There's no "pressing need" for any art at all, or many other wonderful things that make our lives better. It's a very shitty criteria to determine whether something should be banned or not.
That's much broader than the argument that I think is being made - or should be made. Which is that the need for an album cover art doesn't justify making public images of a nude child who clearly cannot consent to such.
I find it hard to believe anybody could describe that cover as a "wonderful thing" that "made their life better."
If it's really art for the sake of art, art justifying itself, then let it be done for free. I want the monetization of such things banned, because I don't think this is art for the sake of art. I think child modelling is done for the sake of commercial exploitation.
I sympathize with your position, but if it leads to us saying "I don't think this art does enough good for society, so it should not exist" then I'm out, and if it leads to us saying "you can say what you want, but you can't make a living off it unless it gets approval by a moral authority" then I'm also out.
The "slippery slope" here is that I apply my above argument to all monetization of children. But that is where the slope stops. The slope is in fact simply the existing social standard against child labor, with the entertainment industry carve-outs removed.
> I find it hard to believe anybody could describe that cover as a "wonderful thing" that "made their life better."
I didn't say that this art cover is such a thing. I attacked your criteria of a "pressing need" with this description, this argument is independent of discussion about this particular cover.
> I want the monetization of such things banned, because I don't think this is art for the sake of art.
I don't think anyone should be able to ban other people from committing voluntary transactions. The band wants to sell the album. I want to buy it. Somebody else's opinions on what is and what isn't art are not relevant to either of us.