There were classifications and laws available to deal with pornographic matters and they should be used if there was a problem with pictures, he said.

This month's edition of Art Monthly used a picture of a naked six-year-old girl on the cover in protest against the treatment of artist Bill Henson.

Angered by the "hysteria" over Henson's pictures of a 13-year-old girl, the magazine also featured a number of similar images inside.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said he could not stand such artwork and believed the photographs were a step in the wrong direction.

"Not every photograph of a naked child, or a naked young person or a naked person is pornographic," Mr Stanhope told ABC Radio.

"I haven't seen it but that's a huge leap to suggest that a photograph of a young child is inherently pornographic if it's displayed publicly.

"That's a concept that causes me enormous difficulty.

"If this particular image were offensive, were pornographic, then we deal with it either through the criminal law or through the classifications systems that we have in place.

"The bottom line position in an absolutist sense is that, alright, we ban all nude photographs of all children in every circumstance.

"I think that's an extreme position."

Mr Stanhope said Art Monthly, which attracted funding from the ACT and commonwealth governments, was possibly the most reputable magazine devoted to critiquing the arts and engendering debate within the arts in Australia.

"I have to say it's a magazine with an enormous reputation that I've always been prepared to support," he said.

"This is a most difficult and fraught issue - the need to ensure that we protect absolutely our children from exploitation.

"But I think, in the context of this debate, a debate that has been very controversial and very difficult, if a reputable magazine, a serious magazine devoted to art criticism and a discussion of the arts, can't discuss this openly, then I find that very, very difficult."