Okay, for those who don't know, Bill Henson is a famous (now infamous) Australian artist, whom recently has been in a shiz load of hot water regarding a collection of photographs featuring a naked but obscured adolescent girl and boy. Basically the entire of Australia have freaked out about the matter, with Police raiding the Sydney's Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery last month, seizing 20 of his photographs. Up till now it was more than certain that Bill Henson would be charged over the photographs, however after seeking advice from the Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP), New South Wales (NSW) police on Friday said no charges would be laid- and this has lead to a greater uproar, especially from child sexual assault advocacy group Bravehearts, describing Friday's "disgusting" decision as a win for pedophiles which "puts Australia in the dark ages". The full article can be read here http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=575939&rss=yes This situation has now yeilded some pretty interesting debates as to what can be considered art and what is and is not acceptable by western standards. Especially in reference to Bill Henson himself and other, similar situations/artists, like the case with Miley Cyrus who posed naked (although the latter of her was obscured by a bedsheet and in my opinion the photograph is extremely tasteful) for a photograph in Vanity Fair. Basically I ask in this thread, where is the line in art/does the line exist in the first place and can such photographs, like that by Bill Henson and of Miley Cyrus be justifed in terms of art?