I fear for us all teachers if men can no longer put his arm around a little girl if she is crying.
Todays Sydney press spoke of nude baby's in adds being a help to pedophiles gee will it end?
Just once look at the photos without thinking of sex see the very real art?
See the story each picture tells?
Can you not see the art the true humanity of the thing?
Will our children be covered in that long dress with just the eyes because it may be sexual?
Would we be better asking why 10 year olds dress like 18 year olds? why mums let them have make up and even boy Friends?
It is art not sexual exploitation the world laughs at us

Vanilla,
My photograph, as a naked two year old, stood on my parents’ mantel shelf for many years and nobody ever gave it a second thought, nobody we knew saw it as sinful.
People might as well call this sinful: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/256894/pee_shooter_statue/

I haven’t seen these particular photographs by Henson, but if they are as beautifully artistic as his other work I have no doubt that there is nothing pornographic about them.

Still, I do see the point of people who feel uneasy with the thought of photographing 12-year old girls nude, even in the most artistic manner.

I don’t know how explicit these photographs are, I don’t know the shading was used, but his other work shows very tasteful and he used adequate shading/lighting as far as I know.
How were these pictures different from his past ones of nude bodies?

I'm afraid I can’t fully make up my mind about these pictures simply because I haven’t seen them.
Photographs are, imo, far more personal than other media reflections, e.g. paintings, so my opinion would probably depend on how much this girl was protected by the artist’s use of creative use of shading/lighting.

Belly,

If you can’t see the difference between comforting a child by putting your arm around them, and photographing them naked, then there’s something wrong.

You say >> “Would we be better asking why 10 year olds dress like 18 year olds”

Can’t you see that this is exactly what the artist is doing, framing children in a sexual manner more appropriate for adults. Indeed surely it is less harmful to be clothed like an adult than to be unclothed like one.

If the world laughs at us because we consider the sexualisation of children offensive, I feel sorry for them, and their children, not embarrassed. Being popular and being right aren’t the same, you should know this.

Vanilla,

The importance of the artist and his work is irrelevant. It is almost always an entirely subjective judgement when it comes to valuing modern art anyway. We are talking about the subject matter. You don’t need to be an art critic to do that. Indeed it probably helps if you are not, as I generally find them to be haughty types with no connection to the community at large. A generally left wing elitist bunch

You say>> “ But is “appropriate” appropriate in the art world? Shouldn’t art be brave, take risks, challenge?

This is true to an extent. Are there limits? I would ask in reply. I would argue that there are limits and the sexualisation of young children exceeds them.

You say >> “And why on earth should Henson help curb the hideous corporate trick of sexualising children …? “

I’d say he is feeding from the same trough, making money and reputation using the innocence of children.

Piss Christ, in my opinion, is stupid, says nothing and has no value. Its only point is in offending Christians; otherwise it would never have even been noticed. It’s shock value is all that it possess. But I don’t want to ban it, Christians can look after themselves. Children, however, need our protection.

BTW, I bet there were a few supporters of Hensons’ work who condemned the cartoons of Mohammed.

Paul L

Taking photos of children naked and sexualising them are completely different. Don't you have any family snaps of your kids playing naked in the backyard pool or in the bathtub?

Please refer to my post above in which I discuss where true sexploitation of children occurs - in the advertising media.

Any paedophile can get his rocks off in the local Target Underwear catalogue instead of forking dollars out for entry at an art exhibition.

What is wrong is our attitudes to our bodies and our denial of our sexual natures. If we had better sex education and more open attitude towards something that is completely natural, I believe there would be less people with sexual perversions such as paedophiles.

BTW Since you chose to go off topic; I did not condemn the mohammed cartoons and I very much doubt that people who are broadminded about sex would've condemned those cartoons either. Are you trying to do a 'Boaz' and bring in a bit of mozzie bashing?

Paul.L: << framing children in a sexual manner more appropriate for adults >>

Utter rubbish. 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 - including 'perverts'.

<< I would argue that there are limits and the sexualisation of young children exceeds them. >>

So stop sexualising them. The artist doesn't and those who appreciate his art don't. It's hysterical latter-day prudes like you - and paedophiles - who do. That's one thing you have in common with them.

<< I bet there were a few supporters of Hensons’ work who condemned the cartoons of Mohammed >>

Huh? This is a discussion about the distinction between art and pornography, not about Islamophobic cartoons. While I appreciate that Paul is an obsessed Islamophobic wingnut, I wasn't aware that his ignorance extended to art as well. Paul - very few people regard political cartoons as 'art', and I imagine even fewer could find a pornographic connection. Your mind works in interesting ways.

pelican: << these photos are highly inappropriate, of bad taste and do nothing to curb the current status quo of media/corporate using children in sexualised images to sell clothes, CDs (via video clips) etal. >>

Their supposed inappropriateness and bad taste say more about the observer than they do about the art. As beautiful artistic images, in my opinion they are entirely appropriate to be displayed an art gallery. As for deeming them to be in 'bad taste' - that is what this stoush is about, isn't it? It seems to me that it is those who deem naked adolescent bodies intrinsically pornographic who are displaying a lack of taste, rather than those who celebrate their beauty.

And why is it the artist's job to take on corporate entities that do use sexualised images of young people to push their wares? In my opinion, a Bratz doll is more offensive than Henson's photographs, and even then I think the criticism is somewhat overblown.

Well said, CJ.

Though in a somewhat depressing turn, I note that a poll on The Australian's website has 45 per cent saying the pictures are pornography, 40 per cent saying it is art, with the remainder saying it is neither.

I also note that it looks like there's going to be the same farce of a trial that erupted over the release of the novel, Lady Chatterley's lover. Looking back, people came to realise how foolish this censorship was, but until we have that hindsight on this issue, it's going to be another circus.