Who decides what's art and what's not? More often than not, the market decides. Commercial art is worth not just what it costs to make, plus a margin for profit, but what people are willing to pay for it. "Greatness" in art is often decided by the consensus of an elite group of "experts" whose judgments we mere mortals challenge at our peril. Now I know very little about Bill Henson's work, but I note that the great and the good of the art world have come out in defence of his nude photographs of young people. I'm sure in their minds his work is art, not pornography. But art is also in the eye of the beholder. So if some people, like Bravehearts' Hetty Johnson, view Henson's work as porn - and, worse still, others get some sort of sexual thrill out of viewing it - then in a certain sense it is porn. And for all the debate about the work - there are too many articles to link to, just Google the artist's name - few, if any, of the commentators seem to realise that Henson was dealing with real, live people here. I defy anyone to tell me that a 12-year-old is capable of making an informed decision as to whether they really do want to be photographed in such a way. And that's why the law should protect them, and why Henson should find some models who are old enough to be emotionally, intellectually and psychological capable of giving consent.