I don't think that the photograph in question is "art". It's much more of a snapshot. Nothing really brought to that picture by the person behind the camera (IMO) Everything there, is delivered by the young girl.
This thing with naming photographs, especially images like this? Most of the time, slapping a metaphorical name on a photograph is Sophomoric. Usually, when I see an image with a name like this on it, I throw up a little and wonder why the author is so involved in trying to make me see what he was thinking. It takes a lot of the fun out of experiencing a picture and the word pretentious comes to mind in a big way.
In this case, I'm stunned that the "Lolita" choice was made. Michael, I can't believe that you were, as you said, "completely astonished" when you recieved a backlash from this. What did you expect? You ought to be spanked just for yielding to the temptation to give this image a name other than "young girl in so and so village"..do you really feel that you needed to hold the audience's hand so tightly?
Very very very rarely does an image beg for a name..when it does, it had better be a good one, or, one that tries to send the audience in a, perhaps, ironic or otherwise direction. I wonder what this girl's mother or father would have thought of this choice of a name? Perhaps they would laugh..maybe not though, you might be chased through the jungle by a guy with a machete.
So, why does this image need an arty name? If some of the audience wants to bring some sexual provocation to the image then that's their business. If not, why force the issue? Do we really need to encircle our images with names that bind them as some particular thing?