My novel Navaratri explores the nature of the erotic in art. To date I have only been exploring just some of the research that went into the novel, and only in regard to the first section (I haven’t even begun to tackle the themes in the latter sections of the book).
One of those themes is the conflict between the classical view of the naked body, which celebrated it as a thing of beauty, and the Judeo-Christian view, which sees it as a thing of shame. This conflict has waxed and waned throughout the history of art, from time to time and from place to place. Perhaps the most intolerant has been the mainly Anglophone Puritan strand, a strand that, like Islam, was deeply suspicious of any representational art as a form of idolatry. The reaction to the naked child in art seems the most prevalent in English speaking countries tainted by Puritanism.
By and large, the classical view has dominated and the Puritan view, apart from the occasional skirmish, has been silenced. The nude is generally accepted as a perfectly legitimate subject for art, even finding its way into a good deal of famous religious art.
However, in more recent times the Puritan attitude has reasserted itself in relation to the naked child as a subject, this time using two relatively new arguments: that the child is too young to consent, and that such works inspire paedophilia.
Both arguments are nonsense.
Fanny by Jock Sturges
I have already detailed a number of cases where the subjects of such nude studies have spoken in favour of the work. The subject above, Fanny, continues to pose for Sturges as an adult. There have been many instances where protests have been made against an artist, only to have the subject reject the protests and support their work. In both the most recent cases, Bill Henson in Australia and Richard Prince at the Tate, the subjects supported the work (see Brooke Shields).
A work in progress – and something completely different. A crime novel about cultural and generational clashes. A series of murders in the Melbourne art world. 
Greenfields Site.
Very good arguments.There is a hysteria about everything related to the naked human body and this needs to be stopped.Another thing is that teen-agers/adolescents are often treated like little children where as studies like those by Robert Epstein suggest that teen-agers are just as capable or at least nearly as capable as adults.So the “maturity” argument is invalid for all teen-agers/adolescents.
Thanks Jim. I’ve studied developmental psychology and written a fair amount about it on this blog. The simple answer is that many adolescents are indeed as capable as adults. I plan to write an entry exploring the notion of consent further. The bottom line is not that children can’t consent, but that moral conservatives don’t want them to.
The sad thing is the number of people who equate nudity with sex. The 2 are not necessarily connected, especially when the subject is a child. There is nothing sexually stimulating about a child’s body unless you are a sick paedophile and therein lies my point. Should we abandon this innocent area of art simply because of the mental defects of a few mentally unbalanced perverts who are not interested in art anyway and have many, far easier sources to access real filth from?
You perverts make me sick. I hope your soul burns for an eternity.
You only condemn yourself with these cruel words. What kind of person wishes an eternity of suffering on anyone? I regard the doctrine of hell to be one of the nastiest and most immoral ideas ever conceived.
the Judeo-Christian view, which sees it as a thing of shame
Christians who practice the shame reaction to nudity are treating the body as the world treats it but merely choosing a different reaction (denial and shame instead of lewdness and flaunting). This is not truly Christian. I doubt this worldly perversion of nudity is pleasing to God. There is nothing immodest or sinful about simply being naked and the pictures you have chosen here are examples of simple, natural nudity that is not sinful. If someone reacts to either of them in a lascivious manner, the fault lies with that person and his or her likely disordered view of nudity and sexuality.
The reaction of Elias above is telling as it is way out of proportion to the stimulus.
JPII from “Love and Responsibility” 1981: “Nakedness itself is not immodest… Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person, when its aim is to arouse concupiscence, as a result of which the person is put in the position of an object for enjoyment.”
The Christian attitude to nudity differs according to denomination, country and time. There are many Christians who practice nudism, especially in Germany and Europe. Indeed, during the height of the naturist movement in Germany in the 30′s there was a Catholic naturist club. The reaction to nudity is learned. Elias no doubt belongs to some ‘American’ Protestant sect heavily influenced by that country’s well known puritanism.