Art scandals are fun. Sometimes whole decades can pass without a really good, juicy, art scandal. The art world is usually a reserved, shy, sort of place, where debates are carried out in polite, hushed whispers. Barely does the general public get a glimpse into this paradise of civility. But, when they do, the paradise can quite quickly turn into Hades.

Australia's latest art scandal saw one of our most famous and talented photographers, Bill Henson, shrouded in a media frenzy that sought to judge whether or not the artist passed as a child pornographer. I think the jury may still be out on that one, even though public censors and police have all stated Henson's work is decidedly not guilty of being anything but art. But since this is an opinion piece, I'll begin by stating my view on Henson, and his work.

I first came across Henson's work while studying visual arts in high school. Having a keen interest in photography, I was instantly grabbed by the subtle, emotive and rather lonely nature of his photographs. I loved them. Never, as the then-15-year-old girl that I was, did I find contention with the fact his photos often depicted naked children.

Henson has long been considered one of this country's greatest exports, and one of the best photographers all around. Never has anyone, to my knowledge, had any problem with any of his work (and he's been photographing children for a long time). Why now? I guess that's the nature of art scandals; they spring up without real reason.

In any case, the debate has been an interesting one to follow. It's in its dying days now, but someone has already written a book about it--author and journalist David Marr (who has written about previous art scandals in Australia) wrote The Henson Case.

I saw David Marr last night, speaking about the 'Henson hullaballoo', as he called it. What struck me though (and here's what I'm sure you've been waiting for) is that throughout his entire speech, he might as well have been speaking about video games.

The link here is the protection of children, and the fact that Australian society seems to have gone a bit cuckoo over this. Australia remains the only civilised country that still effectively 'bans' video games because of this obsession with the protection of children. No matter that children are not the target audience for either video games or visual arts, their protection seems to overrule the basic freedoms that should be afforded to citizens.

What is happening now in the art world has been happening for a long time in the video games world. The fact that the government refuses to introduce an R18+ classification is all tied to this notion of protecting children.

At the Federal Government's request, the Australia Council now plans to introduce 'arts protocols' in response to the Henson case. The protocols relate to the depiction of children in government-funded artworks, exhibitions and publications, and will apply from January 2009. They will be a condition of Australia Council funding, and have apparently been designed to ensure the rights of children are protected in the artistic process. However, this includes ensuring that everyone viewing the artwork has an appropriate understanding of the nature and artistic content of the material.

What this means is that government-funded art galleries will not be able to exhibit any works that are deemed 'too difficult to understand' by the public. What does this mean? I don't know. Do you? How can anyone have 'an appropriate understanding of the nature and artistic content' of an artwork?

If this were a universal rule, it would effectively mean that no gallery anywhere would be able to display any artwork ever again. This goes against the very nature of what art is. The artistic vision of the artist is shared through the artwork, but everyone is free to interpret it as they wish.

And all this because they do not want children to be corrupted by, and through, images such as Henson's. These protocols are not just aimed at protecting children from being exploited as part of the art creation process, but also protecting them all around, including not being exposed to inappropriate content.

No government can censor art just because one or two people find it offensive. But as soon as there is talk of 'protecting the children', that gives a government carte blanche to do as they will, because who is going to oppose the protection of children?

This is David Marr, speaking on ABC's Lateline program:

"I try to distinguish between real children who have the real need to be protected and the kind of forum in which the fragility of children is being used by people who have always been trying to have a more modest society, a better behaved society, a more sexually conservative society. Those people aren't listened to any more at all by anybody unless they're talking about children, unless they're talking about the safety of children."

"What we have to decide as a society is whether that means we are going to start banning a whole area of material which is not considered remotely pornographic by people like the Classification Board, by the directors of public prosecution around Australia or even by police. But there is in the community at the moment a very strong wish that this somehow be stopped and banned. This is the most ambitious call for censorship that Australia has experienced for a very long time."

I would disagree with Marr only on his last point: Australia is already experiencing a very similar, if not more ambitious, wave of censorship, with the constant banning of video games in this country.