Oh Look - Naked Kids Are Back.

The genius of the arts world continues apace. In an attempt to return 'dignity' to the debate, the unutterably pretentious Michael O'Riordan of the pompous (Government-assisted) Art Monthly has published pictures of a naked six year old girl on the cover. Awesome. Dignity has not broken out, if you're interested.

Now, the shot itself is quite ordinary in many ways, nothing to get too fussed about. Inside the magazine, things get a bit dodgy with the same little girl (did I mention she's just six?), dolled up in jewellery and in allegedly 'sexualised' poses. Haven't seen 'em, can't comment. O'Riordan, somewhat gleefully, announces there are also teenaged girls inside.

But wait, it gets better. Get a load of this:

'The young girl whose naked photo appeared on the cover of an arts magazine, sparking a new controversy, has defended the picture, saying she is proud of it.'....hmmm...rolling her out to defend her mother's work. Did I mention she was six when the photos were taken and that she is now still a very young 11?

'The magazine's editors said the images were chosen as a protest against the recent furore over similar pictures by artist Bill Henson.'

Yeah. Sure they were.

'The now 11-year-old said she did not believe the photograph amounted to abuse and was upset with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who said he hated the shot.

"I'm really, really offended by what Kevin Rudd had to say about this picture," Olympia told reporters outside her Melbourne home, accompanied by her father, The Age art critic Robert Nelson.'

Ah-ha. It's all become clear. I thought the Henson shots were exploitative. This gets so much better.

"I think that the picture my mum took of me had nothing to do with being abused and I think nudity can be a part of art.''

I know a lot of eleven year-olds who speak like that. Really. At least...oh, hang on, none.

"(It) has nothing to do with pedophilia. The connection between artistic pictures and pedophilia cannot be made and there is no evidence for it. No one's producing any science," he said.

Right about the first bit. It's not about pedophilia. It's more fundamental. Here's why:

[Nelson] said the magazine cover was "a risk worth taking".

A risk worth taking? Is it his cock on the block? No. It's his daughter's, so to speak. Of course it was worth taking, he gets to shower in the publicity, force a child to face the media and parrot her parents' idiocies. Now, I don't discount she may hold this view in seven years, but frankly, I reckon when she's a parent, she might think differently.

Nelson, on the other hand, is behaving extremely poorly, as is the girl's mother (yes I know their names) who took and displayed the photos. Doting dad continues:

"I think we have to defend the dignity of children's nudity ... otherwise we are in for a culture where you can't expose children in any circumstance because someone might take some joy in looking at their bodies."

Dignity? This is dignified? Every parent's dream is that their kids can get through life without being gawked at when they're at the beach or the pool or running around on the front lawn. Plastering them across the front of Art Monthly is not dignified. When the photos were for private consumption, there was little wrong with them. And, if I may take his final point, is art not for enjoyment? If so, what are we supposed to do with these images? Not enjoy them? But that would make us Philistines. If we did enjoy them, we're pedophiles. Where are we again?

Rudd, for his part, has miscommunicated or been miscommunicated. He should be going after the parents and the media for this, not the image or subject itself. There's nothing inherently wrong with a naked child (surely this is the point), there's lot wrong with these 'artists' who insist on exploiting children without the subject's informed consent.

It's not about porn, it's about children and the consent that they can honestly give at this age. It's also about the duty of care the parents are required to fulfill. They may not agree that their six year old shouldn't be displayed naked in newsagents, but they must respect the idea that the very same child is a better than even chance that they will withdraw that consent. I do just love the idea that the parents have de-contextualised Rudd's abhorrence as telling her that Rudd has a problem with the child rather than the image. No, they're not filling their child's head with fantasies, uh-uh. This is reality.

Nelson and his photographer wife have gone one step further than Henson's subject - they've actively pimped their child in the media, to turbo regurgitate the crap they've fed her - an absolute no-no in my opinion.

Militant atheists, a good number of whom are also artists, are always ranting on about a family religion being child abuse - what the hell do they call this?