When the Bill Henson, 2008 exhibition was locked down by police, debate over his images of naked adolescents polarised between the competing concerns for the protection of children and the freedom of artistic expression. Henson was portrayed by one side as an exploiter of children; by the other he was immortalised as an artist of first merit whose work is above the scrutiny of tabloid-reading philistines. The nature of the discussion meant a middle ground was difficult to occupy. The child-protection camp claimed feelings of uncertainty and vulnerability that many viewers experienced regarding the images. Thus an opportunity was missed to critically reflect upon such feelings and what they say about our ideals of childhood innocence.

Meanwhile, in their failure to address the discomfort provoked by Henson's work, his supporters pushed art to the margins, leaving it to be regarded as an elite field closed to most Australians, which did not engender public sympathy for Henson. Newly elected Prime Minister Rudd had his finger on the pulse of public sentiment when, on breakfast television, he called the most controversial photograph, of a nude 12 year old girl (Untitled #30), ‘revolting’. It's fair to say that this encounter between the artist, the child-protection activist, the Australian public and the New South Wales police force generated more heat than light. The debate burnt hotly and died out quickly, leaving those involved singed and shy of the public arena. Even the most controversy-hungry artist would baulk at being labelled a child pornographer.