So, Elton's found himself at the centre of child porn allegations all because some conservative gallery employee decided to sexualise what is essentially a pretty innocent piece of art.

Here's the piece in question. What do you think? Art or porn?

Neither. Looks like a crappy family photo parents use to embarass their kids when they grow up.

Traditionally belly dancing has been viewed as a Middle-Eastern woman's 'coming of age' ceremony - a kind of 'entry into womanhood'. In Arab/Turkish culture it is 'haram' or 'surdun' (not proper) for a child to even attempt belly-dancing. The artwork is inappropriately titled & culturally ignorant/offensive to those that know better, but as an image the photo is a 'life in motion' shot, not necessarily kiddie porn. Only a paedophile would look at this shot & become aroused. Those that charge this shot as having a pedo element would only do so with a subconcious 'takes one to know one' mentality.....
The two infants in the shot are left to interact seemingly unassisted, albeit dressed in 'trashy' clothes or not at all. You can load any meaning that's conveniently subversive upon this shot if you've got a mind that's less than unsavoury or wish it to be corrupting should you want it to be......

What do other posters think?

Gotta agree with Alison. It's neither!