Child nudity in art has always been acceptable (see, for example: classic cherubs in art, but also tons of stuff in all of the visual arts throughout the centuries: sculpture, painting, photography, etc). What is MAKING it unacceptable - or making it SEEM unacceptable - is child pornography. That is to say: not merely art depicting naked children, but (more precisely) are that depicts the SEXUALIZATION of children. Fortunately our modern culture has a HUGE aversion to such things (note: UNlike many classic cultures), and so there is a HUGE government opposition to (and crackdown on) such things. The problem has been brought to the public's attention only in the last few decades, and how VAST and WIDESPREAD the (criminal) problem is has finally been realized by the "cracking" of several internet child porn rings. In the attempt to quash child pornography, laws that can restrict even "innocent" child nudity photos have been passed. *** Probably law-makers consider it a fair trade-off (loss of artistic child nudity in photography in exchange for getting rid of child porn users). *I* think it's a fair trade-off...but then, I was never impressed by artistic child nudity anyway.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b7/NirvanaNevermindalbumcover.jpg/220px-NirvanaNevermindalbumcover.jpg