Should we let artists follow their own instincts even though the subject of their art could be considered obscene or pornographic?
It is reported that Elton John's private collection has been "seized by police from a gallery on suspicion it may have breached child pornography laws". The collection was seized because there was an image of a naked young girl photographed sitting down with her legs wide apart.
I have a few photos of my kids naked but not in any poses that one might call provocative. They are mainly of them in the tub, covered in bath bubbles. If someone takes a picture of a young child naked and the image that it projects is intentionally provocative, then I would be leery of the intention and innocence of the art. I would object to that kind of art because I think that kind of art is exploitative.
A follow-up article on the subject by Richard Dorment suggests that it is not the job of art galleries to censor the work of artists. Instead they should put up signs warning visitors of what they are about to see.
I don't have a problem with that except when it concerns images of children in questionable poses. Child pornography is becoming mainstream, what with the unrestricted access to such pornography on the internet. I don't need art galleries to be promoting child pornography. I don't think images of children in sexually provocative poses will ever become "innocuous" to the next generation as Richard Dorment suggested in his article. As long as there are parents and people who object to adults exploiting children for sexual purposes, images of naked or semi-clothed children in suggestive poses will continue to be objectionable.