Certainly, controversy is nothing new to the world of art where many struggling artists are desperate to be noticed--to stand out from the masses. When, however, is enough enough?

In recent times we've been forced to confront Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ"--I vividly recall how he lapped up every single drop of that media frenzy. Then we had Marc Quinn's "Alison Lapper Preganant" offending abled and disabled people alike--oh, but it got his name in the news, didn't it?

So, what exactly would some of these artists actually be prepared to do? Or, more importantly, what wouldn't they do? Isn't it a fact that some of them would smear their own faeces on a canvas if they thought for a moment that it may just gain them any kind of notoriety; a flash of fame?

Now sinking to all new depth of depravity and desperation, we're being forced to endure the self attention seeking antics of yet another one. Yes, little known--until now that is--Bill Henson and his lurid photographs of a naked twelve year old girl.

I'm both intrigued and disgusted that these "artists" and their supports assume that by labelling something so abhorrent as "art" it somehow should automatically become acceptable to, and even admired by, society in general.

Under any other circumstances these photographs would be deemed to nothing more than child pornography--a criminal act.

What kind of bubble are these people living in that they are so immunized and desensitised to our society's standards and values?

For these photographs to be taken, this man had to be in presence of an innocent and naked child--an innocent and naked twelve year old girl. Whether, or not, anyone else (her mother) was present doesn't for a moment negate the fact that these photographs were taken for the viewing pleasure and enjoyment of the 'artist' and those of his ilk.

And, finally, what would you think about someone who displayed this kind of outrageous 'art'/paedophile titillation in their home?