Is art is in the eye of the beholder?

An interesting debate opened up in Australia over the past week.

Photos of the girl pictured above were published in an Australian art magazine. The furore that erupted was they were pictures of her naked when she was 6 years old by her mother.

Some people argue that the printing of these pictures is appropriate because they are considered "art". Others argue that this has collapsed over the line of morality because it has exposed an innocent child to the world and the pedophiles and perverts out there.

Even the PM has delved into the debate arguing that this was not the right thing to do and that he may strip funding for the magazine.

Personally, I think that this was bad call by the parents. Taking naked pictures of your kids when they are babies is seen as a sweet and cute thing, if they are being done for the right reason (which are pretty obvious to most sane people).

But to take pictures of a naked six year old and then publish them in an art magazine is questionable. As terrible as this will sound, my first thoughts was how could parents do this consider we live int he age where we constantly hear about pedophilia and child abuse?

How could you expose an innocent child to the perverts out there by claiming this is art?

Some may say that I am being a bit too prudish but am I?

I believe that art is in the eye of the beholder. I really get riled up by the people who claim they know everything about art because they are qualified on it. I think art is in the eye of the beholder because everyone is different and we all have different tastes. Some people like bright colours, some like weird shapes and patterns. Each person is different so not everyone will like the same type of art - no matter what a critic says.

I am sure you could say I am contradicting myself with the above, but this is outside the realm of "art" and raises a moral and ethical question. Should naked images of a small child be published in a magazine? I think not.