Already the public's response to the publishing of photos of a naked child in the name of art is subdued. Usually a campaign of challenge to society's rules doesn't achieve such a result for years, and one example is the challenge to society's condemnation of homosexuality as a perversion. But the publishing of photos of a six-year-old girl on the cover of and inside the government-subsidised Arts Monthly Australia has brought little more than objections from the Prime Minister and the Premier.
Is it possible, as I suggest in my column today, that one day there will be no objection to the portraying of naked children in images labelled as art?
I can imagine how it might come about, and I believe the process has started already. The government might announce one day that after very careful consideration of a great many submissions it agrees that art cannot flourish with restrictions, and that as a cornerstone of our freedom of expression and recognition that the human form is a god-given gift it accepts that children can be portrayed in their natural state as, and only as, art. But it will draw the line at the portrayal of sex organs.
And a year or two later that rule will be challenged by artists, who'll show images of children with everything on show. Outrage. Then other artists will show similar images. The outrage will become weary. And soon the government will announce that after very careful ... .
Should the possibility that pedophiles might leer over these images prevent their presentation as art? Does a mother's permission or creation of the art remove the risk of exploitation of the child? Would it be different if the consenting parent was the father?
Will the challenges weaken or strengthen the public's resolve against the use of images of naked children? And where will it end?