Artist often use their works to create controversy, to do things that open up opinions about issues that people would otherwise never talk about. This is a prime example.
I dont believe Bill Henson should be charged as such, I do believe he wanted to create 'art', leaning towards the controversial subject of child pornography, to create controversy, which he certainly achieved.
Chances are that the girls parents signed a waver and were present at the time of the photo shoot, if they werent they should be very ashamed, BUT.....having said that, the girl is no way near old enough to predict the consequences of her actions, there fore was exploited by the artist in my view.
In the twisted minds of paedophiles, this would be considered porn and probably circulated for their own disgusting purposes. The girls face is shown, which I think is extremely dangerous and inappropriate as well.
I think the police were right to shut the gallery down, the identiy of the girl should be protected. When people try and say 'this is art not pornography' I think they are seriously misguided. The big issue for me is that the girl is identifyable, which is soooo irresponsible. If the girl was annonomus, I may believe the pics are art, but what one person sees are artistic, another may see as material for thier own sick purposes, this MUST be recognised.
I believe if the pictures were shown as 'art' this girl is in danger, shame on you Bill Henson, and shame shame shame on the girls parents.