Henson's pictures are clearly works of art, whether you like them or not. Just as clearly, they are not pornographic. However this doesn't mean 'art' and 'porn' are always mutually exclusive terms. This idea has been widely spread by journalists trying to simplify the issue. Unfortunately the 'Art or porn?' headline reinforces the myth that art is separate from everyday reality and that artists think anything goes. People then assume Henson's defenders are claiming: 'It's not porn because it's art'.

Throughout history artists have used explicit sexual imagery. This includes those two giants of modern art, Pablo Picasso and Marcel Duchamp. The American pop artist Jeff Koons is a notorious recent example. His series 'Made in Heaven' included huge brightly-lit photos of Koons having sex with his Italian porn-star wife, Cicciolina. They were self-consciously kitsch, but also extremely hardcore - a new hybrid we should perhaps call 'art-porn'.

In comparison, Henson's work is qualitatively different - and not simply because it calls itself 'art'. His images lack the stereotypical poses, harsh lighting, and anatomical focus of pornography. Henson's latest photographs in this censorship row are said to include child models as young as 12 or 13. Available reproductions show they may be challenging to people unfamiliar with his work, but they are not obscene in any reasonable sense of the word.

There is a possibility that Henson's photographs of nudes are actually erotic images. Such a claim is much vaguer than the obscene/porn one. An erotic interpretation often resides as much in the viewer's mind, as in the work itself. As for Henson's nudes in general, sexuality is sometimes an element of the visual drama they represent. Yet it can be argued they are aesthetically posed in a way appropriate in an artistic context. Just as importantly, they do not directly encourage a sexual response on the part of the viewer.

The lack of pornographic or obvious erotic content means the issue of 'consent' is not as problematic as some people think. If children are not being sexually exploited then surely, with their parents' guidance, they can make an informed decision to participate or not. It should be a matter of conscience for those involved.

Society allows families to make many important decisions regarding children. Parents are often passionate about education, religion, and other lifestyle choices. The visual expression of one's physical being is also an issue where personal preferences differ widely. In a modern Western society there is bound to be disagreement on these matters. We may dislike each others choices, but it makes sense to accept them as valid, and live and let live.

Fears for the safety of children are appropriately expressed through responsible parenting, and a cautious, not paranoid, attitude towards nudity. Academic research has shown all sorts of photographs are collected by child offenders - from the most acceptable and innocent to the most illicit and abusive. It would be an over-reaction to seek blanket censorship of all images of children. According to psychologists Max Taylor and Ethel Quayle in their book Child Pornography: An Internet Crime (Brunner-Routledge, 2003, p. 46), "it is not possible to legislate for (the) essentially fantasy use of photographs, and nor should it even be considered." The indiscriminate censoring of all childhood nudity in art would be an attempt to do just this.

Both sexuality and death are difficult themes for art to explore. There is always the risk that some viewers will be offended, even in our jaded post-modern culture. But this does not mean artists are irresponsible. If anything they are more aware than anyone of the significance and morality of the pictures they make. Images of children that are part of causing physical or emotional abuse are clearly intolerable. Looked at sensibly, Henson's nudes are definitely not 'child abuse' images, either in terms of production, content, or legitimate publication.

Are Bill Henson's child nudes pornographic or erotic? No, they're not. His images of children can express a mood of decadence that may be unappealing to some people. But this quality is independent of whether the figures are clothed or not. His photographs of the human figure are mysterious and moving, and portray an ambiguous range of feelings. But this palette of human emotions has nothing to do with sexual titillation. Whether it is 'art' or not is incidental to this argument. For its aesthetic and emotional power it just happens to be great art - among the best this country has ever seen.

Jason Beale 2008

ART WRITING INDEX / HOME PAGE