regarding your body. Be it tattoos, plastic surgery or nude photos. At no time have I equated nakedness with having sex. Again, you’re just making that up.

You say >>” At any rate, I think he'll find that he's actuall legally wrong if he bothers to investigate the matter rather than trying to shout down hysterically anybody who disagrees with him -16 year-olds can indeed consent to having sex under certain conditions in most jurisdictions (but only heterosexual sex, and not with adults),”

You just don’t have a clue! You just made that up didn’t you? I dare to try and prove that!! You might like to start here. http://www.afao.org.au/library_docs/policy/Age_of_consent_briefing_paperJune06.pdf