1. Dragonhead, China

I have little doubt your urge to shoot him is only matched by his wish his lawyer had your address.

Is that ....the old man with bazarre taste gay and wants cheap publicity ???

#2 Suck. He lives in sunny Denial by the sea.

Let me guess - it was being used for research for a song he was going to write?

Be interesting if this story is followed up. Where is the line between art and "not-art"? Is it being re-defined in these days of incresed PC? Is art of previous decades going to be reclassified as "not art"? Will artist be charged under the laws relating to obscene material?

#6. Yes. The PC brigade have managed to condemn art that uses naked children as pornographic.

If these draconian measures were enacted from medieaval times upward, more than half of today's well-known and loved artists like Titian, Raphael, Michaelangelo and DaVinci would have been done some hard time in jail.

BTW ... there's a statue group in Edinburgh's West End between (after Shandwick Place) that clearly shows two naked youths of about 10 years old. Isn't this pornography according to the PC lot??

Shouldn't they be covered up with say ... a fig leaf??

If we look at it, doesn't that make us all guilty of child sexual abuse because we're viewing an image?

Where does ART end and PORN begin?

Much as I hate and despise real child sex predators ... I think there is a proclivity to go overboard with this.

Can I just point out to all the apparent critics of Elton John that the story, if you bother to read it, states that the image was removed from ONE OF FIVE exhibitions, ONE OF WHICH is a collection owned by Elton John.

So before we let loose the baying hounds maybe we could show a modicum of restraint until we know which exhibition the image came from?

And as #6 says of course there is also a fine line sometimes between art and pornography, as with anything else it's in the eye of the beholder, one persons beloved picture of their child in the bath (which most parents will have) is another persons ultimate sexual fantasy.

From what I understand of the law images of naked children are NOT illegal unless they are explicitly intended to titilate. Unfortunately you can't define what will titilate any of us so I would have stand with with the 'PC' brigade and err on the side of caution. I don't particularly see why a gallery exhibition would be better off with a picture of a naked child in it anyway, though of course I've not seen the picture in question.

1....Because you are a twisted D.head...

This is probably yet another politically correct storm in a teacup. If the picture was indeed an example of child pornography, does anyone honestly believe that the owner would proudly put it on display for the world to see, along with details of who created it and who owns it?

I mean, really? Would they?

I don't know who's off their chump the most here---the "investigators", the idiot who raised suspicion in the first place or Elton John.

In the 1970s, when the Monty Python team wrote and performed loads of sketches, they were meant as COMEDY. Not a blueprint for the future.

Honestly. You couldn't make it up.

No 11 Alternative( high octane) fuel head

I have to agree with your first comment who in their right mind would display for all to see pornography
pictures.

Thanks to the pc mob some parents have nodoubt lost the pleasure of bathing their children in case bath night is raided by the social services.

Wow. my eminently sensible comment has been removed at #10. Now that's censorship.

#13 Of course it's censorship, do you not know we now live under the authority of The New Righteousness - 21st Century Pharisees.

If we look at #8's comment he/she is actually stating that he/she will stand with the PC brigade and by doing this is acknowledging they are the new state controlled conscience of our 'society'.

Once you give up on God, then man will very quickly try to to fill His shoes. I am now on the floor in stitches.

Have any of you seen the photo? Google for it. It's appallingly bad for one thing, and for two, the intent is clearly to depict innocence on the edge. The kids are not 'innocently' playing, the photographer has arranged it to look as un-innocent as possible. But no doubt that's art.. so okay then?

It's nothing like a parent's bath time photo - look, and tell me any parent would want to have their kids photographed like that and displayed to the public?