Artistry

An article in the Sydney Morning Herald describes an outcry against photographs of naked children on display in an art gallery in that city. The photographs were felt by some to contribute to the sexualization of children, while others felt differently. From the article:

Art market analyst and commentator Michael Reid said the naked bodies of young women had been the subject of art for thousands of years. Mr Reid viewed the exhibition on Wednesday morning before the photographs were seized. "I have noticed people are prepared to give their opinion without actually seeing the photographs," he said. "I find this quite disturbing because this debate is very important."

Mr Reid said he judged the artistic merit of the work to be valid and not pornographic. "The main photograph in question is in the style of the Old Masters," he said. "The model is enveloped in a black velvety shroud and she is backlit. She is very still. There is not any sexual charge about the image. It is quite restful and contemplative. She is demure. I was aware of the child sexualisation issue but that does not exist here in my opinion. Bill Henson had done a huge body of work that goes across a whole range of areas . . . this is a debate that has to happen - but rationally."

It seems that there's always a reason found to allow this sort of thing. There's always someone who says that they don't think it's sexual at all, or whether it is or not, it's art, and so the rules are off. At what point do we say 'enough's enough?' Ever?